#You can dislike a show and one must be critical of the media we consume

[sage-nebula]

WatcherTV Debrief

I said I was going to write down all of my thoughts yesterday, but I was simply too tired after work. So I'm going to do so now, in a post that is likely going to be very long, but hopefully will still be worth the read for some of you anyway.

TL;DR: I believe this is a very poor decision on Watcher Entertainment's part and it is at the very least going to cost them a huge swath of their fanbase, if not their entire company in the long run. And at this point in time, I myself will not be subscribing.

With that said though, I don't want this post to merely be a rant about how much I dislike the decision, so I'm going to start off by looking at things from their perspective and explaining why, although some people in the fanbase might feel betrayed, none of the three (yes, three, because Steven, Ryan, and Shane were all equal parts of this decision) personally betrayed anyone in the fandom. If you're still angry, I understand that seeing what might seem like a "defense" might be upsetting, but again, I hope you'll find some value in it regardless.

All of that said, that plus my extensive criticism of this decision is going to be long, so let's go beneath a cut.

First, let us state the obvious: Watcher Entertainment is a media company -- a business -- and Shane Madej, Ryan Bergara, and Steven Lim are not your friends. They are business owners first, and media producers + actors second.

I italicized actors to draw attention to it, because this is something that I think gets . . . not forgotten, per se, but pushed aside in people's minds when they consume video content online, particularly when that video content is on YouTube, which originally began as a point and shoot video upload website that was meant to give anyone and everyone the ability to upload their vlogs or silly little videos. The term "parasocial relationships" is one that has proliferated across the internet, but I think the issue here -- with Shane and Ryan in particular -- is not only that people are thinking of them as "friends," but also that they are thinking, "These are their authentic selves, this is who they really are, I know them." And the fact of the matter is, that isn't true. Shane and Ryan are actors. What we see in their videos isn't their authentic selves. We don't know them.

Now, that isn't to say that it's all a lie. It isn't quite the same as, say, Ryan Gosling or Leo DiCaprio playing a role in a film. But every internet celebrity (and that is what they are at this point) presents themselves in a particular way to their audience. Even in the Pod Watcher podcast, where ostensibly they're having Just Friendly Conversations About Whatever's On Their Minds, they're mindful of the fact that their audience is listening, their audience is judging, their audience is making gifs and fanart of moments they like. They're acting. They're playing up personas to keep fans engaged, to keep fans coming back for more.

So Shane and Ryan (and Steven, when he can be) are actors. You don't know their true authentic selves, and you never have. Anything they say has to be taken with a grain of salt, because they are saying what they want you to hear. Even their live shows are rehearsed. And what this means -- that they only show you what they want to show you -- is that they did not betray you, because they couldn't betray you. They don't know you, just like you don't know them. Betrayal is not possible here.

To that end, Watcher Entertainment is a media company -- in other words, a business. And businesses must generate not only revenue, but profit in order to stay afloat. Now, I don't know what Watcher's financial books look like right now. I have seen people throwing around a lot of numbers about what they have to make from Patreon, from ticket and merchandise sales, et cetera, but without looking at the expense reports, the bank statements, and the budget sheets, it's difficult for any of us to say just what state Watcher is in financially. We can guess, but that's the best we can do.

That said though, we don't have to guess to know the very basic principle of running a business. A business has to, at the bare minimum, break even. Ideally, the business would profit, so that they can not only do things like pay their employees fairly, but also so that they can expand and grow. Any business requires money in order to make product, whether that product is food, an item that you can purchase, or entertainment media that you consume as a viewer. As nice as it would be if Watcher could make their content without needing money to do so, they can't. Even independent YouTubers, including video essayists and Let's Players, require money to make their content. The equipment, in both purchasing and upkeep, requires money. The games (for Let's Players) require money. Internet and electricity bills, food, books needed for research, props, et cetera -- all of that requires money. No matter how simple a video may look, it still requires money to make. There is a reason that most people aren't able to make YouTube a full time job, and it isn't because they aren't talented; it's because it is a deceptively expensive venture to get into.

So with that said, even without knowing Watcher's current financial situation, it does make sense that they need money to run their business, purely from a "businesses need money" standpoint. This is common sense. This is why things like Watcher selling merchandise, having sponsored ads, having a Patreon, et cetera always made sense. And it is possible, too, that even if their present financial situation is okay, that they are thinking about the future, and costs they are likely to be incurring within the next year.

I don't know how many people within the fanbase listen to their podcast, Pod Watcher, but I do. A few episodes ago, Steven revealed that he wants to open a Malaysian restaurant within the next year. This is his dream, to bring Malaysian culture to the United States with food. This is an amazing dream for him, it's wonderful for him, I wish him success in this venture.

However, running a restaurant -- and not only running one, but building one from the ground up and running it -- takes an astronomical amount of time and energy. This is time and energy that Steven is currently expending keeping Watcher Entertainment afloat as the sole person in charge of managing their financials. (He has the official title of CEO, with Shane and Ryan having stepped away from that title In Name Only to focus on production, but the job that Steven is actually doing is CFO -- Chief Financial Officer.) So when Steven announced that he was going to be opening a restaurant within the next year, what I heard was, "Oh, Steven is leaving Watcher within the next year." This is supported, in my opinion, by Steven saying things like how Shane and Ryan will get free drinks whenever they visit, and then hastily tacking on fans can have it, too. He was trying not to show that he was leaving just yet to the fanbase, but the writing is on the wall and they all know it.

What this means is that when Steven leaves, they will need to find someone to replace him. Either Shane and/or Ryan will need to step away from producing and acting in their shows to take over CFO duties (which the reason why they stepped away is because they handled CFO duties poorly while Steven was better equipped for it, so I doubt either of them would like to do this), or they will need to hire someone to do that for them. The lowest CFO salary in LA I can find is $140k/year, and that isn't including benefits. Since Steven helped found the company, it's doubtful he's making that much, but his replacement won't be a founder and will likely want competitive compensation. There is a good chance that, considering this, Shane, Ryan, and Steven feel pressured to bring in a lot more money than they're currently doing right now.

And I understand all of that. I have supported them where I can; yesterday I literally wore my $80+ Mystery Files jacket to work, which felt a bit bitter after the news broke and I realized I wouldn't be able to watch future seasons of said show. I overpaid for a denim jacket because I wanted to support them. It's not as if I don't understand.

However . . . here is where the criticism begins.

To begin with, there is an old saying: you have to spend money to make money. To go back to my previous statements about how even smaller scale YouTubers spend money to keep producing videos to keep their channels afloat, what this saying means is that if you aren't going to put any money into your business or product, you aren't going to have a business or product to generate any revenue. However, some young business owners take this to the extreme, and figure that if they pump tons and tons and tons of cash into their business at the start, it will start to generate revenue more quickly. What ends up happening is that they overspend, sometimes even despite their best efforts not to, and end up not being able to claw their way back out of the red in the end.

Unfortunately, that is what I think that Watcher is doing with their new streamer.

Let's be clear: There have been valid criticisms about how they seemingly over-budget on shows that don't need to have such high production values or budget. Someone mentioned that their Let's Play show (I don't watch that one because horror games are uninteresting to me, so I don't remember the name) credits something akin to 26 people, which is silly when you consider the fact that there are independent Let's Players who are able to produce content themselves. Of course, you have to remember that the LPers on YouTube are editing their own videos, which Ryan and Shane probably aren't able to do -- but even then, that would be one or perhaps two additional editors. The number of people they have working on that particular venture does seem excessive.

With that said though, those 26 people were already employed and being paid, so having them work on the Let's Play show was likely not a new business expense. The streamer, however, is a completely different story.

First, they had to have paid likely multiple people to build the WatcherTV streaming website for them. Granted, I could be wrong since I have never used Squarespace, but I find it difficult to believe this is something Squarespace would be capable of handling. So unless they already had experienced programmers on their staff, they would have had to hire programmers to build the streaming website. They would also need to pay for hosting the streaming website, which includes not only the domain, but server space for all of their videos, and videos take up a lot of space. Previously, YouTube hosted all of their videos. Now? That needs to be on Watcher, and server space and maintenance is not cheap.

So they are paying for programmers, domain name, server space, server maintenance. They are also going to need to pay for security. Not only do they need to be concerned about any potential DDoS attempts, but more importantly they need security to ensure that they can't suffer a data breach and lose the credit card information of their subscribers, something which happens all the time to other companies. Now you may say, if it happens all the time and those companies are fine, Watcher will be too, right? Well, does Watcher have lawyers on retainer? Because litigation can be raised against companies with insufficient website security that puts customers' financial information at risk, which means Watcher could find themselves facing a lawsuit if their streamer is hacked and credit card information is stolen.

So they will need to pay for systems administrators to not only build security for the streamer, but also maintain security for the streamer, because cyber attacks evolve each day and it is a constant battle against them. It is possible that whatever third party they partnered with to build the streamer for them bundled all this together (if that is the route they went), but either way, services like that do not come cheap -- and if they do, you are not getting a service of value.

So what this comes down to is that Watcher Entertainment has likely spent a ton of money they allegedly do not have to build this streamer, taking the "you have to spend money to make money" adage to the extreme. Their hope, near as I can tell, is that they will generate enough revenue from the streamer so that they will be able to recoup the cost of building and maintaining the streamer and generate profit. However, judging by the reaction from the fandom, I think that is unlikely.

As everyone knows, the reaction to this news has been abysmal. While some of the responses toward Steven and Ryan in particular have been racist vomit, I do think there are valid reasons for why this news has been received so poorly. These reasons include:

Watcher built hype for a week, with a countdown timer and everything, teasing an announcement as if it were a new show or similar "gift" to the fandom, when in reality it was the news that the fandom would now have to pay for content that was previously free.

Patreon subscribers are expected to continue paying the same amount, but for far less content than before. Access to the streamer is not included in the basic tier; they'll need to double their cash output.

Many fans are international fans who can't access the streamer at all without a VPN to switch their location to the United States. Even if they want to pay, they are barred from doing so, meaning that Watcher Entertainment is shutting a large portion of its fanbase out for the foreseeable future.

Watcher took a very patronizing tone with their audience in both the announcement video and their Patreon letter. In the announcement video, which was fourteen minutes long when the actual pertinent information took half that time to deliver (if that), they began with a long diatribe about their careers and how much YouTube meant to them, and how sad they were to leave it -- as if they had guns held to their head, and weren't making this decision of their own volition. This is condescending; it implies they believe their audience is stupid enough to believe they were backed into a corner and have no choice. In the Patreon letter, they had a line that read, "And part of that change includes a bit of news that will surely be met with some fits of sobs- we're bringing Watcher Weekly+ to a close. We know. We know." Again, this is patronizing language. They are talking down to their fans, and assuming their fans will be heartbroken by losing a behind scenes the video, or whatever Watcher Weekly+ is. This arrogant, condescending tone does not help soften the blow of being told they are going to pay the same amount of money for less content.

