Thinking about the time I lost a game of Overwatch and I was so mad about it that I genuinely considered getting into shit with the other team in chat and then realized that it was a colossal waste of my living breathing Human Time and uninstalled Overwatch instead because it was only making me angry.
And then thought about the OTHER time when I was on TikTok and realized I was Not Enjoying Myself and was, in fact, seeing so many sad videos and fake influencer ads that I felt Truly Despondent and then just…Deleted it.
Imo I want my social media /general media experience to be a pleasant break from real world and I get to decide what I get to cull to make that a reality for myself. I highly reccomended it! Life has improved considerably!
23K notes
·
View notes
The deeply moralist tone that a lot of discussions about media representation take on here are primarily neoliberal before they are anything else. Like the shouting matches people get into about “purity culture” “pro/anti” etc nonsense (even if I think it’s true that some people have a deeply christian worldview about what art ought to say and represent about the world) are downstream of the basic neoliberal assumption that we can and must educate the public by being consumers in a market. “Bad representation” is often framed as a writer’s/developer’s/director’s/etc’s failure to properly educate their audience, or to educate them the wrong way with bad information about the world (which will compel their audience to act, behave, internalise or otherwise believe these bad representations about some social issue). Likewise, to “consume” or give money to a piece of media with Bad Representation is to legitimate and make stronger these bad representations in the world, an act which will cause more people to believe or internalise bad things about themselves or other people. And at the heart of both of those claims is, again, the assumption that mass public education should be undertaken by artists in a private market, who are responsible for creating moral fables and political allegories that they will instil in their audiences by selling it to them. These conversations often become pure nonsense if you don’t accept that the moral and political education of the world should be directed by like, studio executives or tv actors or authors on twitter. There is no horizon of possibility being imagined beyond purchasing, as an individual consumer in a market, your way into good beliefs about the world, instilled in you by Media Product
879 notes
·
View notes
Where did this idea that aggressive harassment, sending death threats, bullying, doxxing, telling people to kill themselves, using homophobic and antisemitic slurs, attacking people’s looks, encouraging hate crimes, threatening to release sex videos, and engaging in a wide range of genuinely psychotic behaviors from behind a screen is reasonable and acceptable and even necessary “progressive” activism come from?
Yes, this is about the Noah Schnapp situation, but it’s about more than that, cause I’ve noticed this kind of mindset becoming more and more normalized, and I’ll never agree with it. How does this kind of behavior help the Palestinian people (or any other cause you’re being an “activist” for?) How does this kind of behavior encourage Noah or anyone else to change their views? How does wishing for Hamas to brutally murder the entire Schnapp family lead to peace and justice? How does saying Noah should dig up his dead dog and eat it stop bombs from dropping on Gaza???
I think all of us can agree that what’s happening in Israel/Palestine is horrible and stomach-churning. And I think most of us can agree that Noah wielding “Zionism is sexy” stickers when children are dying is tone-deaf and extraordinarily foolish at best. Please don’t mistake my words for saying that no one should ever be criticized or an endorsement of Noah’s reckless actions. But if you don’t have ANY compassion for the anxieties Jewish people face at a time when antisemitism is skyrocketing, that’s very concerning to me. Why can’t two things be true at once?
There’s this insidious notion that cruelty/calls for suicide/bullying are tools to weaponize against “bad” people, as if human decency, kindness, and empathy are food items to be snatched away whenever folks are deemed problematic (whether the reason is valid or not). People fancy themselves radicals, as if they are fighting in the French Revolution, when they are… not. I promise you that tweeting like this all day doesn’t make you a hero. It makes you look foolish:
446 notes
·
View notes
*deep breath in*
the fears 👏 have always 👏 been (in one way or another) 👏 parallel 👏 to 👏 desire 👏
let me explain.
so many of the statements given by actual avatars center around some sort of need that was met by their entity. Lots of them even had a positive relationship with the fear that drove them.
Jane Prentiss is an excellent example - the Corruption has always been about a form of toxic and possessive love, but she personally has a deep desire to be “fully consumed by what loves her,” and finds a perverse joy and relief at allowing herself to be a home
Jude Perry is another - she fucking loved watching people’s lives be utterly destroyed. The Desolation only offered her a power of destruction on a grander scale, and then gave her a more intense rush of joy as she did its work. When she tells Jon that he needs to feed the Eye before it feeds on him, it’s almost as an afterthought; she was happily feeding the Desolation long before it burned her into a new existence.
Simon Fairchild. Every time that old loose bag of bones wanders into the picture, he is having a fucking EXCELLENT time playing with the Vast. He loves showing people their own insignificance, and he loves luring them into situations where he can throw them into the void as he smiles and waves.
Peter Lukas (hell, the whole Lukas family (except Evan. RIP Evan.)) hated. people. all he wanted was for them all to go away, to leave him alone. The Lonely only fulfilled that desire.
Daisy, Trevor, and Julia, all devoted to hunting those things they deemed monstrous.
Melanie, holding tight to that bullet in her leg because on some level, she wanted it. It felt good, it felt right, it felt like it fit right alongside the anger and spite that drove her to success.
