#and while I respect all dissenting opinions and they’re valid | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shihalyfie · 3 years

Text

A guide to the 02 kids’ personalities and overall demeanors

I’ve already covered the deeper details of each 02 kid’s character arc and development throughout the series, but I figured I might dedicate a more specific post about the complexities of their outer personalities, and their behavior patterns on a day-to-day basis. 02 is the kind of series that doesn’t really spell out what the characters tend to do or don’t tend to do, or what boundaries they will and won’t cross, which means it can be a bit of a challenging task to track their behavior over fifty episodes and figure out the patterns. Fortunately, these characters are written remarkably consistently over said episodes, so we have a lot to work with!

Disclaimer before we continue: In general, all of my 02-based meta is specifically written for the Japanese version in mind, but this especially applies to this one, because the majority of the nuances of the demeanor and personality traits described below were not retained in the American English dub at all (please see this post for more detail). As a result, please understand that if you’re working from the perspective of having only seen that dub, and the contents of the below post sound completely different, that would be why.

Daisuke and V-mon

Believe it or not, I would say that Daisuke is actually the most difficult to nail the nuances of out of this entire cast. This is probably a really weird thing to hear when the usual fandom mantra is that he’s “flat” or “lacking in development”, but I think the deceptive part is that while he’s simple-minded and himself doesn’t think in complex terms, analyzing his behavior as a whole and how he approaches things actually involves a lot of very delicate balances, and getting that exactly right can be very easy to mess up. Daisuke’s not a rude jerk who looks down on anyone, not in the slightest -- but he’s also not a saint who can do no wrong, either!

I think the easiest analogy (which I’ve brought up several times on this blog already) is that Daisuke is like a puppy, but not just any puppy -- a tiny puppy that barks very loudly at anything it perceives as threatening (regardless of whether it’s actually threatening), makes its feelings very clear with obvious likes and dislikes, and can do some phenomenally stupid things in a bid to please others, but in the end means no malice and only wants you to be happy.

This is to the point where I’m just going to have to bullet-point this, because there’s so much going on at once:

Excessively emotional: One of Daisuke’s earliest profiles refers to him as having “an excessively large range of human emotions”, and really, a lot of the humor surrounding him has to do with the fact he has incredibly dramatic, overblown reactions to nearly everything around him. So if he gets a little annoyed or suspicious of people making fun of him, he tends to get really dramatic about being upset, and when he experiences only a minor setback, he acts like it’s the end of the world, and when he’s emotionally hurt, he sometimes even gets set on the verge of crying (you can especially hear this in Kiuchi Reiko’s delivery). Even Daisuke himself doesn’t tend to get caught up in it for too long and gets over things surprisingly quickly, so you can take it as him just constantly being too wrapped up in the mood -- but when it really is a serious situation, he gets truly emotionally invested in it, too.

Too easy to read: Because Daisuke wears his heart on his sleeve and is dramatic about everything, he’s awful at hiding anything. Any attempt at trickery or trying to disguise his intentions quickly blows up in his face because he’s too simple-minded and too transparent.

Not malicious: Daisuke only ever lashes out or gets angry at others when he thinks others are doing something he disapproves of, or when he thinks he’s being attacked; he’s very warm and kind to everyone otherwise (even in the earliest parts of the series, when he’s at his roughest, you might notice he’s very soft around Chibimon, as if understanding that his partner is now in a very small and delicate form and needs to be treated accordingly). In other words, Daisuke is very quick to get defensive, but he has no malice or reason to be condescending towards anyone otherwise, and he’s perfectly friendly with people even when they’d provoked him earlier (because he doesn’t really hold grudges). He doesn’t attack people without reason; even when he voices dissent against what someone is doing, he very rarely, if ever, insults a person or their character directly. Even when he’s trying to state his opinions (such as when he bids for the others to accept Ken), he never forces them down others’ throats and accepts that they disagree with him, even if he’s clearly not happy with their disagreement.

Easily critical and suspicious: Daisuke is a very bluntly straightforward and honest person, and he seems to get most set off by people who act suspicious; note how his early-series outbursts towards Takeru tend to be when Takeru’s acting evasive, and in Hurricane Touchdown, he catches onto Wallace’s shady behavior even before he starts flirting with Miyako (Daisuke’s own method of trying to seem attractive to others involves just “doing something cool and hoping it’ll impress others”, so he seems to dislike the concept of flirting as a whole). Because of that, he catches easily onto “things looking off”, so he tends to call it out (even if sometimes he’s overdoing it and there isn’t actually anything significant to be upset about).

Supportive and adoring of others: Other than the moments when he gets set off, fundamentally speaking, Daisuke likes other people, is perfectly willing to acknowledge them or heap praise on them when they do something awesome, and generally cares for their well-being. He’s easily defers to others when he understands they’re better than him at something, and he even has a decently realistic scope of his limits (see how he’s perfectly aware he’s likely to lose the soccer game in 02 episode 8, and figures he might as well enjoy the experience). This is even taken to its logical conclusion in the Kizuna drama CD when he “credits” his friends for giving him amazing and insightful advice when all of it was actually pretty ordinary stuff they’d done offhandedly. It also means that, given his penchant for getting emotionally invested in everything, he has a huge emotional stake in making sure his friends are doing okay, and supports them accordingly.

Deferential to seniors/elders: Tying into the above, you may notice that Daisuke takes a properly respectful and soft tone towards his elders and seniors in nearly all occasions, even to the point of occasionally using proper polite-form language around them. All things considered, Daisuke is a pretty well-behaved kid.

Constantly getting strung around: As much as Daisuke looks like he’s aggressive, in actuality, it’s very easy to get him to back down if you argue against him strongly enough, and since he has such a “the heck is that?!” attitude all of the time, you can see him constantly getting strung around and at the mercy of things happening around him. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have enough will to put his foot down when it becomes a really important subject (especially in the second half of the series), but it’s very often when he’ll be talked down by others around him and shrink with an “oh...okay...” In fact, this is why a lot of his actions aren’t nearly as reckless as they might be otherwise; as much as he’s a bit hot-headed and likes to lead the attack, he also has a sense of self-preservation and intimidation when things look a bit too dangerous, and will only push forward in such a case when there’s something he really believes in at the other side of it.

Lacking in self-awareness and insecure as a result: While Daisuke doesn’t have any signs of persistent self-hatred (on the contrary, there are times he arguably comes off as overconfident), it also seems that he has practically zero awareness of how he himself is doing -- which means that he ends up rolling over like an idiot trying to get others’ approval and trying to impress them, even when it’d be clear to anyone else that he already has that approval. This also likely ties into the fact that he’s perfectly capable of acknowledging others’ accomplishments and skills (see above), so you might even think that the problem isn’t so much that he thinks he’s bad as much as he keeps comparing himself to people he perceives as being that much more awesome. (Perhaps symbolic of this, he apparently has a complex over being shorter than Takeru and Ken, despite the fact that he seems to be of perfectly average height for a kid his age.) It seems that his only bar for how he’s doing is dependent on everyone’s reactions around him, hence why his ridiculous antics are significantly less pronounced when he has proper emotional support and friends to keep him in check. It’s also important to consider that this applies to his apparent crush on Hikari as well; his crush mainly manifests in wanting her approval very badly, and it’s mostly visible in terms of him losing a ton of brain cells in her presence and bending over backwards to please her or impress her. He never actually says in words that he’s interested in her, nor does he ever show signs of intending to seriously ask her out, so it’s something that’s only apparent because of this behavior, and it’s very likely he hasn’t even seriously thought through what would happen if she actually accepted him in return. You can basically see this as an extreme version of the way Daisuke tries to get approval from everyone else, and this trait of his noticeably dies down whenever there’s more important things at hand, or when he seems to be in the midst of getting proper validation from those around him.

Simple-minded and pragmatic: What’s usually referred to as Daisuke being an “idiot” comes from the fact he doesn’t play well with complex thinking, tends to settle for very simple explanations or answers, and more thoughtful types like Ken or Iori will often have to fill that part in for him. However, because Daisuke is so simple-minded, he’s sometimes the most pragmatic person in the group, because he doesn’t overthink things or get principles of theory caught up into everything. So if Ken is clearly not showing any indication of doing bad things anymore and is actively working to help, Daisuke believes he should be allowed to help regardless of what he’d done in the past, and if they’re dealing with the situation of potentially having to kill a living enemy, Daisuke points out that hesitation would have resulted in even more casualties. In essence, in a situation where everyone’s running mental loop-de-loops, Daisuke will usually be the first one to snap them all out of it and go “uh? Guys?” Moreover, this trait of his makes him very good at spotting glaring threads or asking questions about the elephant in the room, because since he works best with things that are right in front of him, he can’t not notice it.

Enjoys the little things: Because Daisuke is so simple-minded, it’s very easy to please him (this is why his chosen career path is something as simple as ramen making). Daisuke likes his friends, and appreciates even simple things around him, so he’s happy with even simple pieces of happiness -- hence, why he’s fine with potentially losing the soccer game in 02 episode 8, because he’s ready to simply just savor the experience of getting to play against a respectable and formidable opponent.

Note that the main reason Daisuke never seems to bring up any of these issues with himself within the series proper is simply that he doesn’t seem to be aware of them -- he’s too simple-minded to understand what’s going on with his own behavior in depth, and hence, this is how he can say he’s not worried about too much by the time of 02′s finale, especially since by that point he has a proper support group that’s already helping him deal with most of his issues anyway.

Daisuke also has the roughest speech pattern out of any of the 02 group (similar to Taichi and Yamato in Adventure); he has a tendency to shorten words a lot and use “rough” variants of words (for example “-nee” instead of “-nai”).

Mischievous, friendly, and playful, V-mon is pointed out even by official sources to be much like his partner (far more so than usual), and it’s likely a byproduct of the fact that Daisuke himself is very honest and straightforward about his emotions and thoughts, and so since he has nothing to hide, V-mon is pretty much exactly like him -- with the major difference being that he’s a little more outwardly friendly and less likely to lash out angrily. So he’s effectively Daisuke without that very thin abrasive exterior, and because both of them are so like-minded and friendly, they get along extremely well (albeit with quite a bit of comfortable bantering on the way there).

Ken and Wormmon

Ken is the more intellectual type that Daisuke isn’t, and even after his stint as the Kaiser, it’s clear that he’s still quite studious and naturally interested in studying things. Looking closely at his style of dress and way of carrying himself (note how he lays down his chopsticks in 02 episode 36) indicates he’s also a rather tidy person in general. Being someone who’s capable of thinking things thoroughly, this makes him able to have a lot of deep insight into both intellectual and emotional issues, but because he takes things too seriously sometimes, he can sometimes come off as a bit overly stickler or insistent (note Daisuke and Ken’s Shopping Carol, where he subjects Daisuke to a long-winded lecture about the history of Christmas, because, really, he’s a nerd), or lead himself down the wrong direction when he’s having a hard time being straightforward (such as when he comes up with some very flimsy theories about why Jogress might be dangerous in 02 episode 28).