As you can see, the way that Watcher Entertainment executed the announcement that they would be moving future content behind a paywall was abysmal, and the fanbase reacted accordingly. Provided that the anger isn't empty and that the current fanbase sticks true to their word about not subscribing (either out of principle, location, or because they can't afford it), Watcher Entertainment has lost a huge chunk of expected revenue directly out of the gate. And it's possible that they expected this; they had to know they would be shutting out international fans (at least for a time, presumably) and that there would be fans who couldn't afford it. But it's possible that they felt that there would be enough fans to support and subscribe anyway (hence the arrogant tone about people sobbing over losing Watcher Weekly+; that attitude screams of "you're so devoted to us you will do whatever we ask no matter the cost"), and also that they would be able to pick up enough new fans that it would cushion the blow of losing old fans.

Here is where the next problem lies.

Watcher's current subscription model is $5.99/month or $60/year. If you go monthly, you end up paying $72 for the year, so the annual plan is the better deal by $12. When you compare pricing to other streaming services, this may not seem so bad at first; it's on par with DropoutTV, and it's cheaper than Netflix, Disney+, and other big names such as those.

The difference, though, is that all of those other streamers -- DropoutTV included -- have far more content than Watcher does, meaning that the customer (and keep in mind that we are customers, we are not friends, and truly we are not fans when we are paying them money for product from their business) gets more bang for their buck.

I have seen the argument from defenders of the streamer in fandom that say, "So you care about quantity over quality?" And this argument is flawed for several reasons:

There are plenty of quality TV shows on other streaming platforms. DropoutTV has Game Changer. Hulu has Schitt's Creek and Abbot Elementary. Peacock has The Office and Parks & Recreation, so on and so forth. Watcher Entertainment has good shows, but they are not the only good shows in the whole of the media industry. Dare I say, they aren't even the only good shows on YouTube.

While Watcher does produce shows of high quality, their shows have tiny seasons of only six episodes each, and their seasons are spaced out months apart. They also cancel their shows without warning or announcement, meaning fans can wait (and wait, and wait) for a new season of a show they like that will never come, because Watcher dropped the show and didn't bother making official word on it. If you go through Watcher's entire content library (which is easy to do even if you like all their shows, and even easier if you only have a handful of shows you enjoy), then you will be paying for a streamer that you do not use for months on end while you wait for the next batch of six episodes that you maybe want to see if, again, you don't like all of their shows. (I myself only follow five: Puppet History, Mystery Files, Too Many Spirits, Top 5 Beatdown, and Ghost Files.) That is money you have spent on a service you rarely use. In other words: money wasted.

That last point is particularly important when you consider that Watcher Entertainment hopes to draw new customers in to subscribe to their streamer.

Pretend, for a moment, that you have never heard of Ryan, Shane, or Watcher before. You are browsing YouTube, and you come across the season premier of season three of Ghost Files. You enjoy it, so you think, oh, I would like to view the rest of the season. You learn that the rest of the season is on a streaming service called WatcherTV, which only hosts series that Watcher themselves have produced. Their library is very small right now. New episodes for ongoing seasons are weekly, they only have one season airing at a time, new seasons have month long gaps between them. This service costs $60 a year annually, or $6 a month ($72 annually). You've never seen any of their other shows before, and while you could technically afford it, it's not as if money is no object to you. You'd likely have to give up a streamer that has a much, much larger selection of shows and movies you already know you like to give this one a shot. (This one that, mind you, doesn't work outside of your internet browser, so you can't watch it on your television either.)

Would you do it? Really put yourselves in the shoes of someone who has no familiarity at all with Shane, Ryan, Steven, or their shows before that moment. Would you choose to pay $60 for a streamer with low accessibility, and a tiny, infrequently updated library? Especially if it meant losing access to so much more?

It isn't just that numerical value of the price that makes it a bad move. It's the price relative to the product being offered. Watcher's own fans, who love their content, are fiercely divided over whether to subscribe, with many saying they won't. In what universe does someone who has never heard of Watcher sign up to pay them that much for so little offerings? Particularly when they'll only be advertising via YouTube, and infrequently at that given that they'll only be posting season premiers?

(And this is not getting into how they were originally going to pull all of their content before the backlash. Yes, they walked it back -- but not only did they say in the video that the content would only be live until May 31st, but the Variety article says that the company originally told Variety that they would be pulling content, only for Ryan to issue a statement saying they wouldn't do that after. Meaning, they walked that part back because that's the part they could walk back. They have undoubtedly sank far too much money into the streamer to back out of that now. It's way too late.)

Businesses need to make money. Steven, Ryan, and Shane are business owners who are trying to make their business profitable. But I believe that this was one of the worst ways to go about it. I'm not saying that I know exactly what they should have done instead. I don't have all the answers. But I do know that from the terrible execution of getting everyone excited only to tell them (in the most patronizing way possible) that they would now have to pay for a previously free service, to deciding to sink a bunch of money into a streamer that they seem to have done no market research on beforehand and that they don't have the content library to support, this absolutely seems like the wrong way. Moving their content to an existing streamer like Nebula would have been a better move, in my opinion. (And it would have prompted me to actually sign up for Nebula, since there are several video essayists I haven't followed there . . . but I would have followed Watcher, since it would give me access to Watcher content and the content of those video essayists I've been missing.)

But what's done is done. As I said, I think at this point Watcher Entertainment has jumped off the cliff and they didn't do so with a bungee cable. I don't think they can walk this back. I'll be interested in seeing if they succeed, but I have very strong doubts they will.

#watcher #watcher entertainment #shane madej #ryan bergara #steven lim

[starry-mist]

Oh hi. Welcome to my blog.

If you've been following me for more than five minutes, you'll know most of this already, but since there are some new folks, let me introduce myself and what you will/will not find here.

I'm a big (probably an understatement) Hudson & Rex fan. Specifically, I'm a huge Sarah Truong fan and probably one of the OG Charah shippers, but I love all of it. The cast, the scenery, the stories. That being said: I am critical of shit the show does that I dislike, or (more often than not) things that I find particularly problematic. I firmly believe in being appropriately critical of the media I consume (h/t to @farfarawaygirl for the creation of my absolute favourite tag), and it's not always going to be sunshine and roses here. I don't do toxic positivity. If you're looking for "OMG Charah are forever perfection and these characters can do no wrong ever," look elsewhere. I don't do character hero worship. Characters have flaws. They'd be boring AF if they didn't. For example, if you were here for my H&R season 4 journey, which also included a bit of a mental breakdown, you know I will just as easily criticise my faves when they're being...not great...in the same breath as I will gush about how much I love them. I try to keep it real.

Occasionally I reblog stuff from other fandoms, but I have a tendency not to use tags for ships/fandoms that get...shall we say, a little *heated* from time to time (IYKYK.)

I'm "fandom old." AKA I was probably reading/writing fic before many of you were born. Why is this relevant? Because I'm not an "I write fic for engagement and kudos and whatnot" person, I'm more "I write fic because I enjoy exploring characters, and sometimes I'll share it on AO3." Basically: I'm probably way too old for this site, and I'm definitely too old to care about things like clout, or being "fandom famous" or infamous, or whatever the kids are into these days. I write because I want to. I don't engage with "you must interact with creations in this specific way or else you suck" takes. I get that there are people who take that stuff very seriously, and that's cool, you do you.

I write smut. If you can't deal with that, don't read it. I'm not going to apologize for including sex scenes in many of my fics. Tags and ratings exist for a reason, and I will always use them appropriately to ensure readers know what they're getting into.

If you know who I am on other social media, no you don't. Seriously. I keep my fandom life separate from my real life for a reason. Please respect that.

I love engaging in lively debate. I don't block often (unless you're a pornbot, which, if so, GO AWAY.) If I do, it's to protect my peace. If you block me, I assume it's for the same reason, and wish you well, or whatever.

I don't do fandom gatekeeping. It's weird. People engage with different media for different reasons, and expect different things from it, and that's okay.

Anyway. Just felt like putting that out there, in case people are in any way wondering where I'm coming from when I post certain takes, or reblog certain things. Thanks for reading.

#starry rants #fandom things #fanfic things #hudson & rex #be critical of the media you consume

[xhrystal-vampire]

So...why do people hate Camp camp again?

I remember reigny day was an absolutely abysmal episode and there's a lot to be said about how the show characterises Max and Gwen, but like...I've seen people refer to it as irredeemable? I'm not aware of the creators being particularly heinous and I basically binged the series, so did I just miss something?

#camp camp #You can dislike a show and one must be critical of the media we consume #But I don't...remember anything that would be so bad it broke the show? Outside of reigny day that is #camp cambell #rooster teeth

[superrman]

I got a couple asks about my reply to an ask where I said that I acknowledge cop propaganda in procedural’s, and believe that everyone falls for it, while still acknowledging that I have enjoyed those shows. More than one ask said they are fully aware of the propaganda and so they can still watch those said shows, this is something I want to expand on because No one is above falling for propaganda.

I have loved and watched cop shows since I was 12, and I also have studied propaganda academically for half a decade, and that is why I can say with certainty you have internalized and fallen for propaganda within cop shows. 

It is important to note that cop shows are designed with the aid of professional police for this exact purpose, they are insanely important to the normalization of behaviours of police, and justifying their actions, because you as an audience emotionally connect with the characters. 

There are many things that have circulated around tumblr that have acknowledged certain forms of propaganda - the continuous use of violence, in a way that claims that the police must in many cases resort to violence, Trevor Noah did a great small clip showing how many cop shows do this. On top of that the villainization of internal affairs and the entire defence system, claiming public defenders are moronic and don’t defend their clients well, which in turn makes people afraid to turn to public defenders, which in turn results in people not asking for a lawyer, and at the same time paint defence attorneys as evil as well, and an impediment to justice which makes people dislike lawyers in general.

These are all important functions of the propaganda system as it justifies many actions of cops, but there are so many layers of propaganda, with hundreds of cop shows, all with police consultants, all employing underhanded tactics and specific messaging impacts you, below is a small list of things I either personally have internalized or know people have internalized. In brackets I mention just a couple shows I have seen this on, keep in mind many shows do this and they all tend to overlap

1. We as a society all agree that murder is wrong, but how many times in a cop show have you rooted for the police to get away with murder? How many times has the protagonist killed someone for personal reasons? They may find a way to kill said individual in the line of duty and that is legal, and or in many cases personally hunt them down and commit murder, and then the story line is about them getting away with murder,  but at the same time many story lines in the same series say no one has a justifiable reason for murder, and they may even arrest someone for the same reason as they killed someone.

