If you want to learn math, no amount of good intentions and warm feelings alone is going to help you understand math.
If you want to learn science you can’t just sympathise with a biology textbook without reading it.
If you want to learn another language you can’t just smile at the text until you understand it.
So if you want to learn how to be an effective ally, you have to learn about the people you’re trying to help and the bigotry you’re trying to fight.
It’s a nice attempt but you can’t purely affection your way out of the bigoted teaching that the dominant culture taught you.
You’re going to have to do some studying.
72 notes
·
View notes
listen i get where people are coming from when they say that nobody should have expected a radical overhaul of the shinobi system considering the series very squarely set up its main theme as not abandoning friends. that certainly was the setup. but i also think it would be inaccurate to say that the story as it evolved affirmed that refusing to abandon one's friends was the be-all and end-all fix for everything. i cannot emphasize this enough: it's not as though the prior generations we saw lacked devotion to their teammates. the problem was that the larger sociopolitical circumstances obstructed their ability to connect in one way or another. even naruto acknowledges at the land of iron that his and sasuke's positions made it impossible for them to reconcile. so for the series to do a 180 and assert that actually friendship was the solution all along (even though there have been no meaningful systemic changes, even though the source of these intergenerational conflicts has not been addressed) rings hollow. it's especially glaring that being violently beaten in a fight makes sasuke desert his quest for justice without any reservation -- therefore no ideological or political separation was bridged, sasuke was just made to forget what motivated him for the entire series' run. naruto and team 7 succeeding where their predecessors failed was not a function of anything they did differently, but mere narrative convenience.
75 notes
·
View notes
love seeing posts i already reblogged in me and Tommy's DMs, love being sent things I already saw and enjoyed because he saw them and knew the happiness it would bring me. Yeah I already saw this but the intention was there. The evidence of how well you know me is written on the wall. The color of the like button shows how much you care. fuck
6 notes
·
View notes
orvphil: so real
for example used analysis on the following instances
orville's physical reluctance & difficulty kneeling to propose to jane vs. readily swinging right into such a kneel with phil during 'til we meet again
'til we meet again
(see above) noting the "both immediately becoming So happy to be doing this" and "staring at each other for an unbroken ten seconds after finishing the song which was evidently beyond simply a [hold for applause] thing"
having indeed an adorable little meet-cute, which may not be an integral part of every eventual writer/lyricist & composer partnership
when phil drops in at wingate manor and he an orville have a private little wave to each other like =)
sitting next to each other sharing a hay bale and orville gets drinks for them both and phil walks orville home
lucky day
the choreography where orville's at the piano and phil swings it out while rotating it and orville's "walking" while sitting to one side to help (my analysis: going ohhhhh ;w;)
both simultaneously answering "his" when asked whose song it is like the earnest effortless mutual admiration and appreciation huh fellas
margaret talking about protecting your heart from these theatricals; orville Is one of these theatricals, and he loves it; phil watching him / reacting in this moment including his little "hell yeah" move like he had for orville going off in lucky day
their general enthusiasm together / for each other / enjoyment of being around each other and increased ease of operating when around each other
phil wishing orville could hear his music and talking about how orville ruined his own night to save theirs, then remarking "...what a guy!" mmhm
🌈🌈🌈
10 notes
·
View notes
Increasingly annoyed by people who act as tho a film they don't like has no themes or coherent ideas just because they don't like it. Specifically talking about people who will rant and rail against a movie, especially for being dumb or confusing or out of character or a similar critique, but then actively demonstrate that they did in fact understand and pick up on the themes and ideas of the movie, but they hand wave it away with a "but that's dumb" or a "what were they were even going for?" It's intellectually lazy, and it's dishonest.
If you genuinely didn't understand a film, that's fine. If you're so disinterested in or disappointed by a movie that you don't care to examine it more deeply, that's fine. If it's hard to articulate exactly what the problems you have with the work are, that's fine.