In fact, Ken’s disposition could be considered to be the opposite of Daisuke’s in many ways; while Ken is much softer and more conciliatory on the surface, he’s actually much more assertive and strong-willed by default, and it’s made clear that, even after his reformation from the Kaiser persona, he could still be vicious if he wanted to, he just doesn’t enjoy it because he doesn’t like it and it goes against his belief system (note that he even offered to "dirty his own hands" in lieu of the other kids if push came to shove and Archnemon had to be killed in 02 episode 29, even though he clearly wasn't enthusiastic about the idea). In fact, he has a very strong sense of responsibility and believes heavily in making up for what he’s done -- recall that 02 episodes 26 and 49 involved snapping him out of it by reminding him that there were things that needed to be done, and that he himself still had many things he wanted to do that wouldn’t be addressed if he’d stayed fixated on his past. Thus, Ken doesn’t deny nor avoid anything he’d done, and he isn’t even all that prone to self-pity -- it’s just that his tendency to put too much responsibility on himself means that he also takes a while to accept everyone’s support, too, because he doesn’t like the idea of putting burdens on others.

Because Ken is actually one of the more straightforward people in this group and a fairly honest person (at least, as long as he’s not lying to himself), he might hold himself back a little bit in order to not be rude, but he doesn’t do it nearly to the same degree Takeru or Hikari would and is much more willing to speak his mind when he has an opinion he wants to voice or needs to sort out his thoughts on something. Conversely, he’s not nearly as cold as Iori can get when criticizing things (he’ll certainly be firm, but not as incisive). Most post-02 materials also indicate that he’s not above being a tease or even a little mischievous (see Armor Evolution to the Unknown, Diablomon Strikes Back, Daisuke and Ken’s Shopping Carol).

Ken uses a speech pattern that’s slightly more casual than Takeru’s, but not nearly as rough as Daisuke’s. While anime will often have speech patterns substantially change between different personas of a character, other than Park Romi’s delivery of a more condescending tone for the Kaiser and a significantly softer one for Ken, nothing about his speech pattern is substantially different between the two personas (not even the first-person pronoun), indicating that, in the end, they’re really the same person after all, just manifesting the same personality traits in different ways.

Wormmon is affectionate and clingy, unfailingly loyal to Ken, and his biggest advocate during a time when Ken is trying to relearn how to love and accept himself -- meaning that he ends up very important to providing Ken the initial support he needed before Ken allowed other friends into his life. Wormmon isn’t all nothing but clinginess, though -- he has some insight about the weight of his experiences when prompted (02 episode 46), and in fact is more than capable of calling out Ken’s behavior when he’s being unreasonable or throwing himself into denial (see 02 episodes 27, 30, and 49).

Miyako and Hawkmon

Miyako approaches everything she likes with an attitude that makes her come off as constantly having bubbles and hearts around her. When she likes something, she says so. When she doesn’t like something, she says so (and she will go off when she’s on a roll; see 02 episode 14). In fact, part of the reason she so infamously voices her opinion on people being cute is, quite simply, that it’s her honest opinion. (Note that she never actually tries to ask them out or anything -- she just wants to make it very clear that they’re attractive.)

For the most part, she adores the people around her, and, like the others in the 02 group, she’s perfectly respectful towards elders. She also loves poking her nose in others’ business and trying to be as helpful as possible, which is good in that she ends up being a huge help to others, but also not good in that sometimes she overdoes it a bit (when Hikari calls her out for being a “handful” in 02 episode 31, the word she uses is one that literally means "a little too overly involved in others' business").

Miyako is the one who gets everyone up in high spirits by being cheerful, and whose cheer rubs off on everyone else around her (see her cheerfully leading the charge into the Digital World with her “Digital Gate, open! Chosen Children, let’s roll!” catchphrase). This is something the rest of the group catches onto very quickly, asking her to supply the “usual cheer”, and the later episodes of the series especially drive home the fact that her presence and antics bring happiness to those around her.

Miyako has a similar “chaotic, sloppy, and straightforward” demeanor to Daisuke, but there are some key differences. Unlike Daisuke, who’s bluntly honest about his opinions mainly because he doesn’t really hide things in general, Miyako’s opinions will be out of her mouth before she can control it. In other words, she has a nasty case of foot-in-mouth syndrome. In addition, while Daisuke tends to have a very thin skin and lashes out defensively out of instinct, Miyako takes things much more at face value and doesn’t blow a fuse nearly as easily, but because she’s significantly more assertive and aggressive, she’s much more prone to doing what she wants on her own whims instead of backing down to anyone. In fact, Miyako is significantly more emotionally sensitive in the long run, so while Daisuke tends to blow a fuse more easily, he’s also able to shrug it off and move on more quickly, whereas Miyako has a thicker skin, but when she does take emotional pain, she takes it much more deeply and harshly. She also tends to get overwhelmed easily by stress and panic, which makes her one of the more prone to running around in circles and doing frantic things in the midst of it.

One thing you might notice about Miyako is that she’s actually more critical of herself than anyone else in the group is; most of the time they act with mild exasperation at her antics but don’t tend to criticize her directly, whereas Miyako is very aware of her own shortcomings and is constantly either criticizing herself or comparing herself negatively to others (see: 02 episodes 10, 14, 18, and 31 especially). If she slips up and does something that stepped on someone else’s toes, it doesn’t take her long to realize that she’s messed up and want to do better. So while she generally tends to act the most in-your-face and aggressive, she also doesn’t necessarily want to be this way, and suffers from self-confidence issues and a poor opinion of herself.

Miyako uses a feminine speech pattern that’s a bit more casual than Hikari’s (she noticeably is willing to use the word anta for “you”, which has a bit of a connotation of being abrupt and in-your-face, especially with Daisuke). She’s also the most likely to physically manhandle things, both in the affectionate (hugging people) and aggressive (grabbing things and jumping on them in order to attack) senses.

Hawkmon is repeatedly referred to as being like Miyako’s “knight”, since he has absolute loyalty to her (in spite of her ridiculous antics often meaning he gets strung around by her) and is effectively in charge of minding her so she doesn’t get too out of control. While his overly polite and gentlemanly demeanor initially seems like a sharp contrast to Miyako’s aggressive and messy personality, you might also notice that, at their cores, the two aren’t all that different -- both are unfailingly loyal to others, and both also have a penchant for dramatic theatrics and being a bit overly proud of themselves.

Iori and Armadimon

The key thing to know about Iori is that he’s not stoic because he’s not feeling fervent emotions, but rather because he’s constantly holding them back (this is especially apparent if you look carefully at his facial expressions and Urawa Megumi’s delivery, where you can tell his facade is often “slipping” even when his words would indicate otherwise). Since Iori is trying to live by the ideal of being a model citizen, especially under the very formal environment he was raised in, he comes off as mature for his age, but it’s very important to not forget that, underneath all that, he’s still an impressionable nine-year-old child with the wide range of emotions and immaturity of one, and when he does emotionally fall apart, everything tends to burst out (see 02 episodes 16, 44, 47, 50). In addition, Iori is never condescending about the fact he usually acts more mature than the others; the impression is that he’s much more strict with himself than he is with others, and in fact still does look up to his elders in the 02 group even when they’re obviously a lot messier than he is.

The “need to be a model citizen” is something looming over Iori’s head at almost every moment, and it’s the easiest way to understand the way he acts in a nutshell. Iori is focused on the idea of “becoming a proper adult”, which means that he’s adhering to all of these principles because he feels they’re necessary to live a proper and honest life as per the formal manners that his family background trained him into. But like a young child who insists “you have to do this because those are the rules!” all of the time, Iori is over-applying all of this, and even his own grandfather advises him that he really needs to chill (02 episodes 5, 24). In short, he struggles with thinking flexibly and understanding that life isn’t all that clear-cut, because he’s a young child. Since he also tends to bring out these things in relation to “what my father would do/say”, it’s implied that he’s basing all of this off of having only hearsay to work off of in regards to what his father was actually like, to the point of aspiring to an impossible, saintlike version of him he’d created in his head.

Note that Iori’s “rules” have less to do with institutional rules (that would be more of a Jou thing) and more to do with self-imposed personal rules; for instance, he doesn’t mind sneaking into school during a holiday when it’s obviously not hurting anyone (02 episode 6), but he struggles with things like wasting food (02 episode 3) or not formally introducing himself to an elder (02 episode 5). So in other words, his adherence to principles has heavily to do with “the right and proper way to live” more than anything, and what he believes is the right thing to do in a given situation.

Iori’s journey in 02 is largely fueled by the fact that, as an inheritor of sorts of the Crest of Knowledge, he has a sense of “I want to know and understand more” whenever he sees something that makes him curious, but unlike Koushirou’s desire to learn more about the world around him in terms of its technical workings, Iori mainly wants to know more about people. The reason he begins to let go of his inflexible mindset is that he has the humility to understand that he still has a lot more to learn and understand, and when he sees behavior from others that doesn’t make sense, he does his best to learn more about it -- hence how his aggressive probing into learning more about Takeru allows them to reach an understanding and eventual Jogress, and how he’s able to eventually reassess his own view of human morality and emotions.

Iori sticks out in that he almost always uses the formal variant of Japanese in most situations (nobody else in the 02 group does this). However, formal in this situation doesn’t necessarily mean polite; Iori doesn’t believe in flattery and will bluntly state his opinion in said formal tone, and will be very cold towards something he sufficiently disapproves of or doesn’t have any respect for, which can make him even come off as passive-aggressive at times. (Noticeably, while he still asserts his own opinion, he does refrain from criticizing the others in the 02 group too much, presumably because he respects and looks up to them a lot as his elders, regardless of how chaotic they can sometimes get.) In addition, because a lot of his demeanor comes from him restraining himself, when his emotions are sufficiently pushed over the edge, he loses grip on the polite form and starts “lapsing” back into the casual one.

Because Iori was so young during 02, and because the events of its story ended up really upending his view of the world, the huge eight-year gap between 02 and Kizuna makes it difficult to predict certain things about his demeanor at the time of Kizuna (especially since his own voice actor commented on the difficulty of conveying the nuances of Iori’s character, thanks to only being able to work with the limited time frame of a movie that doesn’t put him in the kinds of emotionally drastic situations that push him to his limit). That said, everything we’ve seen of him in the movie itself and the drama CD makes reasonable sense; now that he’s much older, he comes off as having much better restraint on his emotions and coming off as genuinely calm, but he’s still not one for flattery, and you can still see very minor slips in his facade every so often.