This teaches the audience that you can’t kill for abuse, country, cause, or revenge, but the police can and should kill, and if they do kill it was only for a valid reason

(NCIS, NCIS LA, The Mentalist)

2. The ‘red tape’ and intense scrutiny of police shootings is the worst, and harmful for the police, in general the scrutiny of all of the measures meant to prevent police violence and harassment of citizens is hindering the police. How many shows have you watched where the main character scoffs at the idea of mandatory counselling post a shooting, or is angry by the idea of having to justify why they took a shot and killed a man

(Rookie Blue, Cold Case, Hawaii 5-0)

3. The police are underpaid and lack the funds for the necessary policing measures. This one in particular I internalized to the extreme, I have always held the false assumption that police are underfunded like all of the other services they equate themselves too - but the police departments have more than enough funds as the protests have revealed. Yet, every cop show depicts a scene of complaining about budget cuts, lack of funds, cannot pursue a case because of budget cuts. On top of that any cop that gets caught stealing is justified because if he was paid fairly, he wouldn’t have to do that.

(Castle, Lucifer, Brooklyn Nine Nine)

4. The police can’t save ‘everyone’ in the context of the most vulnerable of society drug addicts, sex workers, the mentality ill, the sad reality is that some people ‘don’t want help’ - it says societal problems are unsolvable not that the police are not qualified or effective in solving society problems but even then there is a plucky do good cop not yet jaded that will try and try to save people, but eventually have to come to a hard realization you can’t save everyone

(Perception, Criminal Minds, Law and Order SVU)

5. The police always work with experts in the field, have the best technology and moreover, experts will want to work tirelessly for the police or the police themselves are geniuses- this is not the case, in fact in many cases police incompetence and ignoring experts leads to false convictions

(Bones, Rizzoli & Isles, all the CSI, Criminal Minds)

But the most malicious form of propaganda is the way in which police procedurals acknowledge the real world political climate and use the criticism as a way to bolster the police, by this I mean, so many cop shows will have an episode of focusing on a corrupt cop, or a civil rights activist wrongfully arrested, wrongful conviction in general, and the narrative will show outrage throughout the system, cops all banning together to undo this injustice, but with enough resistance from some bad apples to make it seem as if they acknowledge the system is not fully functional but reinforces to the audience that many cops can and do fight the system to get the wrongfully accused out of prison, to protect civil liberties and that cops do care and will willingly fight their own to do it .

Moreover, this is shown in the context of the importance of police brotherhood. Being a cop is always more than a job it’s a lifestyle, you can’t stop being a cop, and it’s a part of your identity, so its extra heroic that the protagonist challenged the corrupt cop, it’s as if he or she turned on his own family to do what is right.

There are always episodes about going after the rich and politically connected and how no matter what the protagonist will do what’s right and fight against the system to get justice for a poor, or poc , or down on their luck victim, it teaches us that even though in the news cops might not be able to stop all of the big evil rich people, Kate Beckett or Jake Peralta is out their fighting the fight, trying to take on corporations, it teaches us to go on faith that the police are separate from the corrupt system, and will try to take on politicians and corporations rather than the reality of them working for those same people

Finally, so many cop shows have minorities and women leading the charge to challenge the old guard, usually with the new era of white men, that laugh at the police brutality and incompetence of older generations. It’s hard to ignore the damage the police have done, but every show simply disregards this with a change in the vanguard, newer cops are immune to racism, classicism and agree older cops used to break the rules and where more corrupt but now that isn’t the case. It’s meant to undermine all of the arguments against police, think about how many people agree that the police during the civil rights movement of the 1960s were bad, or the police that co-operated with drug dealers were terrible but no more, cops now are much more ethical.

Propaganda is dangerous, because it is continuous and repetitive, it is subtle and seeps into your life, you internalize things because we all consume media for enjoyment not to subject it to academic rigour, and that's how they get you to sympathize and feel for cops, we constantly watch stories of brave souls putting their lives on the line for us, and of course we want to believe that this is a real life story and reflective of most cops, but we need to realize now that this is not the case in reality, and its not just a few bad apples, but a system that is broken beyond repair, who relied on the entertainment industry to spread and maintain the false face of the police industry to avoid and undermine criticism.

Just remember No one is above falling for propaganda

#police brutality #cop propaganda #propaganda #the most dangerous cop shows are the progressive ones

[olivieblake]

As a writer or even just a consumer of media do you find people are less willing to accept “flaws” in characters and stories? I’m not talking like this character is a murderer he’s evil no one should like him type stuff, though as someone who started off writing dramione I’m sure you’ve seen your fair share of that but just like when characters are ever short of perfect. Like when a strong female character is kinda insecure or a couple isn’t communicating well or has a heated fight everyone gets mad that it’s a toxic relationship or bad writing. I once read a review of a book where someone stopped reading it after two chapters cause it had bad therapy practices, ie. the character still had shit to work through and therapy isn’t magic therefore they weren’t always doing the healing right and it’s like? that’s the whole point!! it’s an arc the character is gonna grow! It’s also made clear early on that the therapist didn’t agree with the coping methods (overly controlling their life) so it wasn’t like they were trying to portray it as a good thing. I know you’ve mentioned people have ✨opinions✨ about your DFS Hermione for having flaws and staying flawed and her flaw is just that she kinda thinks she’s right a lot and maybe isn’t the most self aware nothing even serious lol. I’m not saying don’t be critical of media but it’s kinda overwhelming reading think piece after think piece about why this thing you enjoy is actually the literal worst™️. Like am I toxic for having some of the same flaws ? Am I a problematic creep for enjoy stories where everything isn’t always sunshine, I don’t want to have a train wreck of a relationship but sometimes reading about one can be kinda fun? Is that terrible?

there’s a lot here that I’d like to discuss and I’m thinking about how I’d like to do it (I’ll inevitably chat about it in a video because it’s interesting and complex but I think I may have too many topics for this monday)

let’s see I think I will start by saying: in general, critical discourse about media (books, tv, film, fanfic) is a good thing, but it has definitely gone awry from what I consider to be its origins. I think the whole point of viewing media critically and making observations about what we are portraying via fiction is crucial for amplifying/protecting marginalized stories and reducing harm—specifically, the harm that minorities and women face by being inundated with bigoted, prejudiced, hateful, or ignorant tropes, caricatures, or relationship dynamics. I definitely believe that we should consider what we consume and how we consume it, particularly when it comes to the marginalized voices who do not see themselves represented well or fairly in white male dominated media

that being said, I do think it has led to the expectation that fiction cannot have ANY problems, which is absurd and counterproductive. it’s also extremely reductive, particularly when it comes the Strong Female Character™ thing you mention, where a woman STILL only has value if she’s strong in the “correct” way. I mentioned in one of my other posts and also last week’s video that there’s some kind of disconnect between the VERY GOOD intentions of things like #ownvoices or the movement to empower female characters and the actual outcomes, which make it so that any flaws in a marginalized fictional character are magnified to represent the entire group. the very reasonable request to see ourselves in fiction has somehow become an exponentially convoluted demand to see ourselves a certain way in fiction, where any character who does not reflect our personal experience is bad and wrong. previously, the expectation was that white male stories were universal whereas everything else was only for that specific group, and now, ironically, everything that is created still has to fit that universal quality and please everyone, despite that not being the point. the problem is when you only have ONE movie about this topic or ONE book about this ethnicity, then of course it hasn’t done enough to exemplify an entire subject or culture. there has to be an entire body of work the way there is with white-dominated media, where no single film or book accurately represents the experience of being white

plus we have twitter which is a horrifying hellscape where you get rewarded by the algorithm for making loud, obnoxious points so add that to the list (yesterday I saw that one of the top 3 reviews on Beloved by toni morrison is a 1-star review written by a white man and I was just flabbergasted by the lack of self-awareness) 

but anyway that’s like, more of a macro look at what I think is going on but you’re right that people are not very forgiving of flawed characters. to some extent, I get it; the one thing we don’t want our characters to do is annoy us, and that’s fair. but I also think people have lost the sense that “oh, this thing isn’t for me” and thus can’t successfully identify the difference between critical failure and personal dislike

now. as for Divination for Skeptics. let me start by saying it’s not like I don’t understand why people find hermione in Divination for Skeptics annoying, because I get it. if you’re taking the story very seriously then sure, maybe you want her to change her behavior and it’s frustrating that she doesn’t. fair enough! to that I say it’s a comedy and if you don’t find it funny you’re perfectly welcome to dislike it, it’s not a big deal to me if I don’t make you laugh. however, I DO take issue with people who claim she’s too flawed or doesn’t grow, because they almost always do it in a very specific way: they say that she doesn’t show enough empathy, aka how dare she not read draco’s mind and simply alter her personality and behavior to suit his. it genuinely infuriates me that in my opinion, people who voice that particular “criticism” have seemingly internalized the belief that women should be emotionally perceptive; that for them, hermione’s “flaw” is that she does not take on the emotional labor that draco refuses to perform. (her actual flaw is that her survival technique/coping mechanism is a hyper-rationality that incorrectly assumes she has perfect information; i.e., that everything she knows is accurate, and therefore all of her decisions must be sound.) whereas draco knows this about her—knows and acknowledges it—and yet cannot bring himself to voice his feelings out of a fear-based desire to hedge his own emotional risk. who, then, is more flawed in the context of the story? 

I don’t really have a conclusion yet so I’m going to pause for now and we’ll revisit this; I think mainly it’s that the more media diversifies, the more people will struggle with the preconceptions they have and the presumption that everything they consume is for them, and therefore that they are the metric for whether something is “good.” I think good art, good media, will reflect the world as it exists, but it will still only be the world according to one tiny fraction, a sliver of the actual human experience. does bad representation mean bad art? when it harms people yes. but when it speaks to a deeper truth (the truth of “we are all given to vice and imperfection even if it is not this specific version”), no. but that requires quite a degree of sophistication and self-awareness to identify, hence the discomfort of continuous vitriol or bad takes

#unpopular opinions #not like other girls #olivie blake is not writing #divination for skeptics #Anonymous

[noelclover]

Off the Cuff 26/09/20

A topic about the nature of art and art as a product. I forgot to post this and it’s been over a month lol

This topic has been on my mind for quite a while and, like with most topics I finally pen down, I go about it in circles for months, at times dragging in anyone who would spare half a ear and a smidge of attention to the topic as I rant like a broken record, trying to figure out how best to start on the topic. And I figured that the best way to go about it was to simply ask the age old question that has many rolling their eyes, that everyone seems to think they have an answer to:

What is art?