But when people behave as tho they didn't understand it or they don't care enough to analyze it, when clearly they did understand it and just didn't like it, it's like why do you think whether a movie sets up and then delivers on a concept or idea hinges on whether you enjoyed it or not? Why should I take your criticism seriously if you won't do the movie the same favor?
I see people say things like "I guess they were going for (insert theme here) but that's stupid." What from the text of the film makes you think that's what they were going for? What do you mean by "that's stupid"? Is it poorly executed? Is it antithetical to another theme in the work? Is it silly or tonally dissonant? Or did you just dislike it too much to analyze it further? Did it just disappoint you or rub you the wrong way?
Like I just wish people would either go there and actually do the work of saying "here's what I think they were going for, here's where they were successful and here's where they failed" or be honest and say "I picked up on some things, but I'm not interested in exploring the themes because it disappointed me so much."
7 notes
·
View notes
Jango Fett Open Seasons: Retreat vs. fight no matter the cost
Another detail from Jango Fett: Open Seasons that I find very telling about characters is their approach to retreat. I’m specifically want to talk about the four major Mandalorians - Tor Vizsla, Jaster Mereel, Jango Fett and Montross as they all were at some point in the story put in situation when they needed to decide to continue fight no matter the cost (in theory the ideal Mandalorian warrior mindset) or to prioritizing their people’s life (a choice testifying to good leadership). And yes, those situations weren’t always exactly the same yet similar enough to see the implied(?) similarities in theoretical dissimilar characters.
So we have Jaster Mereel, the original leader of True Mandalorians. During a mission on Korda Six, when Mandalorians came across the enemy's heavy fire (and Jango ordered his people to find cover), Jaster gave an order to regroup at Jango’s location - the safest place and abort the air strike.
And once it became clear, they made a mistake to rely on second-handed intel - but before they learned it was Death Watch's trap - Jaster decided to abort the whole mission. Something quite different from what Jango will teach his son decades later (“Your loyalty, your honor – these are the things that matter. When you accept a mission, when you give your word, it is all that matters.”)
Montross however refused to regroup at Jango's location
and continued the attack, stating "we've never abandoned a mission!"
Montross survived thanks to Jaster who personally came to his aid only to betray his leader and leave him behind once Tor showed up. And while he tried to take command of True Mandalorians, he did order an evacuation, as the "Jaster's last order still stands" argument.
Then we have Tor Vizsla who during Jango’s attack on Death Watch’s ship, ordered everyone to evacuate.
And now, let’s talk about Jango Fett who started very much minded like Jaster, what was the best visible on Korda Six. The mission was his first official role as Squad Commander but he didn’t allow pride or desire to make Jaster proud to take over common sense. When it became clear his men were under too strong enemy’s fire, he ordered them to get into trenches / find cover.
However on Galidraan, as a leader of True Mandalorians, when he already knew they walked again into Death Watch’s trap, instead of de-escalate threat of the Jedi by at least trying calm down the situation and presenting what is going on behind the scene- and mind you, the Jedi did not have all facts but Fett already met Vizla at Governor's residence and as he wore helmet at that time, most likely had recorded this, not to mention all Mandalorians could present what they were doing and where they were via the recording from helmets - Fett ordered to open fire. And the Jedi naturally responded as such.
(And really, if Fett was smarter he could at least try to turn Jedi against Death Watch).
This is even more surprising choice as Jango's first reaction upon seeing Republic shuttles before even meeting eye to eye with Jedi was to call his second-in-command to order an evacuation.
Which is pretty ironic, that both Jaster and Tor, despite their ideological differences, were at some point shown to prioritizing their men’s safety by ordering retreat / evacuation, while Jango started as similar minded (Korda Six and upon seeing Republic shuttles on Galidraan) but once Jedi showed up, his attitude changed into “no running, fight whatever the cost” which not only led to great tragedy but made him more like Montross.
19 notes
·
View notes