Armadimon also initially seems like a sharp contrast to Iori in terms of demeanor, in that he’s much more casual and laid-back, and he’s indeed a huge factor in reminding Iori to chill once in a while -- but, much like Iori, he prods and asks questions about anything he’s curious about. This initially seems to be out of simple-mindedness because, being a Digimon, he doesn’t understand human society that well, but his very basic questions often end up snapping Iori back to reality in realizing that he’s getting hung up on things that don’t actually make practical sense. Urawa also felt that Armadimon fills in some of the void that Iori’s late father left behind, in that he provides Iori with unconditional love and helps guide him.

Takeru and Patamon

Takeru is the kind of person who seems to dislike major disruptions to the status quo, so he doesn’t say anything inflammatory that’ll rock the boat. It’s very difficult to get him to talk about serious topics related to his deeper personal feelings (02 episode 17, 35, Spring 2003), and even when it’s clear he might have more misgivings on the situation, unless it’s an urgent situation where it needs to be brought up, he won’t voice his misgivings too clearly for the sake of not causing trouble (hence why Daisuke is so unsure what to make of him in the early episodes of the series, because Takeru constantly fails to clarify his own position in favor of a “good for you” or “sure, you keep believing that if you want” attitude). This also makes him the most likely to awkwardly change the subject or try to distract with small talk, and it means that, even when he’s saying cheerful, pleasant things, it’s very likely there’s pain or uncertainty under that initial facade. (Note that while his suspicions of Ken during 02 episodes 25 and 27 aren't nearly as vicious as Iori's turn out to be, we learn that he's still willing to quietly accuse Ken of working for his own self-satisfaction in the latter episode, but he never brings this up to anyone but himself.)

Because Takeru isn’t necessarily doing this to be consciously dishonest, it does mean that he also has positive applications of this tendency to take everything in stride and keep the peace, because he ends up keeping the more extreme personalities in the rest of the group in line and acts as an effective mediator. You could say that he has a pretty high amount of tolerance and a capacity for taking everyone’s points of view in mind. However, since it’s also very difficult to tell what he himself is thinking, his use of this as a poor coping mechanism for his personal trauma leads to a tendency for him to suddenly explode in a mess of emotions whenever something gets too personal, leading to sudden conflict, and with others at a loss in terms of how to deal with him (the most extreme example being 02 episode 19, but also present in 13, 11, and 34). This “two-sidedness” is why it ends up having to be the more consciously methodical Iori who steps up to try and understand him better as his Jogress partner.

Fortunately, Takeru shows signs of becoming more straightforward in the aftermath, although you can see that he still has a penchant for mild flattery and “trying to hold back for the sake of not being rude” all the way up to Kizuna (but, again, this can’t be said to necessarily be a bad thing when it means he has a valuable skill as a mediator).

Takeru has a fairly neutral speech pattern that comes off as casual but not too aggressive or assertive (not as absurdly polite as Iori’s, but slightly less assertive than Ken’s).

Patamon initially still seems to be “immature” in the same way he was in Adventure, which initially seems to widen the gap in personality between him and Takeru, but looking closer reveals that the differences aren’t as big as they seem; Patamon seems to have gained a capability for slyness and active trolling behind his playfulness (see 02 episode 7), not entirely like Takeru starting to use his evasiveness in a teasing-like manner. Moreover, Patamon does actually seem to have gained a bit of proper maturity in the meantime; see how he instructs the Baby Digimon on convenience store food in 02 episode 3, and in general seems much more willing to take independent action in ways he didn’t always in Adventure. Noticeably, Takeru’s difficulty with his own convoluted feelings means that he can’t even have a proper heart-to-heart with him about it on the situation (most glaring in 02 episode 34, where it’s implied that Takeru would rather leave Patamon to be happy right now instead of bothering him about it), especially because he’s clearly having difficulty even working it out with himself. However, despite their ostensible differences in mentality, Takeru and Patamon have no difficulty getting along at all in 02, and, other than Takeru pampering Patamon a bit, there isn’t all that strong of an impression of them being so mismatched -- perhaps because, in the end, they really aren’t all that different.

Hikari and Tailmon

Taichi stated in Adventure episode 48 that Hikari has a problem where she's so selfless and thinking of others that she'll never speak up about her own problems. Hikari states in 02 episode 31 that she compulsively cannot speak out about her own feelings even if she wanted to, to the point she’s jealous of Miyako for being able to be more open (even if it means being overkill at times). As a result: if Hikari’s talking about “the right thing to do”, or something for everyone’s sake, or something that’s relevant to other people and what’s best for them, she will be extremely vocal and quick to act, and she’s not above even chipping in with criticisms (see: 02 episodes 19, 32, 44). In fact, she’s fully capable of being playful or toying with others if she really wants to (see how she casually manipulates Daisuke into calling a lunch break for everyone in 02 episode 6).

The moment the issue at hand is about herself, though -- her own feelings or pain, or something that might hurt others’ feelings (hence the presumable reason she dodges Daisuke’s affections rather than proactively doing anything about it), or something that would put a burden on others for her own sake -- she completely clams up and refuses to do or say anything, and when bad things start happening to her, she resigns herself to her own fate and concludes she can’t do anything about it. Hence, why she takes such a defeatist attitude towards the Dark Ocean swallowing her up in 02 episodes 13 and 31, and why it’s such a big deal if she even so much as asks for help. 02 episode 31 indicates that Miyako reaching out to her is an important step in breaking her out of her shell, and the Kizuna drama CD -- which has Hikari assertively declare something she personally wants -- heavily implies further that Miyako was instrumental to this becoming possible.

Hikari is compassionate for others to the very end, expresses pity for BlackWarGreymon as early as 02 episode 31, and catches on quickly to Ken’s feelings on himself in 02 episode 37 (and even back when she’d been more skeptical about him in 02 episode 25, she never seemed to have real personal distaste against him as much as she still wanted to make sure he was trustworthy first). But although she’s one of the most compassionate in the group, she’s also one of the most assertive in the group. This leads to something that initially seems like a paradox: she’s actually more fervent about the need to fight than the more aggressive Miyako is. Miyako is, ultimately, emotionally caught up in everything and briefly falls apart at having killed LadyDevimon in 02 episode 44 (even despite knowing how horrible of a person she’d been), but Hikari is the one who points out that there would have been more victims if they hadn’t. 02 episodes 25 and 43 had made it abundantly clear that Hikari didn’t like it at all, but she states in 02 episode 37 repeatedly that they need to prevent there from being victims -- meaning that she values the importance of protecting all lives, including those who would be hurt in the process, and thus has some of the more resilient guts when it comes to the prospect of fighting to save others. Again, her hesitation only comes into play at its worst when it has to do with herself; working to save others is a no-brainer.

Hikari uses a casual feminine speech pattern that’s less in-your-face than Miyako’s, but she’s still a bit more casual than she was in Adventure, when she used the more polite watashi instead of atashi. Interestingly, Tailmon herself seems to have mirrored this as well, presumably because now that she’s had more time to recover from her miserable life under Vamdemon, she’s able to enjoy her life a bit more freely. This means that, while Tailmon is still the most mature and put-together of the Digimon partners in the 02 group, she sometimes acts a little more casual and playful in a similar way to Hikari, and while she has a certain degree of stuffy personal pride (see how she wasn’t very amused at how frivolously the other Digimon were playing around in 02 episode 3), she’s still open to enjoying herself a little more freely. Hikari, for her part, becomes surprisingly like-minded with her during those times -- see them in 02 episode 12 -- and, as stated earlier, it’s not like Hikari isn’t up for making tough decisions when they’re needed, either.

#digimon #digimon adventure 02 #digimon adventure last evolution kizuna #shihameta

72 notes · View notes

13parkfilter · 4 years

Photo

Ok I have some thoughts about Arrogance and the perception of arrogance, dissent, reputation, and entrenched power dynamics (ok damn is that enough for u) as it all interacts in WWX’s confrontation with the sects at Nightless City.

I’m obsessed with this scene (aren’t we all?) because it’s not just the only time we get to see Yiling Laozu!WWX let loose (which interestingly is motivated not by anger but by grief, not the subject of this post omg stay focused) but it’s ALSO, because of said grief, the most brutally honest version of this conversation WWX lets himself have with the people who are so angry at him.

One of the things the people who argue with WWX in this scene throw in his face as a flaw for which they can’t forgive him is his arrogance. We hear this from Sect Leader Yao (ugh) and from the guy who shoots an arrow at him. While the accusation is the same, the dynamics in each of these conversations is very very different.

The first man is a Sect Leader a generation older than WWX, someone who’s closer in age and status to WWX’s adoptive father Jiang Fengmian— i.e. someone who could reasonably be seen as a parental or mentor figure (if he weren’t so clearly full of shit) to the Sunshot generation of cultivators (LWJ, WWX, JC et al).

Let’s break this down. One of the fascinating things at play in CQL to me is honestly how full of shit the older generation is in how they strategically manipulate, control, reward and punish the younger generation of cultivators, and what behaviors they instill and enforce as a result. They’re the gatekeepers of cultivation society, the ones who decide who to regard as worthy and who to place in positions of leadership and power. There’s an interesting connection here between speech, words, argument, and how people are rewarded and valued.

Depending on who you ask, the most popular and respected cultivator of the younger generation is either Lan Wangji, who very rarely speaks, much less argues with anyone (yet is still accused of arrogance, a topic for a whole other post lol)— or Lan Xichen, who as we all know has the patience of a saint, and will set aside his own principles to drink alcohol at the command of a rude asshole at a banquet without argument if it keeps the peace. Meanwhile the most reviled cultivator of their generation is WWX, the person who talks the most, argues the most, and rarely if ever bends to a command from the older generation if he can think of a valid argument against it. If the Twin Jades care the most about deference, respect of elders and the appearance of civility, WWX is the person who openly flouts these things the most.

Here’s what adults won’t tell you when you’re young: Valuing yourself and your own perspective isn’t arrogance. Refusing to downplay or disregard your own sense of your worth is also not arrogance.

The thing is, people project their greatest weaknesses, the flaws they hate the most in themselves, onto others— that’s what a scapegoat is— and one of the most common follies of age is refusing to trust the wisdom of the young, and not being able to see when a system they’ve perpetuated and come to rely on is deeply flawed and needs to change, and may even need to be pulled up by its roots.

That’s what I see, and what I think about, when Sect Leader Yao calls Wei Wuxian arrogant.

But I see something different when the young, no-name cultivator with the arrow calls WWX arrogant (lmao I’m finally getting to the main point! From those pictures up top!!)— and that has to do with reputation, what happens when you become a public figure and what it means for an anon to call WWX, one of the most talked-about cultivators of his generation, arrogant.

This is where the connection to LWJ being called arrogant by Su She comes in. It’s the same feeling as the young archer, right? Like, who’s this asshole? These are both characters who have a problem with hero worship, characters who instead of following their own sense of what they should or shouldn’t do, base their actions (and in Su She’s case his entire public persona lol) around first imitating and then rejecting someone they admire but don’t fully understand.