The nature of art is a really difficult one to pin down. Some believe that art has to transcend humanity, display the best and worst of us, elevate us in some spiritual fashion. Some believe that as long as it’s beautiful or has a point to make, it’s art. Others still believe that if it’s called art, then it must be art. I agree with the first two to some degree, despite them occasionally butting heads, but I can never agree with the last bit.

(( Points at the banana being taped to the wall work of “art” ))

And it is because I understand their arguments and points, due to having studied art history despite my lecturer thinking that I was just goofing around, that I find myself, with the advent of two... pieces of media put out this year, in a perplexing position that can only be described as

“I get it. But why.”

The first of which is “The Last of Us 2″ and the second being the recent “Cuties” by Netflix.

((Please note I have not partaken in either product. This isn’t a criticism or endorsement of either of them, but rather a point at the decisions of the people who made them.))

Now, before I elaborate further on either of them, I’d like to talk about Dadaism.  (( Note that this is partially by memory and some quick fact checking. Additionally, I’m absolutely terrible at categorizing things through timeline and if something can fit multiple boxes, I end up jumbling them up. So please take the following explanation as more of a guideline and general gist than some academician toiling about the technical details of a topic )) Dadaism is an interesting field of art that was essentially “anti-art”, or grew out of a movement that believed in being anti-art and challenging the notions of what art is and from it sprung the surrealism and conceptual art movements. The term dada is said to be as a child saying “dada”, to highlight and evoke the absurdity and childishness of the movement. You can see examples of dada works with a quick look through Google, from which you’ll find a signed urinal being called a “fountain” and considered “art”, and you might find “Artist’s Shit”, a “work” consisting of 90 steel cans allegedly containing 30g of the artist’s feces.

Now, most of you may go “Noel, that’s absurd. How is that art?”, which is a fine and expected. I will now fully admit that dadaism simply strengthened my belief that art isn’t art just because some artist decided to slap a label on it. But here’s the thing: Ironically, dadaism became art. By being a criticism of contemporary art and arguing the nature of art, it ultimately became thoughtful in it’s absurdity and the meaningless, the worthless pieces of “art” created with it in mind became meaningful despite the lack of tangibility to whatever art is defined as in the minds of the masses.

Now that I’ve highlighted how “art” can be defined as something having a meaning or a point no matter how absurd, and have hopefully explained my view and ability to see how these things are art, I’d like to bring the topic back to “The Last of Us 2″ and “Cuties”. I understand TLoU2′s controversial decision, despite the fact that I brought up the question of “why”. I understand that they wanted to push the anger, the hatred before showing you that Abby is human, just like the characters you loved. Your hatred and anger towards her is justified and you fall into a cycle of hate and anger, either denying any attempt to know her better or begrudgingly because the lens of which you view her is stained by her actions. If the director’s idea is to force the player into a position where they absolutely hate Abby, then the decision to go with the storyline instead of rearranging the timeline so that players could get to know Abby first is the right thing to do.

I understand the idea of Mignonnes or Cuties, as it’s known worldwide. Our world is becoming more sexualized, the effect this has on children is worrying. The way we would look at a woman in a more appreciative lens is applied in the movie on prepubescent girls who try to be grown up (( hopefully )) creates a sense of disgust, to disturb the viewer. I know why the film is done in a more gratuitous manner, it is to elicit a response from the viewer, for us to criticize and think of the consequences of the pushing the boundaries we’re pushing. ((I am not endorsing the film. I haven’t watched it, and most likely will never watch it. I get the idea behind the decisions taken, that’s all.))

I get it. And note, I am not, in any way, stating that it is wrong for the creators to make the product the way they made if looking at it from the lens of “art”, if we consider art being a blunt tool that has you thinking.

Yet despite my understanding of this, the question in my mind doesn’t change:

But why?

You see, like the art pieces, the game and film are pushing boundaries and that’s fair. But unlike the art pieces in galleries, it’s marketed to the masses, most of whom probably won’t like the product even if they understand the idea behind it. From a marketing standpoint, and one of public relations, such works are generally bad. They’re meant to be “art” works, media that satisfies a small niche, delivers a message or has you thinking. They’re not works for the average person who wants to sit down and watch a movie or play a game at the end of the day. They’re not for the majority of the audience, as proven by the general publics dislike towards post-modern art, dadaism and the two products in question.

If you make something like that and embrace the fact that it will probably land you in hot water or not sell well, it’s all good. But it seems to me, based on the impressions I’ve had from memories of whatever it is I read, that the directors, that these creators expected the general public to embrace their works. It makes no sense and screams of naivete, if not outright stupidity.

It screams of a bloated sense of self import, as though one is beyond reproach and the audience, the masses are expected to open up their wallets and give these people their money. It reminds me of the PR disasters of Blizzard really. To sum it up, I suppose the point of this post is to simply highlight what I think we can all consider common sense: If you’re selling a product, make it appealing to the consumer. ((I’d like to add that in the case of Mignonnes/Cuties, the question of whether or not such depictions need to be made should be asked. I won’t get into that because it’s probably been talked to death, hell and back.))

[tropicaldespair]

hello! the rules page ain't showing on mobile...

OH SHIT. 

Here, direct copy//paste for Mobile users!! We also have it posted in chat, but here’s our current chat rule list.

== Rules ==

❀   Be polite and be respect to members of the community while you’re here. Keep all disagreements civil. No harassment will be tolerated in this server. It’s natural for miscommunication and disagreements to occur, but be mature, and be polite.

✿ Though we are a Danganronpa 2 server, we welcome discussion and ideas about characters and ships from any part of the franchise. Be sure to keep content to the correct channel, and you’re set!

❀  No character hate or ship hate is allowed on this server whatsoever. Polite discussion and respectful criticism is allowed, however be aware of your tone and attitude when discussing topics critically. If the need arises, we will tell you to stop immediately.

Example

❌ Danganronpa 3 sucked and ruined the series for me, the writers obviously didn’t know what they were doing.“

✅  "I disliked the pacing of Danganronpa 3 and thought it was a little too violent for the series”

✿ You are in charge of the media you consume in this server. If a conversation is going on about a character, ship, or topic that makes you uncomfortable, however is in the correct channel, it is your responsibility to detach from the conversation. Not the other users to change the topic.

However, if you feel as though someone is personally going out of their way to harass or target you, please report to one of the admins or mods

❀ Source the content you link to in the server. Please be polite to the creators that allow our community to thrive, they deserve the support and attention for the content you’re sharing!

(that said, if it is a creator that has otherwise deleted or is no longer online then simply make due with what you can. We will tell you if you need more then what you’ve provided)

✿ Attempt to keep conversations to the correct channels. Sometimes conversations overlap, and discussions evolve naturally. But be aware of the channel you’re posting in, and if someone mentions that it is something that should perhaps be moved, then take it into consideration. If a mod asks you to move, definitely move the topic.

However, all NSFW content MUST stay to NSFW channels. To obtain access to the NSFW channels, ask in mod contact. Must be 18+ for NSFW access

[masonheimlich16-blog]

*What Makes a Good Leader*

The Critical Question I will be focusing on is ”How does this rhetorical artifact illustrate the benefits and/or the limitations of requiring our leaders to have great delivery skills? What are the benefits and disadvantages of requiring our leaders to be great orators in terms of delivery?”

I will be evaluating several rhetorical artifacts from presidents Donald Trump’s campaign, including  his speeches and several social media posts. throughout my evaluation i have come to the conclusion that in today's modern media system any publicity is good publicity, and this is causing modern rhetoric to regress. today media consumers focus on not only the good content that they enjoy, they also consume the worst product put out there. 

 This is a phenomenon that has started to occur recently, one occurrence that came to mind is one of the presidents tweets from 2017. Trump is one of the first presidents to use social media as a way to convey information to the nation. this has created an interesting dynamic of usually very informal social media is now being used by the biggest politician in the country.  his tweet said “Despite the negative press covfefe.” it seems unlikely that the president of the United States of America would not spell check himself before posting on social media for the entire nation to see. yet  this simple typo made national news headlines and was talked about by the country for days if not weeks. why is it that something seemingly insignificant draws an absurd amount of national attention. A question i ask myself but will never know the answer to, did Trump actually just misspell a word and the nation jumped own his throat like we enjoy doing or did he do it on purpose to draw media attention even though it was negative attention? 

Public leaders must be good at addressing the public this is an established principle in politics, if communication to the public is poor the leader will be disliked and not elected. this principle is good in essence because it does require leaders to have good people skills, and an understanding of the public. however on the opposite side it could allow someone who is extremely charismatic to get the job even though they might not be the most capable candidate. This downside to the requirement of effective public speaking is further intensified by the creation of social media and mass networking. Due to this idea that any media attention is good media attention the person being looked at the most and talked about the most is going to have a serious advantage over someone who maybe has more experience and qualifications.

 Another example of this from trumps campaign is when trump imitated and mocked a disabled reporter. The man that our country elected to run the economy, the military, and everything else was mocking a handicapped reporter for his disability. that is something that a student would get a detention for in high school. He then went on to win the election, this shows that if a person can get in front of a crowd and tell them what they want to here then they have won, it does not matter who has the better polices who has better military or economic experience, the person who is the best at telling people what the want to here is going to win every time. I also noticed this in Pericles The Funeral Oration. it seemed as if Pericles only dedicated a fraction if his speech to honoring or even mentioning the fallen soldiers. He went up on the podium and did what every great public leader has ever done, and told the people what the wanted to hear. his citizens did not want to hear the war was going poorly and their friends and family were dying for someone richer and more powerful than them. his people wanted to here how great their country was and how brave the soldiers are, and that is exactly what he told them. 

Mass media today has created an environment that rewards both the best of the best ad the worst of the worst in their own ways. This applies to anything form random videos on YouTube to presidential debates. The worst part about this is that people created this what ever gets consumed is what is successful there is not one god sitting around determining what everyone gets to see unless you consider Google a god, an argument could be made. The more People consume garbage the more garbage other people are going to pump out. this means that there is not any one institution that can be targeted or blamed the only ones that are responsible is the American public. It is sad to see that this has leaked into mainstream media and politics because it allows for things many of the events that occurred in the 2016 election to happen. Imagine if a candidate from an election in the 1900′s or even early 2000′s went on national television and was openly racist and called other candidates insulting names, it was unheard of. 

[twinkrundgren]

you know what? i’ll do it.

Navigating fandom communities as an autistic person is difficult. If we’re too passionate, we’re accused of celebrity worship (if its a real person) or just letting fandom take over our life. But that’s inherently against our nature, and inherently ableist against our special interests. But how can you enjoy a thing healthily and not let it hurt you?

