richardrambles

[richardrambles]

Hot Take: We need ugly bastards in yaoi.

[richardrambles]

GOD BLESS MIHOYO FOR ALLOWING FEMALE AND MALE SIMPS TO COEXIST ALONGSIDE ONE ANOTHER

[richardrambles]

This is a part of my series on bad Twitter rhetoric, where I discuss my thoughts on (in other words, rant about) bad rhetoric I've seen being used by Twitter mobs countless times. If you'd like to see the other parts of this series, you can view the other posts I have posted/will be posting to the hashtag #richardrambles bad twitter rhetoric

While my last post on what Twitter had to say about Maddie Ziegler and Sia (which you can find here) may have been a little petty, the piece of Twitter rhetoric I'm going to be discussing this time isn't!

"If you're not a part of X community, you're not allowed to accept Y person's apology". While I understand that this awful piece of rhetoric isn't specific to Twitter, and can be found on countless other platforms, it is most commonly used on Twitter.

Now, I know that this piece of rhetoric seems harmless enough-- I mean, it's supposed to protect marginalized groups, isn't it? In which case, let me ask you a question.

At a rape trial, would you install a panel of rape victims to serve as the jury? I'm not asking if you'd install one or two rape victims as members of the jury, I'm asking if you'd ensure that every single member of the jury is a rape victim. Of course, I'm walking a pretty tight line here by using this example, because if my time debating academically has taught me anything, morality and legality aren't to be confused with one another.

So let me use another example instead. Should it be up to students which of their teachers stay, and which of them gets the boot? I'm not asking if students should or should not get a say, I'm asking if the decision should rest entirely on their shoulders. Or even better, should it be up to employees whether or not their higher ups get fired? Once again, not asking whether or not employees should have a say or not, just asking whether the word of the employees should be the be all end all.

Systems in the real world have been designed so that everyone has some degree of protection. While obviously, student and employee feedback systems aren't perfect, if you feel as if your manager has been abusing their power, you can still report them. You as an employee are protected. However, your manager is also protected in the case that the panel of people you've reported them to decides that your complaint is unjustified. Yes, perhaps your manager and the big boss are in cahoots with one another, and no matter how justified your complaints are, the big boss will never give your manager the boot. However, that is a failure of the system. A failure of the system to protect everyone, to protect the employee in this case. Just because there is a failure in the system, that does NOT mean that we should silence all managers and only let the employee do the talking just IN CASE the manager and the big boss are colluding together. If anything, that is an extra burden on the shoulders of managers who may not actually have that sort of disproportional protection from their higher ups. We are making them shoulder the faults of managers from other firms, or institutions, even if it may not necessarily apply to them.

Of course, I understand that the broken system we need to fix here is "the system which ensures that the voices of members of marginalized communities are heard and not drowned out", which is much harder to regulate than what goes on in institutions such as businesses. Obviously, the government can't dispatch a board of specialists to investigate whether or not the voices of POCs or women are listened to the way they can investigate whether or not there has been a breach of protocol in a business.

But that doesn't mean that we should simply blame the system for disproportionately favoring cis white men, and choose to disproportionately favour people who don't fall under that category instead. If anything, it should be our responsibility to fix the system by listening to the voices of those impacted the most, while also viewing everything that they say with a critical eye instead of accepting it as gospel.

[richardrambles]

This is the first part of my series on bad Twitter rhetoric, where I discuss my thoughts on (in other words, rant about) bad rhetoric I've seen being used by Twitter mobs countless times. If you'd like to see the other parts of this series, you can view the other posts I have posted/will be posting to the hashtag #richardrambles bad twitter rhetoric

I personally think that "if a man did X thing, you wouldn't be defending them like you're defending X woman" is lazy rhetoric. While I understand that the messaging is supposed to be good, and that this piece of rhetoric is supportive of victims of female predators, I'm still going to be petty by complaining about how it's a very illogical argument to make.