This is very different from the clear-eyed, open-hearted hero worship the juniors come to develop for WWX. We see their regard for him develop slowly, over time spent interacting with him directly and by closely observing his actions, as well as openly questioning his actions when they don’t understand the motivations behind them. We see them each come to their own assessments of his flaws, to see how what seems like a flaw in one situation can be an asset in another, and that you can’t have the brilliance without the fire, so to speak.

We don’t get that with Su She or the young archer. These characters are distant from the objects of their interest, and the judgments that they pass happen in the realm of public opinion, based on incomplete information, public perception, and rumors. They confuse the image for the real thing. They look at WWX and only see the arrogant, heartless Yiling Laozu; they look at LWJ and only see the cold, untouchable Hanguang Jun. The juniors arguably hero-worship both of these characters as well, but they also have personal knowledge of them that they’ve learned how to integrate into their full image of each man as a complex human being with flaws and contradictions. What I’m trying to say is, this is why we see Jingyi giving WWX shit and then turning around to defend him to sect leaders in the same breath, while the archer at Nightless City is only interested in shooting WWX out of the sky.

WWX knows this intuitively— there’s nothing he can do to make that kid give him a chance. He’s not interested in why WWX made the decisions he did, he’s only interested in condemning him for not being whoever he made him out to be in his mind without ever really knowing him as a person. WWX understands in this moment what it means to have the reputation that he does, and also knows that this kid will never know what it’s like to be on the other side of that, because his safety is in his anonymity, and he’s able to pass judgment without taking any risks of his own. He’s the invisible type— until he shoots WWX that is, and is killed by him in turn, an action which no one present can accept. We expect great humility and inhuman forbearance from people whose public image has become larger than life. WWX responded as a person whose life was threatened, and everyone else saw the Yiling Laozu, wreathed in power and notoriety, striking down a nameless young man who looked up to him but was more than happy to condemn him.

In spite of being called arrogant again and again, WWX always does his best to upset power dynamics— to treat people higher (and lower) than him as equals, and to insist that they interact as people capable of understanding each other, not as symbolic beings hiding behind titles and courtesy names, or behind the power of their sect.

I’m tired so in conclusion: this is why I stan Lan Jingyi, the loudest and most brutally honest member of his own generation.

#cql meta #lan jingyi fan club #yiling laozu feels #v posts #can u imagine #calling someone who insults you in front of a crowd the invisible type #i aspire to this energy tbh

30 notes · View notes

hillarykylie · 4 years

Text

With all due respect to Lana, I’d like to politely and respectfully dissect her ig post and address the loopholes and fallacies in her arguments, in hopes to clarify why it’s inherently problematic for some, and hopefully bring people on both ends of the spectrum towards a middle ground :-) x

(in no way, shape or form, am I attempting to invalidate Lana’s struggles. Her feelings are completely valid and just like everyone else, she has every right to express herself unapologetically.)

(I do not condone any immature individuals sending her threats, but where dissenting arguments are presented on a factual basis by well-meaning fans and the general public, I’d like people to understand that not all criticism is bad or irrational. Criticism, when constructive and logically sound, can often serve as a fuel for self-improvement and advancement.)

Lana’s fundamental gist was her frustration in being unable to sing candidly about “morbid” issues in society without being censured or harped on by the media for her melancholic lyrical content.

She feels stifled and is tired of critics being critical of the way she unintentionally ‘glamorizes’ abuse and the pathologies of society, and proceeded to incorporate some of the biggest names in the music industry - many of whom were WOC. (Beyoncé, Nicki, Cardi, Doja and Kehlani), and goes on to speak of feminism and how she feels contemporary feminism doesn’t cater to her ‘aesthetic’ and singles her out.

There are so many reasons why her following arguments are deeply flawed and erroneous:

1. By name-dropping and bringing in stars in the industry who’ve been through the same level of scrutiny and castigation as her, if not worse, completely defies all logic in her paragraph and her purpose of cultivating acceptance.

Her comparison is not analogous.

These women have all bore the brunt of Hollywood and a predominantly whitewashed, chauvinistic music industry, and have undergone years of tabloid stings, scandals, controversies, to widespread denigration and misogynistic subjugation by men in the industry and the wider public.

Beyoncé has been in the industry for more than a decade, from her innocent Destiny Child days to her solo debut, where there was never a moment where she was spared from the media vultures, who preyed on her and slammed her for her music, to her looks, to her alleged “anti-feminist” lyrics, to her stance on Police Brutality, to her ‘glamorizing’ Jay-Z’s infidelity in Lemonade and to inconsequential things like the way she dresses her daughter, Blue.

Cardi and Nicki both, have been victims to years of media disparagement for their sexually explicit lyrical content and for proudly embracing their sexuality and their body confidence and self-love. Their music have been subject to relentless cynicism, with many arguing that their lyrics ‘promote promiscuity’ and what not.

More importantly, the fact that they’re WOC already puts them at an incredibly unfair disadvantage from the get go, as they’ve had to challenge not only misogyny, but institutional structures such as racism and xenophobia.

WOC have been known to be systematically and historically OPPRESSED by our patriarchal Eurocentric society, where andocentrism and white superiority takes precedence over everything else.

We like to think that society is becoming progressively ‘equal’, but that cannot be farther from the truth. There are always underlying race relations and power struggles at play, even if one denies it.

The reality is that it is completely out of character to compare her struggles to Women of Color, who not only face the same austerity of slander and retraction as her, but have had to deal with institutionalised discrimination and racism their whole lives.

She cannot pit herself on the same level playing field as these women for she’s not of ethnic descent, and is a fairly wealthy white cis female herself who already is privileged from the beginning.

These women Lana mentioned are and have been DOUBLY oppressed - in terms of their gender AND race, and have had to work TENFOLD as hard to even make a breakthrough in the industry, let alone set trailblazing records of topping charts - which is why their success is not only monumental, but legendary and should be commemorated.

If you’re not a person of Color, you would never understand, but you don’t get to tell people of Color what consists of racial microaggressions or undertones or not when you do not walk in the same shoes as them.

Just like there exists capitalism, racial discrimination and ostracisation has stood the test of time. POCs have never had anything easy, and have been systematically stigmatized since the dawn of civilisation.

What makes Lana, or anyone think, that people like Bey, Nicki or Cardi have never faced scrutiny for their lyrics, or are somehow precluded from criticism or hardships?

Drawing them as examples is a ridiculous analogy and reeks of white privilege. Lana cannnot compare her experiences of being “slammed” to what POC women have to go through to even be recognised or respected for their craft. Her race automatically puts her on the pedestal in life, where she doesn’t have to be affronted with the same level of systematic subjugation or suppression that the WOC have undergone.

For years, the contemporary feminized ideal was the ‘soft-spoken’ and ‘delicate’, overtly feminine white woman.

Black women have had to cope with being mislabeled as “aggressive” / “loud” for literal decades even up till this day, while the conventional, soft-spoken white woman archetype is celebrated all around the world. Today, the stereotype has been refuted thanks to the contribution of our WOC - who‘ve shown that there is femininity in being strong and charismatic.

Aforementioned, Bey’s lyrics have been dubbed as “anti-feminist” for ages, and the amount and magnitude of calumny bey received is simply, and unquestionably UNPARALLED to Lana’s.

America, the world, and feminism as a whole, have always CATERED to white women, while WOC have categorically had to bear the brunt of their unequal/restricted access to opportunities.

There’s space in feminism for Lana - she is not oppressed in any manner.

The problem doesn’t lie with these artistes, the problem lies right with patriarchy and the workings of a heavily male-dominated industry.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Women will always be scrutinised, judged and censored for whatever they do or say. Whether it be WOC or not, most women in lucrative industries have had to put up with shit from their male counterparts - it’s nothing new.

I hope this post highlights the hypocrisy in Lana’s statement in the most amicable way possible, without discrediting anyone in the process.

It is imperative that we are receptive to different viewpoints, and not class every dissent in opinion as a form of “hatred”, and not allude ourselves to ignorance.

Cheers x

#lanadelrey #misogyny #nickiminaj #dojacat #arianagrande #beyonce #beyhive #barbz #cardib #bardi #bardigang #rant #race #kehlani

7 notes · View notes

avaantares · 5 years

Note

So uh, I’m really really disappointed with the Torchwood fandom right now (over what you addresses in your post about being respectful/a normal human being online), and I’m just not quite sure how to deal with that. Sorry to barge in with this, but you seem like a really understanding, level-headed person 😅

I feel you, Anon, and you are certainly not the only one I’ve heard from! A number of people have told me they’ve been growing more uncomfortable with the fandom’s atmosphere lately, and have been actively avoiding posting about certain topics for fear of dogpiling. (This actually came up in a few private conversations before I made the post you referenced, and helped cement my decision to speak up.)

This post is long, so here’s a dash-saver. Below the jump I talk about the state of the Torchwood fandom, how people can avoid and resolve drama on their own posts, and some things everyone can do to make the internet a nicer place.

While my recent post was not targeted solely at the Torchwood fandom (the “how dare you differ in opinion from me” trend is disturbingly widespread; see also: politics), it is true that there has been a lot of sectionalism and polarization in that fandom lately. Fandom niches have always existed, but as the Torchwood fandom shrinks – whether due to natural attrition, lack of interest in the new content, or whatever reason – the Venn circles for each area of interest also shrink, making each group appear more segregated, and resulting in less crossover and less generalized Torchwood fandom.

Now, specific interest groups within the fandom are not a bad thing! They occur naturally, since not everyone engages with fandom the same way. Some people listen to the new Big Finish releases, while others have only seen the original series. Some people enjoy trading headcanons, while others aren’t interested. Some people create fanart or fanfiction, while others just reblog gifsets. Some people are only in the fandom for one specific character, and that’s okay! We’re all fans of the same source material; we can all share and respect each other’s unique interests!

The problems arise when we stop doing that, when interest groups become isolationist (i.e. ”we’re the only real fans”), or when one group decides their focus/interest is more important than another group’s or individual’s. If any group begins policing or calling out other fans who don’t share their views, that’s a problem. If fans are afraid to share their opinion on a topic because of the threat of harassment or name-calling from other fans, that’s a problem. If we can no longer politely discuss our respective viewpoints or agree to disagree, that’s a problem. If we all start blocking each other because we can’t get over the fact that Person A loves Gwen Cooper and Person B doesn’t, or Person C ships Person D’s NoTP, or Person E headcanons a character as a particular sexuality/alignment/whatever and Person F has a different headcanon, there will be no fandom left because everyone who loves Torchwood will be on another fan’s block list.

“But wait!” Person A cries. “[Opinion I hold] is really important to me, and is relevant to my personal identity! By disagreeing with me, Person B is being disrespectful to my identity!”