Fandom is a huge pool of all different sorts of people. Some of these people you will butt heads with. Especially in larger fandoms, you will find people you disagree with. Don’t bother. make your own fandom experience and fill it with things you like. block the ship you don’t like. use filters excessively and make your OWN fandom space that YOU enjoy.

HOWEVER! Not all criticism is hatred and it’s important to listen to criticism of media you like, especially if it is from a POC or a trans person and you are not one! When you are directly oppressed by something or someone, you become hyperaware to all these microaggressions. and let me tell you this: NO MEDIA IS PERFECT. Everything will be racist or transphobic or homophobic. It’s important to listen to the people who bring this up and to keep aware of this. *THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO STOP LIKING A THING.* But keep these things in mind and don’t defend them! Everything you like will have flaws. It’s up to you if these flaws are enough to make you dislike something. 

When it comes to real people, people will often accuse you of worship for simply having a special interest in them. This is false. What is worship is when you believe they can do nothing wrong. If you need a good guide, think about what you’d want your fans to do if you were a popular musician or comic artist! It’s not worship to consume media you have created or things you have put out publicly. If you start involving family members or anyone not in the public eye though, is when it gets creepy.

My special interest is in Todd Rundgren and Kasim Sulton, two musicians who are very much older than me. Yes I am attracted to them. Yes, I have met both of them and Kasim is like... acquaintances with me. But Cy, you post so much about them and make dumb jokes! How can he like you? Well, first of all, I respect his space and I don’t mob him. Kasim is a very generous and humble person and he always meets with his fans after shows. I wait for him to come out and I talk with him as a person, I tell him I appreciate him and I give him a gift (a drawing). We’re close enough now that I joked that I thought he was a vampire! As you know I joke about that and draw stuff. I also keep my thirst far away from him. I’m sure he probably knows I think he’s hot but I don’t mob him or try to kiss him like i’ve SEEN PEOPLE DO! Treat them like people and you will be rewarded.

And like, keep your thirst mostly private and make sure you understand this stuff STAYS as text and STAYS as fictional. Its not inherently wrong to have fantasies about celebrities, but you must understand that this stuff needs to STAY private and STAY fictional. Share it with other people who enjoy it idgaf, but it should NEVER even be CLOSE to them or their family. Simple.

With fictional media, you can go a lot more ham that I do. Headcanons and smut fics galore! 

What does it mean to enjoy fiction unhealthily? When someones hatred of the MEDIA makes you upset. No one is obligated to like the same things you do. You must keep fandom at an arms length distance. Its okay to love it and its ok to cry when your favorite character dies, but the memories will always be there. 

Some people in fandom spaces are toxic and will use your shared interests to guide you into a toxic friendship, or god forbid, a toxic relationship. There’s probably a lot of good guides on this but don’t be afraid to cut anyone off if they make you uncomfortable in a personal way. 

It doesn’t matter what you like, enjoying media is something we all do and it’s harmful to ourselves if we limit it because we’re afraid of becoming those toxic people who take fandom to heart and break down when something goes wrong with their media. Always take a good look at yourself. Does this media make you happy? does it make you sad? weigh how you feel about it and don’t be afraid to cut it out if enables you to be toxic or upset. being a fan of something is about having fun and having a pasttime. It’s not your life, but it is a PART of your life and it’s okay to have feelings about it, but do not be so attached that losing it would entirely destabilize you.

the best way to enjoy fandom is to carve out your own fandom space with the people you like. you are not obligated to enjoy everything the fandom does, but it helps to make friends with similar interests. but above all, surround yourself with things you like and don’t waste your emotions trying to do everything the fandom at large does. block, blacklist tags, do whatever it takes to make fandom YOUR SPACE. i blocked anyone wtih a fetish i hate, simple as that. theres plenty of fish in the sea, you don’t have to settle with a person you hate just because you like the same things.

#rambles

[a34trgv2]

In Defense of Black Panther

WARNING: There will be spoilers for the film Black Panther. If you haven’t seen the film, please watch it before reading this post.

Black Panther one of the MCU’s most well received films from a critical and financial standpoint (with 97% out of 455 critics giving an average rating of 8.3/10 on Rotten Tomatoes and making $1.3 billion dollars at the box office). It’s even made history as the first superhero film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. So, naturally there are a select few people that claim it’s “overrated” or “not worthy of all the hype” as is the case with every film that makes a splash with audiences, critics and film institutes like the Academy of Arts and Science. Full disclosure, if you dislike this film, that’s fine. It’s impossible for any one movie to please everyone. That said though, it’s still important to recognize why it resonated with so many people, including myself. Calling it (or anything, for that matter) “overrated” makes you sound jealous. With that out of the way, let’s talk about why Black Panther is not just a great film, but an important one. 

Despite being set in the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe, Black Panther is very much a standalone picture with the only acknowledgement to the film T’Challa was introduced in, Captain America: Civil War, occurring in the beginning and post credits scene of the film. T’Challa’s father, T’Chaka, died in Civil War and Bucky is seen living in a hut now under a new moniker, White Wolf. The plot mainly revolves around T’Challa learning the difference between being a good man and a good king. If Peter Parker had to learn “with great power comes great responsibility” T’Challa has to learn what responsibility he must take for the good of his country. This plot reminds me of this quote Mufasa said in The Lion King to Simba: “...there’s more to being a king then getting your way all the time.” The film shows how T’Challa’s actions can make or break his country and if it were put in the wrong hands, it can lead to dangerous consequences. That’s where Erik “Killmonger” Stevens comes in and when he defeats T’Challa in combat and becomes the new king, his first order of business is to send weapons to blacks around the world, which would lead to genocide. Killmonger is who T’Challa would’ve became if he let his bitterness consume him, and the two of them actually learn alot from one another by the end.

Let’s talk about Killmonger and why he’s one of the best villains I’ve seen in a film, comic book or otherwise. Every minute he’s on screen we learn more and more about him and why he’s does what he does. At the start of the film, T’Chaka killed his brother, N’Jobu, for attempting to kill Zuri after it was revealed that he’s been stealing Vibranium and giving it to Ulysses Klaue. N’Jobu being Killmonger’s father, the young boy spent his entire life killing and getting stronger so that he could take his place as king and right the wrong that was done to him. Killmonger represents the anger and frustrations of many young black men who are oppressed and undermined on a daily basis and if they had the power, they’d make all the oppressors pay. During the final fight, T’Challa recognizes where his hate comes from and makes an effort to be a better king than his father. Killmonger is a good villain not because he wants power, but because he wants to help other people just like him but is going at it the same way Adolf Hitler did: not through peace, but genocide. Also he kills 5 people, beats T’Chaala to near death and burned all the heart shaped herbs that gives the Black Panther his powers.

Now Killmonger is a great villain, but it’s the hero we’re all here for. So let’s talk about T’Challa. What makes T’Challa such an interesting and well throughtout character is how calm and nice he is. He remains the better man even when he has every reason to be otherwise. Not to mention, he’s just so charming and has a good heart. Ultimately though, it’s how he deals with the fact that his father wasn’t a saint like he always thought he was that makes him so relatable. He goes through an array of different emotions when he’s in the Ancestral Plane: anger, disappointment, sadness, resentment. We spend our entire child hoods believing our parents to be the best in the world and when we learn they committed heinous acts such as murder, it turns our world upside down. But rather then spend time wallowing in his misery, T’Challa makes an effort to be better than his ancestors and ensure someone like Killmonger doesn’t happen again. Captain Logon of Geekvolution made the bold claim that T’Challa, Captain America and Luke Cage were better Supermen than the one in the DCEU and I think that’s true, considering the thought of giving up NEVER crossed T’Challa’s mind.

This film goes above and beyond when it comes to making strong supporting characters. Starting with Shuri, she has definitely become an audience favorite and is in my top 10 supporting characters. At just 16, her genius makes her on par with the likes of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. Also, she has some of the funniest moments in the film, including the “What are those?” gag. I’m aware many people hate memes being used in popular media, but when it’s done well, it’s at the very least chuckle worthy. She is responsible for upgrading the Black Panther suit, controlling vehicles from her lab and having battle armor ready for Nakia during the final battle. Speaking of which, Nakia is very much a subverted love interest as despite showing good chemistry with T’Challa, they’re not an item in this film until the very end and by then it feels earned. Nakia is very much by T’Challa’s side the entire time an it feel natural like they’ve been friends since childhood as opposed to them just meeting at the start of the film. Then there’s Okoye, captain of the Dora Milaje and loyal to the thrown even if Killmonger’s in it. She see’s T’Challa not just as her king but also a friend. Her lover, W’Kabi, makes for a good friend turned foe and shares perfect chemistry with her. T’Challa’s mother, Ramonda, makes for a good supporting character, showing that she very much loves her son and is willing to anything she can for him. Zuri is a good adviser and key player in Killmonger’s arc. M’baku of the Jabari tribe was just so much fun, being a fierce rival for T’Challa and having some good jokes thrown in for good measure. Then we have Ulysses Klaue, the nasty but clever and funny thief who has a Vibranium arm since he was last seen in Avengers: Age of Ultron. He just steals the show every time he’s on screen until Killmonger kills him and drops him at the border of Wakanda.

Credit should really be given to the cast for bringing these characters to life. Chadwick Boseman gives what is quite possibly his most defining performance in his career, playing a compelling, charming, and so very human character with super human abilities. Michael B. Jordan made Killmonger his own, bringing out his humanity and bitterness towards the people who oppressed him. Letitia Wright very much sells the spunky Shuri is meant to have as well as being tech savy. Lupita Nyong’o, Danai Gurrea, Forrest Whitaker, Angela Basset, Winston Duke and Daniel Kaluuya are all good and very memorable as Nakia, Okoye, Zuri, Ramonda, M’Baku, and W’Kabi respectively. The one having the most fun in this film is Andy Serkis as Ulysses Klaue, taking full advantage of his onscreen presence with his eccentric and funny personality.

The soundtrack for the film is also very memorable, embracing the African atmosphere with sounds and music influenced by countries in the continent. Rapper Kendrick Lamar was brought on to produce music for the film and his single, All The Stars (featuring SZA) used in the end credits ties in to Killmonger’s arc perfectly. Not only does the music play a key part in bringing this film to life, but the costumes and visuals aesthetic make the it feel alive. The costumes feel like they belong in an African country, making use of various colors from the lower East side of the continent. People seem to have a problem with the CG used in the film, particularly in the final battle. I’m not sure what the problem is, the CG looks fine throughout the film. Wakanda feels lived in and looks like a real place you could visit. Practical effects such as really buildings and cooking stations were used for shots in the city, but for wide shots, the CG looks flawless. I guess they’re referring to how T’Challa and Killmonger fighting in the Vibranium minds “looks like a PS2 game.” If I may go on a side tangent, I really hate the “it looks like a video game” argument. I undermines the hard work and effort that went in to making games as well as the effort put into CG in movies. In this case, the CG looks exactly like what it’s showing: two guys in black cat suits (one purple, the other orange) duking it out in a dimly lit cave. I might not be a visual effects supervisor, but even I can tell the difference from a game that came out a decade and a half ago and a movie released in 2018.