So, I saw this comment a while ago commenting on Maddie Ziegler's relationship with Sia, including the fact that Sia once stated that she and Maddie often cuddle with one another in bed, and that Maddie is like a daughter to her. The comment basically said something along the lines of "if Sia was a man, y'all would be hating on her. Where's the same energy when it comes to this situation? She's still grooming a child, even if it's not sexually."

While Sia may very well deserve the criticism she's received for her treatment of Maddie Zeigler, I don't really like how this comment is implying that we should hold Sia accountable for her actions to the same extent as we should if a man did the same thing with his underaged backup dancer.

Think of it this way. Somewhere, there exists an alternate universe where it's perfectly socially acceptable to murder someone. An increasing minority of people are starting to view murder as being morally unacceptable, but the majority think that there's nothing wrong with it. Then, there's our society, where the vast majority of people agree that murder is socially unacceptable. Let's just say that someone in our world commits murder, while another person in this alternate universe also commits murder. Let's also say that they commit murder under the exact same conditions, while they were in an argument with their spouse and not under the influence of alcohol or other similar substances. If it were up to you, would you punish the both of them to the same extent? Or would you punish the person who decided to murder their spouse while being fully aware that doing so is socially unacceptable, and still made a conscious decision to defy this social rule more severely? While, in spite of the fact that you think that murder is immoral, you can't really fault someone for doing something immoral if they were never told by the majority that doing it was immoral.

As such, a social consensus that it's creepy for men to cuddle with their underaged backup dancer exists in our society, and it should be in the back of every man's mind whenever they interact with anyone. Therefore, if he actually did do it, he'd be consciously going against a social rule that we as a society have collectively agreed upon, and should be punished severely for it. This social consensus doesn't really exist for women though! So is it really fair to be punishing Sia the same way we'd punish men who do the same thing? No, not really.

I think that it would honestly be better for Twitter mobs to just point out what's wrong with Sia treating Maddie so intimately instead of relying on bad rhetoric to get their point across. But then and again, it doesn't really matter because the message is still kind of getting across and their intentions are good so who cares

[richardrambles]

My Thoughts On The Demi Lovato + Froyo Shop Incident

Trigger warning: mental health + eating disorders.

Demi Lovato has recently come under fire for her comments regarding a frozen yogurt business. I won’t delve too deep into the specifics, and you can read about it here instead. In this post, I will be discussing my thoughts on the issue at hand, and providing my own take on it.

Firstly, I agree with Demi’s criticism of the froyo shop for not making it more explicit that their sugar-free alternatives were made for people with health problems instead of those looking to diet. Sugar-free, gluten free and other similar terminology are quite commonplace phrases in diet culture, not just amongst those with health problems. As such, by marketing a product as being “sugar free”, it’s highly possible that doing so can further enable someone’s eating disorder. If companies making it clearer that they do not endorse eating disorders, and that they only seek to protect those with pre-existing health conditions, helps someone with an eating disorder feel valid and accepted, then I really don’t see the harms in doing so.

Do I think that it’s a little cringe how Demi doesn’t recognise that other people have health problems? Yeah, kinda. I don’t really believe that this proves that she’s a selfish person, however. As someone living with a mental illness myself, I understand what it’s like to have your entire life be consumed by thoughts of that mental illness and nothing else. I understand that living with a mental illness can sometimes cause you to see it in everything. I don’t believe that it means that I’m a selfish person for it. If anything, I think that it just tells us how potent and destructive mental illness can be, to the point where it can blind us. I don’t think that the best approach in this case is to shame Demi for it, but rather, to just give her a gentle reminder that hey, other people also exist in this world. I'm sure that if she had a choice, she wouldn't have chosen to struggle with a mental illness.

Now, for the criticism that Demi, as a person with a large platform, shouldn’t be going after a small business. While I do disagree with how she decided to go about calling the froyo shop out, I don't really think that the problem lies with the fact that she decided to publicly call out someone with a platform much smaller than hers. I don't believe that we should be discouraging people with large platforms from holding others accountable, even if the people they're holding accountable don't have as large a platform, especially since they can use their large platforms to spread awareness. Additionally, people with smaller platforms have a small audience, and as such may not be properly held accountable by their own audience. In which case, interference from a larger audience may help bring justice to the people impacted negatively.