Sorry, but no. Certainly, Person A is allowed their opinion, and that opinion may well be informed by their personal identity or beliefs. But Person B is also allowed an opinion, which may also be informed by their identity or beliefs. Person A’s personal opinion is no more or less valid than Person B’s. It’s not about B being disrespectful to A by voicing an alternate opinion; it’s about both A and B showing mutual respect by acknowledging that the other person has an opinion.

Of course, just because you’re fully entitled to state an opinion doesn’t mean you are correct, or that you have license to say anything you want free of consequence. Any time you put your opinion out there, you are opening yourself up to disagreement or rebuttal.

“So how can I avoid people aggressively disagreeing with me?” Person A asks. “I hate reading dissenting viewpoints, especially on my own posts.”

Well, you have two options. Option 1 is for those who honestly can’t handle any level of conflict or disagreement, and that’s not to post your opinion at all.

“That’s no fun!” says Person A. “I like to share my opinions.”

Well, that brings us to Option 2: Set the tone of your posts. See, here’s the thing: If you post your opinion in an agonistic manner, you’re more likely to elicit agonistic response. Here’s an example of two different post tones:

A’s Post: I went outside today and looked up, and the sky looked blue to me, so I think the actual color of the sky must be blue.

This is a clear statement of opinion, phrased with supporting rationale, but it’s focused on the person who holds that opinion, rather than targeting or disparaging someone who subscribes to a different one. A dissenter might counter with this:

B’s Response: I’ve always thought the sky looked white. Those puffy spots up there are definitely white, so I think that’s the real color of the sky.

It’s relatively polite, with no offensive personal remarks, and (again) it’s focused on why they personally believe what they do. It is likely that this sort of rational discussion could continue for many exchanges without becoming heated or aggressive. Maybe one will convince the other, or maybe they’ll stick to their own beliefs and agree to disagree, but nobody’s getting hurt and nobody’s getting blocked.

Now, compare that to this type of post:

A’s Post: OMG I hate when those white-sky idiots say the sky is white, they must all be MORONS because it’s clearly BLUE and if you don’t agree you’d best unfollow me NOW because i don’t want you anywhere near my posts. This is a BLUE SKY ONLY BLOG.

This person has already personally attacked anyone with a different view, drawn a line in the sand, and declared that this is the hill they will die on – all without supporting their opinion with a shred of evidence or reason. Naturally, this will only serve to inflame the other side:

B’s Response: HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A MORON, I’ll have you know I have a Master’s Degree in Cloud Watching and I wrote my thesis on why the sky is white. Only uneducated idiots think the sky is blue. BLOCKED.

Yeah, this exchange is never going to result in any kind of rational discussion. It is already 100% emotional, and there is no actual discussing going on, just name-calling. Getting involved in this kind of argument is a waste of time and energy, will not change anyone’s mind, and will only succeed in stressing out all parties.

“But the sky really IS blue!” Person A protests. “It doesn’t matter what tone I take, I’m still right!”

Nah, in this case both sides are wrong. The sky’s apparent color depends on the angle of the sun’s rays, humidity, and the way light in the visible spectrum is scattered by air molecules. It looks blue when the sun is high, and red or orange when the sun is near the horizon, but the sky itself is colorless. (There’s your science fact for the day). Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how right OP thinks they are; chances are the other person is just as convinced that they’re right, and it’s entirely possible that you’re fighting over something completely arbitrary or fundamentally unimportant.

And that brings me back to the Torchwood fandom and the hill-I-will-die-on arguments that have been plaguing it more and more in recent months. There is one thing I think we can ALL agree on, no matter our individual interests, and that is that Torchwood’s canon is a hot buttered mess. The original TV series is internally inconsistent; the novels contradict both the TV series and other novels; the comics contradict themselves, the novels, and the TV series; Miracle Day contradicts EVERYTHING that came before, including parent series Doctor Who; and the Big Finish dramas try really hard to respect all the prior releases, and mostly just end up creating their own canon, because it’s utterly impossible to reconcile everything. If canon can’t even agree on relatively simple things like

whether or not Jack can get drunk (no: BBC novels / yes: also BBC novels)

whether or not Jack can sleep/dream (no: TV and BBC novels / yes: also TV and BBC novels, plus BBC audio dramas)

if Jack and Ianto went on a date after KKBB (yes: BBC novels / no: also BBC novels)

what year Owen was born (1980: TV and Torchwood Magazine / 1981: TV and BBC novels)

what Ianto’s sister’s last name is (Evans: The Torchwood Archives / Davies: CoE)

…there are bound to be contradictory fan views on more complex issues, and there may not be a clear “correct” or “incorrect” position. It is possible to find canon support for nearly any Torchwood headcanon, because Torchwood canon is consistently inconsistent. Don’t make every issue a hard line in the sand. Accept that people are different, and based on their own unique backgrounds and experiences, people can legitimately come to different conclusions when presented with the same canon evidence (or lack thereof).

(Hmm… it’s almost like this principle could also apply to real-life sources of conflict like politics, religion, and social and cultural norms. Maybe keeping an open mind is a good idea in general…?)

“Well, it’s MY blog, and I can say what I want,” says Person A. “If people don’t like it that’s their problem.”

That is absolutely true. But remember, whatever you put out there is likely going to come right back at you. If you go with a rude or aggressive stance, or if you make personal attacks, you should expect your replies/reblogs to be just as nasty. If you escalate, so will they.

“Okay, so what if I post something polite and someone STILL comes back with a nasty response?” Person A asks. “I’m honestly feeling so attacked right now, and it isn’t even my fault!”

There are a couple of solutions to this that don’t involve breaking out the napalm:

Check for a misunderstanding. It’s hard to interpret tone in plain text sometimes. If you think the person may have honestly misinterpreted your post, maintain the polite tone and either clarify your post, or ask them (nicely) to explain why they are so upset about what you posted. Look for resolution, rather than merely refuting their post.

Don’t respond. “Be the bigger person” may sound cliche, but believe it or not, the world will not end if you choose not to engage someone on the internet. There is great power in putting down the phone or stepping away from the keyboard, and it’s much better for your blood pressure and stress level. Plus, if that person keeps raging on posts and not getting any responses, it may make them wonder why nobody pays attention to their opinions. Speaking of which…

“YOO-HOO!” hollers Person Z from waaaaaaay over in the corner. “Hi there! I just came for the fanart, and I’d like to participate more, but I’m really stressed out by the way this fandom is arguing all around me. I’m worried that if I post anything, someone will yell at me and tell me I’m wrong. That would really upset me.”

So let’s talk positive reinforcement for a second! This is where the casual observers and innocent bystanders can have a lot of power to steer the direction that fandom grows. Ultimately, the goal of all social media is to elicit interaction, whether that’s in the form of Likes, Reblogs, Replies, Retweets, Shares, Follows, or what have you. Giving posts this kind of interaction is like praising the writer. Reblogging also makes that post visible to more people, potentially attracting them to your fandom circle. Posts with more notes get seen more, read more, and can set the tone for other fandom interactions. The more rational, polite posts get spread around and accumulate notes, the more rational, polite people will be likely to get involved, and the more likely a new post on that topic will be worded in a rational, polite way. Whereas interacting with argumentative, nasty, stressful posts will tend to make new people avoid your fandom, and will encourage more people to turn things into a drama-fest because that’s what gets the notes, and notes are currency.

So when you see a post that just looks like a slap-fight or upsets you in some way, just ignore it and keep right on scrolling. You don’t need to attract drama to yourself or your blog, and you don’t need to feed that machine. But if you see someone doing it right, or if there’s an ongoing polite discussion, consider getting involved in the conversation! You can comment, reblog, reply or just like if you don’t have anything to add. Pay the polite, thoughtful interactions in notes and let the harsh posts die an unreblogged death.

So, dear Anon, that’s a very long-winded expansion on my previous post, and one you didn’t exactly ask for. :) But you’re not alone; many of us want to initiate change for the better. I hope we can help the fandom return to the happier, more collaborative place it was not so long ago.

Be kind to each other, be respectful, let go of whatever is driving you to have the last word, and we’ll all have more fun and significantly lower blood pressure.

#torchwood #fandom #social media #social interaction #stress management #guidelines for discussions #slapfights on the internet #long post #anonymous

32 notes · View notes

anthonybialy · 3 years

Text

Obey Except Now

No: the other part of government is awful. Stop letting that one agency run your life. Noting who liberals trust shows their capricious desire to be controlled is about as logical as everything else they believe. They think they're being complimented.

Total obsequiousness is accompanied by an asterisk. The state's power to dominate without dissent varies like the left's opinion of the Supreme Court's validity. Five glorified lawyers getting to decide our nation's course is cool if the latest ruling keeps uncooperative Americans from interacting freely. Authority is awesome depending on their personal interests. People who want to keep what they earned are the selfish ones.

It's tough for the perpetually contemptuous to remember to keep true feelings to themselves. Liberals have been forgetting to at least pretend to respect cops.

Calls to abolish law enforcement are as levelheaded as they are sensible. The distaste for a way to deal with those breaking rules is particularly curious for those constantly creating new ones. Rational statists want government in charge of every last thing except punishing dissenters. How will they ensure fealty?

Disdain for those with arresting power is sickly endorsed by who government goons see as criminals. There are few scenarios where cops pull over CEOs. Those professional thieves show achievement is obtainable while employing countless fellow Americans who deliver affordable products to the rest. Meanwhile, very mature observers of reality who claim all cops are bastards excuse away every warrant.

Create so many laws that life turns lawless. Roving bands ensuring student loan forgiveness will be part of the landscape soon. Pinko congresswomen will oversee deputized vigilantes. The same gentle humans who try destroying anyone believing there are two genders are bound to be fair while sentencing bank executives to summary execution.

You must comply with mandates, although you can ignore the racist goons enforcing them. Those who believe cops aren't inherently enforcing totalitarianism by asking rioters to avoid incinerating cities are bootlickers. Those same very consistent individuals want the state in charge of every life aspect. Comply or be punished, except when actual punishment comes around. It's a sure sign concepts are sound when you must force participation.

Figuring just how they plan to ensure utter compliance is as thought-out as everything else statists believe. Arming feckless bureaucrats to hassle the successful requires more upper-body strength than is typically available. What next: they'll want to send social workers after domestic abusers? Oh: they really want that.

Erase the border to end immigration crimes. You can also end theft by making everything free. Bless those models of rationalism who arrived at the point where they want to hassle citizens while allowing anyone from outside to enter illegally.

Welcome yourself to America by breaking America's laws. That's only the start. Oscillating autocrats perversely extend their kowtowing to uninvited guests with endless subsidies. Who wouldn't try to hop the imaginary line? Tally one more instance where they don't understand incentives. Consequences have some nerve ignoring federal budgets.