The last thing I want to talk about is why this film resonated so much with people, particularly with people of color. Contrary to popular belief, the fact that this film has a black superhero is not the only reason why it resonated with black people. It’s actually has to do with timing and how that played a huge part in it’s success. Racism still thrives around the world, particularly here in America. Just 2 years before this film came out, Zootopia tackled racism in a way children could understand and that also resonated with people unlike most animated films have done. Black Panther tackles a different angel than Zootopia and yet gets it’s message across just as effectively. Deep down, we’re very much like Killmonger. Everybody is sick of racism and we all want to do something about it. However, as the film shows, genocide is NOT the answer. The reason why the Holocaust happened and terrorism exists is because people think that killing other people they don’t like is the best solution. This film ends with T’Challa learning the right lesson from Killmonger: by opening Wakanda to the rest of the world and offering to help people instead of hurt them, T’Challa proves to be the best king in Wakandan history. The film isn’t “just another superhero movie” as some would claim it to be. It’s the film we need now more than ever. We need to be told being angry at the oppressor isn’t going to stop him, but offering to help those who are being oppressed makes a big difference. To quote a young woman from a little movie about space ships, “That’s how we’re going to win. Not fighting what we hate. Saving what we love.”

Look, the film isn’t perfect by any means. Martian Freeman gives a good performance as Everett Ross, but the character is just there to be the “Phil Coulson-esqu” type of character. That and I was a little bummed we didn’t get to see more of Klaue in the film. That said, I have nothing but positive things to say about the film. As a film it’s got a strong story, excellent characters, impressive visual effects, a memorable sound track and great performances all around. And to top it all off, it’s message culturally significant and it’s delivered in an organic way that doesn’t come across as pretentious. To anyone who dubs this film “overrated” (looking at you Dishonoured Wolf -.-), please refrain from doing so. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but you can’t deny that it’s message isn’t important. I now leave you with a quote from T’Challa himself. 

#black panther #marvel cinematic universe #superhero #defense #academy awards #chadwick boseman #michael b jordan #cultural significant #racism #genocide #like #share #reblog #follow #quote

[dukeofriven]

Hussie, Hitler, And Boy I’m Tired

I said earlier that I didn’t want to put on my hip waders and muck about in the Homestuck tags. *pulls off hip waders* I went anyways. I went even though I was feeling pretty good because I had a nice dinner and got to watch the New Years Bake-Off special. I went anyways, and I did it for you, my eight followers who aren’t pornbots. It turns out the Homestuck fandom of Tumblr is as scary and hyperbolic as ever, and has taken one lousy bit of badly written crap and extrapolated that backwards into ‘Homestuck has always been a racist anti-semetic pile of garbage and everything about it is terrible and Andrew Hussie needs to die.” I’m not paraphrasing, by the way. Someone out there is chanting ‘die Andrew Hussie die,’ because he had the gall to... clumsily dunk on Hitler like a fifteen year old trying to impress his English teacher with edgy comedy? This new stuff is too dumb to be offensive, especially in an era with, y’know, Hitler-praising alt-right Neo Nazis actually being mainstream media figures.  Hey Tumblr fandom? Can you... mm not chill, chill’s not the word I’m looking for what is it... oh yes. Can y’all fuck off for once?

Tumblr doesn’t deserve to enjoy things because it doesn’t know how to enjoy things responsibly. It lurches from adoration to hatred without pause, and as a writer it gives me nothing but an anxiety. I cannot produce anything imperfect, I cannot ever write crap because if I do then all my work will be tainted by it forever. On Tumblr you are always judged by your worst effort, which is a fucking god-awful standard for large media franchises of any kind. You know who one of the greatest, most thoughtful, socially-driven authors of the twentieth century was? Terry Pratchett. You know what’s kind of sexist and lazy and awful? The Colour of Magic. You know what’s weirdly colonialist and smug and all-around shit? Snuff! Neither of those shitty books invalidate the forty other Discworld novels. The existence of Anchorman’s bloviating nothingness doesn’t erase Will Ferrel’s warm and desperately human performance in Stranger Than Fiction. The Forced Kiss Equal Romance kiss in Blade Runner doesn’t erase the rest of the movie piercing question on the nature of what it means to be human. And on and on and on. Andrew Hussie’s sneeze-shart dogshit history rewrite that was so embarrassingly bad it got pulled from the internet didn’t erase Rose/Kanaya, or gay Dave, or Joey Claire tap-dancing her little heart out to try and defeat a monster. And even if Andrew Hussie does a JK Rowling and produces nothing but ill-thought-out crap from here until the day we all die in the great Disney Final Merger of 2023, it still won’t invalidate the good moments that made you happy. I mean if Andrew Hussie toddles out of retirement onto a talk show in a bathrobe to discuss his new revelations on the Puppetgrandmasters of Scion who all have worryingly Semetic names, I’m not going to be so naive as to pretend that his earlier media can be consumed in some kind of vacuum, that the future cannot affect the past. but I am saying that the good that happened in it - the things that affected you in positive ways - are not ethereal. It mattered to you then, and that’s okay. Tumblr’s hyperbolic responses seem to be rooted in embarrassment and self-flagellation. People seem so terrified by the thought that anyone might associate them as a fan of something - gasp - linked to controversy that they... well, they say shit like “die andrew hussie die.” Hey dude. Hey. You need to redirect that anger, my friend. There’s actual Neo-Nazis in the streets. On the TV. In the US government. I guess what I’m trying to say is... Woof. Okay. You know, to give Andrew Hussie partial credit here, its nice to see someone actually write Adolf Hitler the way he really was - a pant-shitting constantly whiny toddler of a human being who endlessly threw tantrums and got to where he was largely on the strength of other people’s bad decisions. Remember kids: the biggest myth Neo-Nazis have ever perpetrated is that Germany under Hitler was well-run, well-organized, and anything other than a collection of squabbling dysfunctional fiefdoms run by party hacks propped up by a bureaucracy and military too bound by inertia, ego, and cultural racism to do anything to stop a lunatic from ripping their country to shreds. That whole ‘trains running on time’ thing? It’s nonsense. Go study the conduct of the war once Germany had exhausted all its pre-war stockpiled resources and ran out of useful shit to loot, once it had to start relying on its leadership for the things that make wars winnable - supplies, reinforcements, fuel, winter clothing. Watch the way from 1942 onwards Germany stumbled from one disaster to the next, as Hitler fired more and more generals and drew more and more authority to himself and his fellow party cronies. Hitler should not be feared as a man of competence or skill - he was a buffoon, a clown of a human being fuelled entirely by petty, vindictive spite and an unlimited capacity for cruelty. And before anyone goes ‘well if he was so objectively pathetic how the fuck did he take over Germany’ I direct you to google the last two years of American politics and the words ‘Donald Fucking Trump.’ [I recommend, on these war subjects particularly, Sir Antony Beevor’s bleak and sobering works, particularly Stalingrad, Berlin: The Downfall 1945, and Ardennes 1944: Hitler's Last Gamble.]  Sorry this... kind of got away from me somewhat, but I really hate it when people get mad that someone didn’t take Hitler seriously (and, to be strictly fair, this is not what everyone is mad about in regards to Andrew Hussie, either). You should never take Hitler seriously. Take hate seriously - take violent words, and calls for purity, take his ideas of superiority and racial preeminence and anti-semitism seriously as the evils, the horrors as they are. But the man himself? He literally stank - a combination of his halitosis, chronic flatulence, and was constant diarrhea. [I am not exaggerating] He was a sad pathetic clown, and Andrew Hussie chose to write him as such. He just... went too far. It happens. It’s not good writing. It’s fucking shit, to be honest. Boring shit. The Minions movie decided to have the Minions sit out the entirety of WWII by having them get stuck in a cave or some such. Honestly that’s a better option than what Andrew Hussie went with - and ‘be more like the Minions movie’ isn’t advice I give that often. You want to be disgruntled that an author wrote something this bafflingly tone deaf and tedious? Sure. I know I am. But to chant for his death? Are you fucking kidding me? Look! Look out your window at those marching Neo-Nazis trying to establish a white supremacist state? What the ever-loving fuck are you people doing in here getting ready to string-up a man whose crime was making Adolf Friggen Hitler too petty???????? Tumblr. Tumblr, for the love of god this has to stop. This ‘Ceasar’s wife must be above reproach’ shit has to stop - it’s killing fandom, it’s killing good media critique, it’s burying proportional fan response, and its just exhausting. Why can’t you ever just let something be lousy without it being literal death warrant? There’s real demons out there - I can see them out the window, and every time I turn on the TV. Maybe - just bloody maybe - not every single crime deserves the exact same level of disapprobation and punishment? Maybe we could read some content and say “boy that sure had some lousy implications and also was just really poorly written” and then... stop there? Wouldn’t that be nice, for a change? We could dislike something without feeling like it required activism on our part. We could say ‘this piece of media was shit, but it didn’t advocate for a white ethno-state, so I will continue to think of it only until the end of this sentence.’ I am not advocating for an end to media criticism for anything that isn’t openly hate speech (but if you think that I am I am going to assume you’re already so needlessly enraged about this whole matter that I’m a bit puzzled why you’ve bothered to read this far since its obvious we don’t agree on many fundamental issues.) What I am calling for is the end to death threats against people who don’t mean you harm. Because that’s lunacy. That’s beyond the pale, actually, that’s really disturbing and sickening and you should seriously reconsider your relationship with media. Because there are people out there who do want to hurt you. Their lives are fuelled by hate, their philosophies are driven by it, as are their politics. I assure you that when a time traveller steps through a portal trying to prevent the rise of ‘the great Trump War of 2020′ the inciting incident will not be ‘Andrew Hussie trivialized the holocaust by citing its origins as a grudge Adolf Hitler bore Albert Einstein over a rivalry in secret clown ninja school before being taken on as an agent of a baking-obsessed alien space witch and bumped into power by the Peters principle.’ Because just by writing that sentence I have already reaffirmed a very simple truth: this is way, way too stupid to give the slightest shit about. So let’s tell Andrew Hussie that his new work is... mmm.... kind of like a shit if a shit had a shit that was itself shat out by a shit and then vomited on by another shit who had eaten nothing but shit since Sunday. Let’s tel lhim “hey dude, your clownish work summoned the spectre of anti-semetism, and you can do better.” Frankly, I think that message was already sent, since in the two hours between me going to make and eat dinner and then coming back to my computer, the new material was discovered, read, disseminated, and removed. Two hours. Sure, maybe a bit of lag due to what does and does not hit my feed but come on - this all took place in an afternoon. It’s already down. Our voices were heard - we didn’t think this was very good, and apparently Whatpumpkin agrees enough that they didn’t mount a defence of it. Rather than take the next logical step, though - which seems to be calling for the death of Andrew Hussie and removing all of Homestuck from the internet and maybe nuking Toby Fox from orbit just to be extra-sure? - we could do... something else. Talk about the release date for Stranger Things, maybe. Track down some local Neo-Nazis and punch them. Read some Antony Beevor books and really educate ourselves on what a smelly fuck-up Hitler was so we can chant that at Neo Nazis at their next rally. Or you could watch the New Years Bake-Off special. It was pretty good.