Annabelle Cane first encountered the Web when she was a child, running away from home in order to tug on her parents’ heartstrings in just the right way to have them wrapped around her little finger. Later on she volunteered to be the subject of an ESP study. Hell, she’s the one who dangled the “Is it really You that wants this?” question over Jon’s head in S4.
And that brings us to Jon, beloved Jarchivist, the Voice that Opened the Door. Ever since he was a child targeted by the Web, he was looking for answers. He joined the Magnus Institute’s Research Department looking for them, he stalked his coworkers in search for them, he broke into Gertrude’s flat and laptop out of desperation for them. And when he realized that all he had to do was Ask to get truthful answers to his questions? It was only natural for him to jump at that opportunity.
Elias told S3 Jon that he did want this, that he chose it, that at every crossroads he kept pushing onwards, and the inner turmoil that caused was one of the focal points for Jon’s character through the rest of the podcast.
There’s a certain line of thinking in many circles about the power of the Devil: he’s not able to create anything new. All he’s able to do is twist and warp that which was already present, making it something ugly and profane while still maintaining the facade of something desirable.
Jon didn’t choose the Eye. But he did wander into its realm of power, exhibiting exactly the qualities it was most capable of hijacking and warping to its own ends. Jon didn’t choose the Apocalypse. But Jonah picked at him little by little, pointing him towards each Fear individually. Jon didn’t want to release the Fears. But the Web tugged on his strings just so and laid a pretty trail for him to follow until he reached its desired conclusion.
Jon didn’t choose ultimate power, or omniscience, or even his own role as Head Archivist. But he said “yes” to the right (wrong?) orders and kept on pushing for the right (wrong?) answers. He wanted to succeed at the work he had been assigned. He wanted to protect his friends. He wanted to rescue them when they were lost. He wanted to prevent the apocalypse, to save the world. He wanted to know why he was still alive, when so many had died right in front of him.
The Great Wheel of Evil Color that is the Entities might not fit as neatly into categories in this universe - maybe there was no Robert Smirke trying to impose strict categories on emotional experiences, or maybe the ways they manifest in the world has turned on its head (goodness knows many of them have been showcased and blended in some very fun and new and horrifying ways so far) - but their fundamental foundations seem to be the same. Hell, in episode one we learned that there had been enough individual incidents to create a distinction between “dolls, watching” and “dolls, human skin.”
Smirke’s Fourteen isn’t going to be relevant as common parlance, RQ said that already, but I don’t think that means the Fears themselves (and their Dream Logic-based rules) are different - I think it means that the levels of understanding, language used, and personal connections among people “in the know” are going to be entirely unfamiliar
223 notes
·
View notes
Queerness in Indian Media
↳Film: RRR (2022, Telugu), dir. S.S. RAJAMOULI
RRR is a historical fantasy action drama that follows Bheem (NTR Jr), a Gond warrior who is in search of a Gond girl who was taken away from their home, and Ram (Ram Charan), the British Army officer assigned to catch him. Ram and Bheem meet under false identities and quickly grow closer, but everything is thrown into chaos once the truth is revealed and Ram is forced to choose between his ambitions and his attachment to Bheem.
Long before any white person had ever heard of RRR, queer Indians were cautiously optimistic that there would be something for us in this movie. There was the song Dosti, which felt more romantic than the average song about friendship; Bheem's intense declaration toward Ram in the trailer; Rajamouli explaining that there is no boy-girl romantic song (a staple of masala Indian cinema in any language) because "the romance angle is between these two guys only...bromance...they are the heroes, they are the hero and heroine, and they are the hero and villain"; the lead actors repeatedly questioning interviewers who referred to Jenny and Seetha as Bheem and Ram's love interests; and the writer, V. Vijayendra Prasad, being a huge fan of Salim-Javed movies, particularly Sholay, whose homosocial pairing has been read as queer by queer Indians for decades.
The movie itself gave us more than we could have hoped for from a project made on such a huge scale. Ram and Bheem mimic many of the "hero and heroine" pairings in so many masala movies, doing everything from the "slow-mo staring" for the first meeting, to getting a whole montage song for the progression of their bond, to dressing each other up, to dancing together at a party, to carrying each other, to rescuing each other.
The final rescue scene is perhaps the most telling, as it twists a well-known myth from the Ramayana by putting Ram and Bheem in the position of heroine and hero. It is not Hanuman who tells Rama where to find Sita in Lanka, but instead Seetha who tells Bheem where to find Ram. Bheem, upon finding him, promises to get him out 'even if [he has] to burn this Lanka down to do it'--then promptly carries him on his shoulders the way Hanuman carried Rama, to do away with any suspicions from homophobic audiences.
Those homophobic audiences still made their complaints--a glance at the oldest comments on any clip or behind the scenes video for RRR will make that clear--but they were drowned out by the many fans of the movie. Ultimately, like with any coded movie, the interpretation is up to the individual, but it is undeniable that a number of queer Indians felt that there was a romantic bond between Ram and Bheem. To dismiss that would do a disservice to the many queer people who have, are, and always will work quietly behind the scenes to write our stories, even if they can never say so directly.
682 notes
·
View notes