Democrats should strive to trust American citizens as much as they do Iranian lunatics. The rabid desire to go leniently on a global supervillain who despises freedom in general as much as they do us in particular. They don't differentiate targets based on party registration if the side that sucks up to terrorist mullahs thinks they'll be safe from fallout if they're gentle about pursuing nefarious atomic dreams.

Those who like human nature remaining a mystery have decided the making everyone go through their firearm acquisition process fights crime. You can't get around the application unless you're willing to do something illicit in order to act illicitly. Gun control is nothing more than hassling the law-abiding. Making self-defense harder is a passion of those who never understood that an item can be used for more than crimes, such as deterring them.

Obey the honor system to select who's in charge of all this. Gentle souls who want government guaranteeing everything oppose guaranteeing votes are valid. You don't have to prove you're the election participant you say you are. Fraud almost never happens, according to those who prohibit checking for it. There's no quandary like requiring a vaccine passport to fill out a ballot.

Calling for total lawlessness is a curious move from those who want society regulated down to doctor visits. You get a wholesale exemption if you're made at society. Looting's criminals are those trying to stop it. I blame greedy stores that deny products by daring to charge for them. Prices are high enough that they profit off each transaction like true vultures. The opportunity to feed families with televisions is denied by an axiomatically avaricious society.

It's asking too much for those who want services rendered to be deemed free retroactively to think ahead. People who don't deserve a hard time are the only ones who get it. Bothering anyone who didn't go first is government at its worst. The strategy is favored by those who think government is best. Wholesale inconsistency isn't even the worst problem.

0 notes

atomi-cat · 7 years

Note

So I'm curious. It's great to be in a fandom, but sucks when toxic individuals slip into the mix giving normal fans a bad impression. How would you explain the difference between the normal fans and the toxic ones?

Good question! Unfortunately there isn’t a 100% system on telling normal fans apart from toxic ones until they post a message. Heck, sometimes normal fans can become toxic ones, and toxic ones can learn to let things go and leave people be. With that being said, there are at least a few things I’ve noticed about toxic fandom behavior.

The need for validation no matter what: This is probably the most common form of toxic fandom behavior, and I think we’re all familiar with it. The “I’m right and you’re wrong no matter what because I said so” kind of behavior. The kind of thought process that’s more concern with being right than holding a conversation or just leaving dissenting opinion be. I feel as though this is the most common because honestly, it the most understandable trap to fall into.People like what they like, and when they’re really passionate about something, especially if it’s something they can identify with, dissenting opinion can feel like an attack - as if you’re somehow a lesser person to the one how either doesn’t like it or has a different opinion. The reality is that more often than not, people don’t care if you like something or if you agree with them or not, and going in with the mindset that you have to prove them wrong is just going to turn people away from that fandom rather than welcome them in.

The black and white system: This sort of feels similar to the first one, but I feel as though this applies more to a group than just one individual. It’s the “I’m right and you’re wrong and if you disagree with us, you’re a horrible person” kind of talk. Again, there’s this weird thing in fandoms where the joy in talking about what you like about something can always run the risk of turning into a battle for validation. Nothing ever good comes from these kinds of talks because if it gets to this point, the person you’re talking to isn’t interested in hearing what you have to say unless it’s you agreeing with them. In both instances, it’s better to leave the conversation than exacerbate the issue. If they want to listen, they’ll come around and hear what you have to say. If not, leave it be.

The quizzer: I’ll admit, I don’t see this one around too much, but it’s basically the kind of person who insists that you must prove how much of a fan you are. They’ll ask you trivia questions, ask how much merch you have, etc. And if you get something wrong or don’t have something, they might be condescending about it, or in the case of merch, say that you MUST have a certain thing to be a fan. As if you need to meet certain requirements to be considered a fan of anything, even though there is no such thing. The only requirement for being a fan is to find enjoyment out of whatever it is you’re finding enjoyment out of. You can like a show because of the characters’ clothes for all anyone cares and that’s still enough to be a fan.

The police force: Here’s another one I hear about a lot, though I don’t have too much info on them other than what I hear. They’re similar to the first two, only they’re far more aggressive about their views and opinions. They actively try to attack or shut down anyone who likes something problematic “problematic”, and resort to truly awful tactics to get their way. They’re the ones who tell you that you’re problematic, that you’re racist, a bigot, a nazi, or any other negative terminology because of the thing you like. In some cases, they feel as though it’s even necessary to send angry mobs to this person, to tell that person to kill themselves. All for the “crime” of liking something different in the fandom that they’re in. These are people you want to avoid at all costs. It’s one thing to want a fandom to be safer and more accessible to people, but it’s unacceptable to try and police what someone should and shouldn’t like - especially if the thing in question isn’t hurting anyone.

The forceful recommendation: I consider this one to be the most harmless kind of toxic behavior, but it can be kind of annoying. This kind of action is the one where someone talks about something that they really like, and why you should like it, too. That would be fine, for the most part, if they stopped after the first time you told them no. What makes this toxic is if they don’t stop. They just keep bringing it up, asking if you’ve seen the thing they’re talking about, asking if you like it, etc. I consider this one to be mostly harmless because it usually doesn’t come from a place of malice. The person in question is probably just really excited and passionate about the thing they want to share, but it’s still kind of annoying when they don’t leave you alone when you don’t show any interest.

I’m sure there’s more, but there are the ones that come to mind at this point in time. Toxic behavior in a fandom, at least how I see it, is designed to shut people out, to silence differing opinion, and police peoples’ interests so that it fits with the “approved” way of liking something. If someone like this should ever approach you, either be respectable when talking with them, or ignore them. You like what you like, and as long as you’re not trying to use what you like to be malicious and/or hurt other people, why should it matter if someone doesn’t like the same thing you like? It shouldn’t, nor should you allow someone to take away the reason you liked something to begin with. Fandoms are more interesting when everyone is allowed to have their own opinion and freely talk about it with others, all the while celebrating what they like. The quickest way to kill a fandom is to force everyone to conform to one idea, and to shut out or scare away everyone else.

#atomi-cat #answers #greenirish7 #or you can be like me and stay on the outskirts of a fandom #only ever talking to people if they ask me something or if I post artwork XD #atomi discussion

136 notes · View notes

xxsparksxx · 7 years

Note

I'm not buying putting all the blame on Hugh. He's a young fool in love not some master manipulator that you claim he is. He's foolish and a tad ignorant to his surroundings but he's not a bad man. He doesn't even know he's dying yet so he can't possibly know to use that as a manipulation tactic. Pt one

Pt two: I’ve sent in another ask to you about Hugh that’s gone unanswered but I assume you’ve got so many asks it got lost or something. Saying he has no respect for the man he loves while defending the same man who has no respect for his wife is down right infuriating, especially if this whole deviation from the the books happens. Show Hugh is just a love sick pup. Already Ross hasn’t respected her, sure he saved high but he would have left him if given the chance. It was pure chance

Pt theee: and Ross has benefited greatly from the rescue

Hi, anon.

Gonna respond to your points, but I should also flag up that though I reblogged @rainpuddle13‘s post and didn’t offer a dissenting view, because I agree with the majority of what she says, I didn’t originate the post. I don’t think I’ve personally ever claimed Hugh is a master manipulator, though I maintain that he does manipulate Demelza’s emotions.

Putting this all under a read more, both for length and for people to avoid spoilers if they wish.

I’m not buying putting all the blame on Hugh. He’s a young fool in love not some master manipulator that you claim he is

Yes, he’s a young fool. Absolutely. But whether he’s in love or not is a different matter. In the books, as in the show, he actually only meets Demelza a very small number of times, and claims to love her from almost the beginning. He does this despite not knowing the first thing about her. Yes, he grows to know her more, but even so, we’re talking a handful of meetings across a period of 18-24 months, and letters sent from him to her, but not letters in return. I think he believes himself to be in love, far more than he actually is in love. I definitely strikes me as the sort of young man who believes himself to be in love relatively easily. It’s a crush, essentially.

As I said, I don’t think I’ve ever claimed Hugh is a master manipulator, but he certainly does manipulate Demelza, whether it’s consciously or otherwise. He flatters her, he charms her, he writes her poetry. For somebody of Demelza’s character, of her background and life experiences, that amounts to a kind of manipulation. And as to the final manipulation - well, certainly he plays on her compassion then. First he tells her this:

‘…My eyes will not behave. Once they refused to recognize a flag at two hundred yards – now they’ll not do it at fifty. Like any rebellious matelot, they will not respond to discipline.’She stared at him. ‘Hugh, I’m that sorry … But what are you trying to say?’He began to row again. ‘I’m saying I can see the land from here – just. Tell me how we go.’ Demelza continued to stare at him in silence. Her hand had been over the side, and she drew it in and let the drops fall on the seat beside her. ‘But it was to be better! You said that when we first met.’‘It was to be better but instead it is to be worse. I have seen two special doctors in London, one a naval surgeon, the other private. They agree that nothing can be done.’For Demelza the heat had gone out of the day. ‘But even if you are short sighted, there must be naval work ashore, or …’‘Not with this verdict over me. They think I have a short time.’’A short time?—’‘Oh, it is all dressed up in the Latin tongue like ribbons on a maypole, but what emerges is their opinion that there is something amiss behind the eyes and that in six months or so I shall be following in Milton’s footsteps, though without a suitable share of his talent.’

And then, shortly afterwards, this exchange happens:

He said: ‘Demelza.’‘Yes.’‘I wish you’d let me make love to you.’‘Jesus God,’ she said.‘Oh, I know it is – ill of me to say such a thing. I know it is both unfair and indiscreet of me even to utter such a thought. I know it looks as if I am trading on this kindness you are doing to me in an unforgivable way. I know it seems – must seem – utterly despicable of me to attempt, or even to think of attempting, the virtue of a woman married to the man who saved me from prison. I know all that.’She said, stumbling over the words: ‘We had better start for home now.’‘Give me five minutes – if only sitting here with you.’‘To say what more?’‘Perhaps to explain a little of what I feel – so that you shall not think too harshly of me.’She crumbled the fine sand in her hand. Her head was down and her hair fell forward over most of her face. She had kicked off her shoes, and her feet were sunk in the sand.‘I cannot think harshly of you, Hugh, even though I cannot understand how you can say it, especially today.’He brushed the water off his shirt. ‘Let me explain about one thing first. You think this is a terrible thing, asking you to be disloyal to Ross. And on the narrowest terms it is. But – how can I try to make it more clear? By giving love you do not diminish it. By loving me you would not destroy your love for Ross. Love only creates and adds to itself, it never destroys. You do not betray your love for Ross by offering some of your love to me. You add to it. Tenderness is not like money: the more you give to one, the more you have for others.’