#homestuck #andrew hussie #hitler #hiveswap #hiveswap friendsim #whatpumpkin #skaianet #bake-off #terry pratchett #homestuck analysis

[iwebscrapingblogs]

Why Use Twitter Scraper To Extract Twitter Data?

What is Twitter Scraper?

Data capture via Twitter web scraping is an automated process. Because of the vast number of information available on Twitter, data would otherwise go unnoticed. The scraping tool retrieves information by parsing HTML (hypertext markup language) and compiling it into a single document. Scrapers are extremely useful for internet research since they can collect massive volumes of data in a short amount of time. Consider a moment when you had to study a subject on your own.

Twitter is an excellent location to keep an eye on emerging trends and influencers attempting to have an impact on society. Scraping the website enables you to see how the community shares and metabolizes content. Furthermore, it allows you to gain a better understanding of how your page is being perceived and what your friends are talking about and commenting about. If you have a small number of followers or follow a large number of individuals, there is a lot of information to keep track of on a daily basis. Allow a Twitter scraping tool to locate and capture the information that is genuinely relevant to you, rather than looking through all of that data manually.

How to Extract Data from Twitter?

You can buy a scraper from a web scraping company. The demo of the scraper will allow you to check the working mechanism of the scraper and how rapidly the tool can provide you with all kinds of facts on any topic you can think of. When you have that information, you can utilize it to build a strategy for gaining more followers, connecting with your Twitter audience, and determining what makes a popular tweet.

What are the Reasons to Scrape Twitter?

Gathering Tweets and Replies

Every day, about 500 million tweets are going out on average. That's about 6,000 tweets each second, to put it in perspective. While you may not be interested in all of those tweets, even a fraction of that bigger number is still a lot of info to comb through. By scraping tweets and responses using this application, you may create a personalized, tailored Twitter experience. Knowing what individuals are saying on Twitter is the equivalent of stepping into their homes and reading their journal. Innermost thoughts are on show for all to see, and we can take advantage of this fact to strengthen our bonds with society.

Fetching Twitter Information

You do not support obtaining personal, private information that is concealed from view on a person's Twitter account's main pages. Scraping Twitter Data information such as a person's favorites, followers, and other publicly available information, on the other hand, is a critical method to learn about your own followers' likes and dislikes.

Market researchers will find this information extremely useful. Acquiring background knowledge about a target audience or specific group from a specific region of the world is a quick approach to get into the mind of the people to whom you want to promote goods and services. You might even discover that a Dayton, Ohio mother of six is tweeting about the same issues as an eighteen-year-old South Korean boy. Twitter seems to have a way to reveal our commonalities, which is both reassuring and useful.

Following Market Patterns

A Twitter scraper can keep a record of those trends so you're always up to date. Furthermore, these patterns influence what you tweet about, who you follow, and whether a hashtag you established is gaining traction.

Jobs That Are Benefitted from Twitter Web Scraping

Scraping the web isn't just for one individual; it's a process that can benefit entire firms and major corporations. Aside from the particular Twitter user, a Twitter scraping tool will benefit a large number of occupations. Let's take a look at a couple of them right now.

Marketing and Advertising

Twitter is a popular social media platform that allows users to read and share the opinions and views of a wide range of people. Marketing and advertising teams must be aware of how consumers react to products, services, and companies in order to stay competitive in their area. Scraping tweets and answers on those pages is a sensible alternative to perusing the comments area of a company's particular website because so many firms have a presence on Twitter. The best teams understand who they're selling to and what types of firms those clients like, the more they'll be able to advertise with intent.

Sales

Digital advertising has gained in popularity over time, and it frequently results in more clicks on an ad than if it were put on another site. Those in sales will have an advantage over their competitors if they start using a Twitter scraper. Scraping tweets and accounts can reveal current promotions, pricing points for things that are now on sale, and even how popular a product is. A sales staff can evaluate all of the collected data and devise a strategy for pricing products in the future, or be better prepared to speak with clients about current industry trends.

Social Media Influencers

The success of a social media influencer is determined by how well their profile is perceived and also how many followers they possess. They get additional collaborations and sponsorships as their following grows. Influencers can use Twitter scraping to see if anyone is watching them or why. It also provides an accurate picture of how other social media influencers engage with their own fans. Browsing through pertinent tweets and replies provides insight into the influencer's audience, as well as the viewers they have still yet to contact.

Contact iWeb Scraping to get a Twitter scraper, today!!!

Request for a quote!!!!

https://www.iwebscraping.com/why-use-twitter-scraper-to-extract-twitter-data.php

#TwitterScraper #ExtractTwitterData #TwitterDataScrapingServices

[anthonybialy]

From A to A

Sanctimony comes right to your door. A year of relying on Amazon has shown how dreadful the ether bookseller has become. Distrust goes beyond natural contempt brought by marriage-style familiarity. A heartless amalgamation is unnerving for how invasive it strives to be. Your sole source of sustaining goods treats Rollerball as a documentary. You shouldn't buy DVDs of dystopian warning for their site only in part because you'd be contributing toward making dull paranoid fantasies true.

Wishing it could be avoided is a sure sign a company pleases customers. Virtue signaling is what they sell best. Take commercials which may as well be funded by the Human Rights Campaign. My personal favorite Amazon sales pitch for something other than products is the one featuring the interracial lesbian couple impressed by the site's low prices, as it convinced me such pairs of bathroom-sharers not only exist but are to be celebrated. It turns out tolerance is good. Focusing on purchasing is hard while trying to figure out how the two ended up with mixed-race children. Amazon apparently refuses to sell titles teaching actual biology.

Social media shows how Amazon hates the power they use as much as they love every kind of wedding. Every smarmy tweet churned out by their smug underlings putting their sociology degrees to fine use pimps social justice lunacy that stands in opposition to their outfit's existence.  AOC generates less stridency.

How much value is created? Workers might disagree with their bosses. Calling to pay their people more as they try to pay them as little as possible is Amazon at its best, which is its worst. Just make sure the sum is more than any intended competitor. Salaries smaller outfits can’t absorb are the ideal legal minimum the warehouse aficionado endorses by sheer coincidence.

Amazon's creepy drive toward galaxy domination embodies how being pro-business differs entirely from being, well, pro-business. People can think that one employer features crummy working conditions without wanting the Berlin Wall to be rebuilt by union workers. Amazon should churn out another set of ads with utterly happy workers totally not smiling preposterously only because their family is being held at gunpoint, as that'll convince the public that their detergent delivery monstrosity is kind.

Humanity is controlled by the lamest single entity imaginable. Censoring speech that runs counter to the open principles of a purported bookseller is a nice tough. The government don't need to violate the First Amendment when a quasi-oligarch can decline to sell any title it deems hateful. You're not permitted to acquire literature featuring accurate biology endorsed by think tanks to Hoxha's right.

Insecurity is common among those who control others to compensate. Anyone confident should want their awful hateful foes to keep publishing and thus embarrassing themselves. It's sure sign of open debate when they deem tomes so harmful that they cannot be sold.

Those looking for options wait for Amazon's eternal hold on retail to end in a few weeks. Aspiring monopolies inevitably grow fat and lazy idling while parking free. Those who've struggled to obtain everything that can be sold forget to innovate like they did on their way up. Life becomes static for everyone who tries to corner a market. Woolworth’s thought it’d be selling everything for a couple cents forever, too.

Wanting companies to make as much as possible is frustrating when they call to be taxed for the privilege. Preening isn't convincing when paired with utter hypocrisy. Evading endorsed policies isn't quite honorable. We're trying to advocate for them to sell everything, and they reply by demanding laws intended to ruin foes. When they're this manipulative, the market certainly isn't free.

Amazon displays a principled commitment to any issue that is good for peddling. Take how the retail Godzilla will stop drug testing because they believe deeply in human liberty. Oh, and they'd also happen to be able to deliver your jazz cigarettes. One would also think an online seller would find online taxes objectionable. But anything to discourage shopping at smaller outlets serves their public good.

There's no requirement to buy what's being sold. One can just dislike a company even if it's engaged in robust trade. Subway attempts to call whatever it manufactured in bunker labs meat, and it doesn't mean you must suffer through lunch there. Conservatives who loathe diving to humanity's depths during Walmart outings get the principle.

Warping public policy to advance their own interests doesn't sound very fair. It's fine to advocate with ulterior motives. One should just make sure to be aware of them and don't give into them. Raising taxes because Amazon pretends to be selfless advocates of communal good is the opposite of capitalism in case anyone thought having a seller involved automatically meant we were in a libertarian situation.

Business dominance just happened to coincide with a semi-eternal lockdown if you spent a year in solitary confinement pondering conspiracies. It's uncanny how wrapping homes in plastic helped the smiley arrow logo outfit. Framing themselves as saviors delivering critical goods is part of their messianic narrative. You can buy the old Bible from their site if for nostalgia. Keeping patients sick so they can keep saving with medicinal deliveries is particularly appalling when the cure is jigsaw puzzles.

Just bring my slippers by tomorrow. Contemporary peddlers show how important they are by telling their lunkheaded customers how they're not progressive enough. You thought you could get away with only buying goods?

A lecture from a heartlessly calculating conglomerate is sure to improve morality. Amazon has everything, if you can find it. But sifting through pages of shady affiliates and imprecise results. It's too bad the purported retailer is so focused on presenting self-righteousness, as they might really have something if they could put it on shelves.

Poring through crummy searches might even inspire consumers to pay the dang shipping elsewhere. It's officially a weird world when patronizing the mall is the best way to support small mom and pop shops. The monolith blocking out other options makes the spending decision easier.

[agnesgoesadventuring-blog]

It kinda bothers me that people get so up in arms over a character and how they act. I have to think a lot of them must not play d&d, or arent very fun to play with if they do. Its all about The Drama. About making the game fun for you and your friends. If that means messing with them, getting hookers, being 'mean' or 'problematic'. And you can tell the group is having fun when they do these things. This inst a scripted show, its a buncha nerds playing a table top rpg. Stop policing their fun.

The 'policing' anon again I wanted to make clear that I dont dislike your meta or other metas. I love your blog and how you look at all the shades of grey in this very black and white culture. I didnt mean to imply that taking a deeper or more meta look at the characters and what they do is bad. I meam more those you get upset like its some tv show and get mad and players or chracters for doing soemthing they personally don't like. When this is diffrent from scripted media, I feel anyway.

It may be a bunch of friends entertaining themselves playing D&D, but the moment they started streaming it for people to watch it stopped being just a bunch of friends playing D&D and it become a part of the media that society consumes. The fact that it's not a traditional scripted media doesn't change that. And all pieces of media have a certain level of responsibility to, at the very least, not make our culture a worse place by doing things like portraying problematic mindsets that contribute to things that put people in danger and marginalize certain groups. Sharing something with an audience also means sharing ownership of that thing because above all, the main point of fiction is to illicit an emotional connection and development for the audience.

Now, that's not to say that every piece of media is going to be or has to be perfect in that regard. That would pretty much be impossible because every single one of us is conditioned by the culture in which we're raised and those mindsets are ingrained within us. But the effort is important, and part of that effort is listening when the audience tells them that something they've done is hurtful or dangerous. Thankfully, the cast of Critical Role has been pretty amazing about that, because they really do want to try. They recognize that they're not perfect and that they're going to flub some things, but they want to correct themselves when they truly do something that's problematic.

When it comes to simple emotional reactions to decisions and actions taken by the characters and personal preferences, morals, and such, like I said before, the whole point of fiction is to illicit an emotional connection from the audience. Whether the person creating that fictions wants to make some kind of political point, or wants to express some kind of personal emotion, or merely entertain, or whatever, all of that starts with getting the audience emotionally connected to the story and what's happening to the characters. It's an inherent part of all fictional narratives that are shared with an audience, whether it's a novel, a play, a movie, a scripted television show, or an improvised game of D&D. That means people are going to develop different emotional connections to the characters and they're going to have emotional reactions to the things those characters do that are based on their own experiences and preferences. Which, again, is kind of the point.

And talking about those feelings has long been a part of the culture of consuming media, even before the internet made it easier to find people who enjoy the same things. Salons, starting around the 16th century and remaining popular throughout the early 20th century, usually included a great deal of discussion of things like novels and plays. Lobbies were originally included in early movie theaters to make a social experience out of movie going, so that the audience could talk about the movie after they watched it. Book clubs increased in popularity in the mid 20th century for people to discuss the narratives with which they were engaging. People gathered at work for the "water cooler talk" every morning to discuss the television shows they watched the night before. And now we have the internet that facilitates that discussion in a way that allows us to share our thoughts with people all over the world. While a part of these discussions has always been intellectual and analytical, a great deal of it has also been based purely on that emotional connection and sharing how things specifically make people feel and what they liked and didn't like about things happening in the narrative.

When it comes to these purely emotional reactions that aren't about larger social issues, there would be a problem if people were bringing these things directly to the players in a way that was negative or criticizing (though I won't say that there's not a level where bringing such discussion to them might be okay). But merely discussion these things in their own spaces or with other people is exactly the way people are supposed to react to the fictional media they consume, whether it's scripted or not. And sometimes it's incredibly important on a personal level for the people doing it because that emotional connection they have with the characters can be based on some incredibly serious things for them and certain experiences are going to impact the way they react to those characters and their actions. Talking about those reactions can be a really healthy emotional exercise. Also, on a very basic level, if you have an emotional reaction to something of any kind - which is not something we can control - it is not healthy to push it down and not talk about it.

#critical role #my metas #Anonymous

[neonstatic]

Everything wrong with 13RW

Firstly, the premise of the source book is distasteful and it should've never become a full show with 13 episodes of 1 hour each season.

The creators contacting health professionals to get advice on how to handle the themes in the show and ignoring ALL of the advice shows the little care given for “spreading a message” or “starting a conversation” (more like starting a controversy).

Now onto the points in which the show failed to convey a positive message in both season 1 & season 2.

I recommend watching this video for short indications on why the show does more bad than good.

And before anyone says anything, I am mentally ill and I study psychology so jot that down.

SEASON 1

Sensationalism of suicide

As a vehicle for vengeance (thru tapes)

As a tool to gain attention

The tapes are treated as words of truth and justice

If the tapes are ever criticized, it is done by characters featured on the tapes, which serves to delegitimize such opinions since they're the "bad guys" of the story

Act of committing suicide blamed on others (esp bad when the 11 persons’ wrongdoings cannot be equated in most cases)

Most people didn't deserve a tape:

Jessica cut ties with her over a misunderstanding

Zach emptied her encouragement mailbox (and quickly stopped after being called out) and she thought he threw away a personal letter she wrote him (this tape is extremely unwarranted)

Courtney claimed Hannah came onto her because she was afraid to be outed as lesbian but in the end, the photos and rumours affected them both anyway

Ryan published a poem of hers without her consent; disrespectful but not ill-intended

Clay walked away after she insisted for him to leave her alone (this tape is extremely unwarranted)

Sheri knocked down a sign and left Hannah out on the street because she didn’t want to call 911, which “caused” the death of a student (this tape is extremely unwarranted)

Those who deserved a tape (debatable in some cases):

Justin, for making up lies about her and spreading a revealing picture of her

Alex, for cutting ties, objectifying/publicly humiliating and submitting her to harassment in school

Bryce, for spreading a revealing picture of her and raping her

Marcus, for misleading, harassing and humiliating her in public

Tyler, for stalking and spreading pictures of [Courtney and] her

Mr Porter, for his very poor handling of her obvious distress

Hannah's story is no fair representation of real life

Technically, she’s a victim of social bullying (damaging someone's social reputation & lying and spreading rumours) but...

She's esp a victim of circumstances made by the creator - she's a fictional character whose purpose is to be a martyr in her story; in the real world, things would have played out much differently

Hannah tries to reach out once then gives up and justifies this bc the school counsellor didn't come running after her when she stormed out (again assuming ppl are mind readers)

Graphic rape scenes with the potential to trigger viewers - even those who aren’t survivors (replayed numerous times throughout the show as flashbacks)

Graphic and extended suicide scene (goes directly against professionals’ guidelines but screw vulnerable viewers I guess?)

Finality of suicide forgotten by the structure of narration = Hannah’s omnipresent even though she's literally dead, which grossly undermines the consequences of suicide

Adults portrayed as clueless and unable to help (not a good idea to put in teenagers’ head)

SEASON 2

Vague mention of mental illness

Implying anxiety runs in Hannah's maternal side but not diving into it

Sky being diagnosed with bipolar although there was no extensive portrayal of her symptoms (since she wasn’t onscreen for long) and immediately disappearing from the show while she’s the only character going through professional therapy and recovery (smth they would have rly benefited from showing)

Trivializing mental illness for plot use

Clay hallucinating Hannah - acknowledged but not addressed for being a serious psychotic symptom

Minors in sexual situations (too many times!)

Graphic scene of a brutal sexual battery (entirely for shock value, it didn’t have to be shown this way and you can't tell me otherwise)

Conflicting message regarding drug use

Severity of addiction (Justin getting clean then relapsing)

Recreational use (minors doing molly for fun... instead of marijuana which is less risky in comparison)

Trivializing school shooting

Advertisement tool (last episode of S1 heavily hinting at it)

Teased several times throughout the season

Blatant reference to Columbine

Not going through with it - worse move ever…

Irresponsible guide on how to approach an impulsive armed person

From a storytelling POV

Hannah the martyr

Hard to sympathize with when the tapes serve to exact vengeance more than it serves to explain how she felt and why she did what she did, making her manipulative at best

The fact that she was a bully herself in the past

(Plus being “shown” how Hannah was would've been better than being “told” how she was by other characters)

Overall terrible attempt at creating a suicide victim / mentally ill person ppl should sympathize with, the last thing the mentally ill needs is to be related to a character that is so easy to dislike

Clay as a main character

Lost his value since the story's progress doesn't rly depend on him (even tho we're forced to follow him)

Character development: he gets real snappy and no one calls him out? Increasingly unlikable

(Not that he was that likeable by the end of S1… spreading a naked picture of Tyler? #WelcomeToYourTape)

Tyler and his arc

Attempt at explaining the possible cause of school shooting? Failed.

Most school shooters aren’t victims of bullying, in fact many (if not all) are associated with hate groups like white supremacist, misogynists, etc.

Had plenty of reasons to commit suicide over mass shooting (and I don’t mean it in a ‘suicide can be justified’ sense but tbh besides his interest in guns, he’s never depicted as aggressively angry or remotely prone to violence)

Could've brought attention to male depression and male suicide far better than Alex’s story

Technical POV

Very lacking warnings. There should be hotlines at the end of every episode not at the beginning. Self-righteousness and superficial philosophy in both dialogue and narration show the shallowness and pretentiousness of the directors.

The show is presented as an objective representation instead of a media to consume and dissect and judge for oneself = in other words, the morale is laid out for you. Putting up content so shocking most of your target audience cannot watch for fear of being triggered is irresponsible. Trigger warnings don't solve that. Shooting implicit scenes and not explicit scenes is what protects viewers and still conveys the message.

Message

The show is depressing; there's barely any positive outcome. Every character is helpless to their situation. It would benefit greatly of some comic relief.

“We should be careful what we say to people.” Only when it comes to Hannah, everyone else we can be harsh to, apparently. “We should care more for people.” (True, but you can’t love depression away.) “We have power over nothing.” "We can't change anything.” “Adults don't understand us.” “We can't confide to anyone.” “We can't trust anyone.”

Seriously it's a fkg downer. This show highlights all the problems but gives no solution. You expect your audience of teenagers to figure it out for themselves? You expect your audience of teenagers to go out of their way to "start a conversation" with their parents over some sensationalist teen drama show? You must be kidding me. (Do you know how a conversation about 13RW goes? “I loved the show!” “I didn’t.” The end.)

Final note

The directors should have inserted a segment after each episode (or every couple) with the actors themselves discussing what happened to/between the characters and how it could have been handled better. If you want to act like your show is a PSA, treat it as such.

#13rw #13rw spoilers #13 reasons why #13rw s2 #13rw season 2 #tw #ray says