This, to me, reads as manipulation. It is a conscious, deliberate attempt to play on Demelza’s inherent goodness, her love, her compassion and her kindness. I do not think it is a coincidence that he had, just a few minutes before, told her that he would be blind soon. He has learned her character, he has understood absolutely that she loves Ross and also that she is kind, generous and giving. He is using that knowledge to convince her to give in to the physical attraction between them, and the emotional attachment.

I absolutely don’t believe he’s a ‘master manipulator’. But I think he does manipulate Demelza. He finds out her character and ‘uses it’ against her (I say ‘uses it’ because I remain unconvinced if he did so in a deliberate fashion or whether it’s unconscious).

He’s foolish and a tad ignorant to his surroundings but he’s not a bad man

I don’t think he’s at all ignorant of his surroundings. He is absolutely 100% clear that his attachment to Demelza is wrong because she is married, and married to the man who saved Hugh’s life. He just doesn’t particularly care. If he did care, he wouldn’t have flirted with Demelza, wouldn’t have flattered her, wouldn’t have written her love poetry. Instead he would have stayed away and made sure they only met in company. Now, whether this makes him a ‘bad man’ or not is up to any individual reader’s discretion. I don’t think it makes him ‘bad’, but I think it’s morally reprehensible for him to be aware of all of the real, valid objections to his attachment - which Demelza herself brings up to him (pointing out that not only is she married but happily so, loving her husband) - and yet not only do nothing to avoid the attachment, but actively pursue it. Particularly in the light of having been saved from Quimper by Ross.

He doesn’t even know he’s dying yet so he can’t possibly know to use that as a manipulation tactic.

In fact, Hugh never uses his illness, when it comes, as a manipulation tactic against Demelza. It perhaps makes her feelings more acute, later on, but it’s not a factor in the actual physical infidelity, and not in the emotional infidelity either.

Saying he has no respect for the man he loves while defending the same man who has no respect for his wife is down right infuriating, especially if this whole deviation from the the books happens.

Ross has respect for Demelza. He absolutely has respect for Demelza. Even within the show, that’s clear. But in the book, this section from Ross’s POV makes his respect for her, and trust in her, absolutely clear. This takes place at Falmouth’s house, in section of the book that it looks like they’re going to cover in 3.08 - after Basset offers the nomination of MP to Ross, when Ross and Demelza have already discussed Hugh and her softness for him:

So he must not take too much account of the way she was blooming tonight. But he suspected there was something different about it; some look of serenity he had not noticed before. Of course any woman likes admiration, and new admiration at that, and she was not different. They had quarrelled once on a ballroom floor – God knew how long ago it was – that time, if he remembered, he had angrily accused her of leading on a pack of undesirable and undeserving men, and she had retorted that he, Ross, had been neglecting her.

This time he was not neglecting her, and only one man, the man she was dancing with, was in any way being led on. Armitage was an honest, charming and likeable chap, and there was nothing whatever to show that Demelza was more than the passive recipient of his admiration and attentions. Ross hadn’t really very serious doubts about Demelza; he and she had been so close so long; but he hoped she didn’t allow Armitage – almost by default – to imagine something different.

(bolded by me for emphasis)

Ross trusts her. He respects her. In the books, they are about as close as they have ever been since their marriage. Now, I agree that in the show the situation is different. The problem in the show is that the reconciliation between them, at the end of s2/beginning of s3, was not as complete and as deep as it was in Warleggan.

Regardless, Hugh is still approaching a married woman, married to the man who saved Hugh. I personally feel Hugh ought to respect that. Fair enough if you feel differently, particularly within the show.

Show Hugh is just a love sick pup

Yep, agree with you there, particularly the implication of ‘pup’ - ie, puppy love, immature love, a crush. He does not, cannot, truly love Demelza, because he does not know her.

Already Ross hasn’t respected her

As I said above, Ross does respect her. Certainly he respects her in the books, but also in the show. For example, leaving her in complete charge of Wheal Grace when he, Henshawe and Zacky Martin (ie, the three managers of the mine) go to France to attempt to rescue Dwight. He wouldn’t do that if he didn’t respect her intellect and common sense. There’s also the respect of recognising, at the end of 3.03, that she has every right to take decisions without him when he’s not there, and that he should support that.

Admittedly, he shuts her out of his decision-making rather more often than I’d like, but that’s not actually a lack of respect so much as it is his habitual inclination towards going it alone. I think, in the show, he doesn’t always acknowledge how capable she is, nor understand that her point of view is valuable, but ignorance isn’t the same as disrespect.

And also, frankly, it’s a fairly typical attitude of the time towards the role of men and women within marriage. It’s a difficulty that’s partly arisen because of this apparent need to ‘modernise’ Demelza, and make her more active and fiery. It becomes difficult to stick to the book in terms of her accepting and understanding his decisions. They have written her as being far more vocal and forthright about (for example) the risks involved in any given venture, but the decision is still made, because Ross’s decisions are often the reason the plot moves forward, and so he doesn’t listen to her, doesn’t discuss things with her, and so it comes over as a lack of respect that I truly don’t think he feels.

sure he saved high but he would have left him if given the chance. It was pure chance… and Ross has benefited greatly from the rescue

Yes, absolutely, it was pure chance. But that doesn’t mean that Hugh doesn’t owe his life to Ross. If Ross had not come for Dwight, Hugh would not have escaped. Full stop. And therefore, given the privations of the prison and, in the show, the inhumanity of the French guards, it is entirely likely that Hugh would have died there.

Yes, Ross has benefited from it. But does that really mean that Hugh should be given a pass on approaching Ross’s wife? Does it mean that, because Ross has gained a level of fame and honour for ‘rescuing’ Lord Falmouth’s nephew, we should not protest the fact that his chance rescuee is making advances on Demelza? A chance rescue is still a rescue. What does it matter what benefit Ross is or isn’t gaining from it?

Now, I will qualify all of this by saying that my opinion is based on the books, and that I am still willing to hold fire on show!Hugh until the end of the series, depending on how 3.08 and 3.09 play out. However, so far, I feel he’s being portrayed with remarkable book!accuracy, so I’m not certain how much my opinion will change. I think it will depend mostly on how they portray Demelza’s side of things. But as I’ve said before, in the books, Demelza doesn’t turn to Hugh because of any neglect on Ross’s part, or because of any dissatisfaction with Ross or with her life with Ross.

On a final note:

I’ve sent in another ask to you about Hugh that’s gone unanswered but I assume you’ve got so many asks it got lost or something.

Was this the ask about my opinion on the differences between show!Hugh and book!Hugh? It hasn’t got lost, but as you know, I do have to pace myself, and it’s a question that I’ve wanted to hang on to until I had enough energy for a proper answer. Which, today, I’ve now used up on this answer! :D I almost never delete asks without responding in one way or another, even if it’s only ‘I’ve talked about this before, check my tag’, so if an answer to a question hasn’t appeared, it’s not because it’s lost, it’s just because I haven’t got there yet. I have some asks that have been sitting in my inbox for months, but they’re not deleted and not forgotten, I’m just eternally playing catch-up because I get so many asks!

#Anonymous #sparks talks poldark #poldark spoilers #book spoilers #I will add this to my FAQ page

19 notes · View notes

returnsandreturns · 7 years

Note

So, on the whole I definitely agree that we are all drops in a damn bucket and nothing matters, but I think one group of dissenters that have a valid point about ~problematic~ fic are people who oppose folks writing about characters in [insert real world tragedy here]. idt it's really a thing anymore, or maybe I'm just not around those parts of fandom now, but for a while writing 9/11 and Haiti Earthquake fic was popular. I feel like it's tragedy porn and kinda disrespectful to survivors.

Another don’t reblog but oh, gosh, I totally agree with you. And I was a little flippant about ~problematic~ things because plenty of things that go down in fandom are legit problematic, like taking a major historical tragedy just to exploit it in the name of two white guys falling in love or the fact that fandom has always suffered from just as many -isms as the rest of society. We should definitely talk about that.

(Obviously, I’m a bit of a hypocrite, since 80% of what I write is two white guys falling in love, but I try to be cool about it)

I guess I was mostly thinking about people dog-piling on people who are told they are romanticizing things like rape and mental illness by writing self-indulgent fics about them--and then shamed and told that they’re actually perpetuating the thing they’re writing about instead of using their own clearly marked space on the internet to explore some complicated feelings. When, in reality, no fic that’s floating around in the vast moral gray area that is the internet is really going to make an impact on the wider culture the way that mainstream media or the government does. That’s my vague, un-thought-out stance. Let the kids write weird stuff because, as long as they’re trigger warning, it probably isn’t ruining our communities--but, also, talk about the problems that are inherent within fandom because it’s a tiny little piece of society that we can actually make less shitty, maybe, with respect and open minds and all of that stuff.

I’m sick and on sleep meds so there’s a large chance that none of that made sense, but basically I don’t really have a very firm opinion on how to address fandom politics besides, like, be cool to the teens for we were all once babies attempting to navigate our way through the bramble. But, also, don’t write a fucking Holocaust AU just because you think it’s scandalous. Most of my thoughts kind of contradict myself but I think there are some firm lines that shouldn’t be crossed without being addressed among all the gray area and the shadows and the dragons and stuff.

#i 100% agree with you on your point tho #i just need to make sure that nobody thinks i am making any grand declarations lol #Anonymous

10 notes · View notes

primitiveprimelab · 4 years

Photo

Overthinking It: Demolition Man Youtube Comments

We may’ve been on lockdown but Hollywood pitches don’t quarantine! Actor Sylvester Stallone has recently confirmed Warner Bros. is in the process of working up a sequel to the 1993 sci-fi action film, Demolition Man. The film starred Stallone opposite Wesley Snipes as cop, John Spartan and criminal, Simon Phoenix (respectively). The two nemesis, frozen in 1996 are thawed out in 2032, to what was then imagined to be, a brave new world.

I had the film in mind due to Simon Phoenix, who I remembered as a badass and energetic villain when I watched the movie as a kid. The film being released in the early 90s so relatively close (in time and location) to the Rodney King brutal beating by LAPD, and the subsequent LA riots as a result of the four officers initial acquittal, made me want to revisit the film’s depiction of Phoenix—The Black “crime-lord, maniac” who wrecks havoc on the peaceful, mostly white society of the future.

I found an amazing film analysis podcast that took a deeper dive than most would into Demolition Man. Aptly called Overthinking It, which is exactly what the episode’s co-hosts Matthew Wrather and Peter Fenzel did. Beyond just race, the two touched on a variety of topics regarding the film, unpacking the themes and social commentary. All the while giving the film it’s due as an under-appreciated, classic 90s action movie.

So much so, I took to Youtube immediately after to refresh my memory. I think I was about eleven or twelve when I first watched the film and perhaps hadn’t gone back since.

However, my rejuvenated interest in Demolition Man was quickly eclipsed by the comments beneath the videos—Which I swear are sometimes equally, if not far more entertaining than the content to which they’re commenting. I found myself on that familiar and always rewarding scroll into the kingdom of trolls and if-you-ask-me opinions no one asked for. Which I’m equally guilty of producing, so no shade. But what I quickly encountered, beyond remarks on Sandra Bullocks’ body and sea shell references (in our current time of TP shortage) were realizations on how much of our present, the film predicted correctly.

Its a thing we’re seeing more of as we catch up to the fictional future dates of sci-fi films from the 80s and 90s. Back to the Future Part II had us preview 2015, Cyberpunk classics, Bladerunner & Akira were both set in 2019. Terminator’s future, from which Kyle Reese travels back is approaching in 9 years and Demolition Man, 3 years after that. And while some of us are feeling scammed by what we call hoverboards today, scientists and engineers are divisively reacting to artificial intelligence. But suffice to say, the future we marveled at in these films, has already arrived.

So what did Demolition Man predict?

According to one Youtube comment: we’re out of toilet paper, no one’s touching, Taco Bell is bougie and Wesley Snipes is out of jail! It’s happening now!

The film’s future portrays a peaceful, sensitive, healthier society in fictional San Angeles, a megacity comprised of what were separately: Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Barbara). The city has banned unhealthy foods, makes cursing illegal, punishable by fines. Public surveillance has increased and physical contact, due to diseases of earlier decades, has been socially limited.

It’s obviously not the utopia it presents itself to be to the two time-displaced rivals—The citizens of San Angeles have been forced into this healthier, kinder regime and anyone who disagrees is cast out from society and it’s resources. Dissenters live impoverished and underground where they enjoy some freedoms, including beer and bomb ass rat burgers (if John Spartan’s Yelp! review is to be believed). Ultimately, within the context of Demolition Man, this non-violent, watch-what-you-say, health-conscious, disease precautionary society turns out to be the villain. For good reason, I would add but the vibe of some of the Youtube comments, specifically those leaning more on the freedom of speech and sensitivity commentary, aimed at expressing that our current society has similarly become just as oppressive.

That’s to say, because of political correctness and inclusive consideration to a spectrum of race, religion, and lifestyles, some people believe we’re in some Huxleyan prophesy come true. To use Demolition Man’s justified stance against the fascism of its world, as affirmation that we’re just as oppressed in our own, is interesting. And potentially harmful. While it’s true, anything taken too far, despite original good intentions can prove itself to be dangerous—But often enough, the people who find social justice unbearably oppressive, are those who hardly ever feel social oppression.

Meanwhile, political correctness and inclusivity—which seeks to level the playing field for those in our society who have indeed been marginalized and, in not such an obvious way, cast out much like the people in the underground of Demolition Man--Are truly fighting for the oppressed. An interesting thing to note is that everyone in San Angeles is oppressed but those who fit Dr. Cocteau’s vision of “citizen,” enjoy oppression with benefits or privileges. In many ways, the fact those benefits or privileges exist, is the oppression.

The overall discussion, I admit, is much more complicated but that’s also my point. It’s not as simple as “they can’t say anything they want in this oppressive world, so it’s the same as our world, where we’re starting to consider what we say.” It’s a tricky dance and both sides will have extremes and valid pushbacks but so long as that dance exists, we’re less likely to end up like the people of Demolition Man. Or not, what do I know? Maybe like Wrather and Fenzel, I too am overthinking it.

Listen to the Overthinking It podcast episode on Demolition Man here: OVERTHINKING IT! EP. 528 // DEMOLITION MAN: YOU’RE JUST MAING PEOPLE ILLEGAL

#letsmoveforward #issueone #primitiveprimelab #azraelencarnacion #demolitionman #sylvesterstallone #wesleysnipes #socialjustice #futures #film #sci-fi

0 notes

asenseofagency · 7 years

Text

3/26/17

It’s raining off and on, so the hike I had planned for today will probably get pre-empted for some other day. Just as well, I guess; I’m not totally against slouchy sweaters and tea and lounging with a couple of half-finished books.

I’m taking a second crack at Stanislaw Lem, having loved Solaris many months ago when I read it. Unfortunately, most of Lem’s (mid-20th century) books suffer a glaring lack of characters that aren’t white dudes. The women and POC that (vanishingly) appear in his books are environmental in a sense: when they appear at all, they serve the plot with, generally, the least investment of humanity possible. Meanwhile, white men are explorers!, administrators!, and scientists! capable of profound depths of thought and expression. I cut at ran the first time around when I got to a line in Return from the Stars about women being ill-suited as astronauts because of... their inescapable childcare responsibilities. It’s the price of admission to so much classic sci-fi. Shame.

But I was tempted to come back again, because Lem’s themes are so creative, so philosophical, and so exhaustively explored that they’re sort of irresistible if you can only force yourself past the sexism and racism of his time. I’m glad I did. I just finished His Master’s Voice which may now be, without exaggeration, my favorite book. An absolute masterpiece.

I find myself today in those doldrums familiar to anyone who has just finished a really, really great book and, having given your consciousness up to it completely for several days, you find yourself struggling to reassemble the wreckage of your life. Good thing I have a pile of a few more that I need to prioritize finishing. :)

Meanwhile, Real Life is a mix. I’ve more or less settled on a grad school/PhD program and, in the moments I allow myself, I am beyond excited about that next phase of my life. I’m a little scared too, as it will be the largest leap I’ve made outside my comfort zone in a while, and necessitate, at least for a while, a whole lot of solitude. I can tolerate a lot of solitude but where the boundary is between healthy solitude and isolation/loneliness... that’s not something I’ve had to negotiate in a while. Let’s hope my social sensibilities are still intact. I think they are.

I had a great conversation a few nights ago with a friend I haven’t had a sit-down with in a while. She isn’t in a awesome place, although her situation has been basically unchanged for years, but I haven’t got the first idea how to relate to her condition either, unfortunately, so we just sort of... abide...

The topic of a former mutual friend came up. Friend 1 is a smoother-over. She’d like to see us all re-establish the closeness we had years ago but I think our lives are too different for that now and that’s OK from my perspective. The break came when I spoke my mind about a topic I knew Mutual would have a stridently inflexible opinion on. As has happened before, she saw my dissenting opinion as an attack on the validity of her personal judgment - and I did get personal, in the sense that I brought up specific experiences involving people close to her to illustrate my point; there was no other way to ground my claim. I knew at the time that I was crossing a line but in my opinion, then and now, it was a line drawn by immaturity and fear, a line that ought not have been there at all.

To be less vague: Mutual had become close to a lot of people who were and are, in my opinion, racist and sexist; she denied that they were guilty of these things and when I pointed out instances of those behaviors, she, being loyal to her loved ones above all things - her best and simultaneously most compromising quality, again in my opinion - saw my scrutiny of her other friends’ behavior as mistaken and an overstep.

It is was it is. We had been drifting apart before that and maybe she’s found a real sense of community in her new circle. I wish her the best, I really do, but I think we’re fundamentally incompatible at this point in our lives. I’ve begun to separate myself from people who I feel are rigid and uncompassionate in their thinking or with whom I feel I can’t be totally honest. In my opinion, our relationship had moved into this territory even before the break happened.

Still, it’s strange to feel, as you attempt quite purposefully to improve yourself, that you’re finding the distance between you and others grows all the time. Maybe it’s the nature of the political climate. It certainly feels as if there’s a need to choose sides, with which I have no problem, and the compassionate choice is straightforward to me, but I find myself surrounded by people on the other side, the side of self-interest and the status quo. In a social sense, there really is no reward for polishing your conscience.

My ex, with whom I’m still obligate roommates for the time being, is having his own issues. He’s jumped immediately into dating again, which speaks to a need for attention he wasn’t getting in our relationship and with which I, in my current total self-absorption, honestly take no issue. He’s made the odd choice to start seeing a much younger coworker. Her parents tolerated this at first but their misgivings are boiling over just as that relationship gets serious. He’s visibly irritated about it and broached the subject with me briefly last night. It was the first time we’ve talked that we really haven’t been able to hit upon much common ground. I regretted this because that intimacy of conversation has been the one thing we’ve maintained through this breakup - that sharing, that confidence. This problem of theirs seems... inevitable from my point of view. New Girlfriend is young enough and financially dependent enough upon her parents still that she’s beholden to respect their opinions to some degree; that’s just courtesy. Their displeasure may make that relationship unworkable but pursuing a much younger person, who is also a coworker (for God’s sake!), just seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

People just don’t act rationally, man. I don’t get it.

Those are incidentals though. The biggest weight on me at the moment is the house. I’ve got to decide whether to sell or refinance and while I’m vacillating between my two opinions about it, time creeps forward toward a deadline.

Selling the house makes sense for me, financially. It’s in my name alone but my ex and I both have money invested - me, maybe twice the amount he does by virtue of a big difference in income. If we sell, we’d split the profits, but that would leave him looking for a new place to live and he admitted he didn’t like his options and he’d like to stay here.

Refinancing - only slightly less cumbersome a process than selling - would make the monthly payments more manageable for him on a single income but it would mean I’d be continuing into my new life without seeing any kind of payout of the money I’ve got invested in the house. Also, I wouldn’t be transferring ownership. I wouldn’t be out of the financial picture, which worries me.

So there’s the rub. Do I effectively evict my ex, try to sell the house at an aggressive price within a window of six months, and hopefully have a small nest egg and the luxury of going fully financially clear at the end of the process? Or do we refinance together on the basis of our shared income, establish co-ownership - I leave Ex paying the mortgage when I move for school and transfer the house to him during the proper divorce proceedings a year from now, losing my investment?

It comes does to money versus, I suppose, compassion and convenience. Money inclines me to sell. Compassion and convenience would indicate that I essentially hand over the house to him, though it’s likely I wouldn’t ever see again the money - thousands of dollars at this point - that I’ve paid toward the principal. With my impending return to broke student life, I could really use some savings, and I’m leaning sell. My ideal scenario would involve selling to him, obviating the need for a realtor. We’d be in the same boat of having to go through loan negotiations, a lawyer, and a closing but if I could sell the house to him at a small profit, both of us might benefit: I get a little spending money and am out of the picture and off the deed; he gets the house well below its ostensible market value and doesn’t have to move.

That hinges on his suitability for a home loan though, on the basis of his single (modest) income. There’s the problem: even if I “sold” him the house at below market value, whether he’d qualify for a loan of an amount that would make it worth my while is questionable...

I’ll have to think more on that. Maybe I can better flesh out that plan and we can work out a solution together. One thing that’s been a helpful adaptation through all this is having developed the ability to shelve tricky problems for a few days and come back to them with a fresh perspective. I used to be awful at that but it’s become so necessary in unsticking the many complex obstacles I’ve encountered over the last year’s transition that, though I never thought I’d say this, I’ve gotten very good at that small, impersonal, step-wise approach!

#personal #journaling #brain dump

0 notes