That being said, while I do recognise that the froyo shop in question hasn't done anything morally despicable, I do sincerely believe that Demi thought that she was using her platform correctly by calling them out for harmful behaviours. As such, as I don't think that she's necessarily the one to blame for this situation, and that it really comes down to poor messaging.

However, there is something to criticise in this case, and that's Demi's overly aggressive tone. Neither the shop, or its owner, have come out and publicly disregarded the experiences of people with eating disorders, or attempted to invalidate them. If the actions of the froyo shop have managed to hurt anyone with an eating disorder, it was not birthed out of malice, but from a place of ignorance instead. As such, it would've been better for Demi to have reached out to them nicely, and educated them in a kinder fashion. If she'd communicated more kindly with them, I think that the backlash against her wouldn't have been so severe, and people may even have been more willing to sympathise with her.

[richardrambles]

GORGEOUS Chinese Themed Makeup I Discovered On Instagram

Disclaimer: I can’t attest to the quality of the makeup featured in this blog post. I’m simply going to be discussing the aesthetic aspect of the makeup based off what I’ve seen from promotional content. The content I will be showing on my blog has been taken from other sources, and may not be a representation of the final product. Please do your own research! You can check out Florasis’ social media pages, which you can find here, for more information.

Surprise, surprise, I’ve always been a massive sucker for the traditional and historical Chinese aesthetic—particularly the Chinese fantasy aesthetic. The fact that the icon for my Tumblr blog is of Wei Wuxian should be enough to tell you that!

While browsing through Instagram just today, I came across a post from one of my favourite beauty content creators @olgadann, where she was advertising some of Florasis’ products as well as showing off some makeup looks she’d done with them. Almost instantaneously, the lipstick she was advertising (Flowers Galaxie Lipstick) had caught my eye.

Just last year, my friend gifted me lip balm she’d made during a handicrafts course, and the lip balm had been shaped to look like a cat. However, this was the first time I’d actually seen commercially sold lipstick which had been molded to have patterns on it, which is just so incredibly innovative! On top of that, the pattern that has been so intricately engraved onto the lipstick is just absolutely stunning, and works incredibly well with the bright red lipstick shade—which embodies Chinese culture oh-so-well, seeing as how red is considered to be an auspicious colour in Chinese culture and is often adopted in traditional costumes such as qipaos and Chinese wedding dresses.

The eye shadow palette (Peony Exquisitely Carved Flower Pattern Eye Shadow) that was advertised by Olga is also absolutely gorgeous. While I’m personally not a fan of darker eyeshadow tones, I think that the concept behind this eyeshadow palette is just so incredibly creative and well executed. The swatches are also purposely shaped so that, when aligned, they look like a Chinese folding screen!

On top of that, the fact that the largely matte eyeshadow tones still have a slight glistening quality to them is very interesting, as that makes them look a lot like the material qipaos are made of! Not to mention, the patterns engraved onto the eyeshadows are also incredibly beautiful, and fit the traditional Chinese theme just so wonderfully. I can’t stress enough just how genius this palette is conceptually, and how well it's been delivered upon!

And that’s it, my thoughts on this beautiful piece of art. If anyone has tried these products out, then feel free to reach out to me and tell me about your experiences. Are the quality of the products good? Do the products look equally as stunning in real life as they do in the featured images?

Thank you for reading :)

[richardrambles]

btob's "missing you" sounds like a church hymn istg I've probably sang smth similar when I used to go to church lmfaoo

[richardrambles]

Interpretation of EXO's Moonlight

Interpreter's note: There are considerable differences between the Chinese version and the Korean version of the song that could potentially change its meaning. Because of this, I will be referencing the Korean lyrics.

♤♡◇♧☆

Translated Lyrics:

Yeah, stop, stop. Your wings will get wet oh, stop, stop

As the night falls you approach me quietly

Removing the darkness to wake me from my sleep

And leaving me through the open window.

Have you, you, you lost your way again

The night air is still cold, get up

So, baby, hold on I'm worried of leaving you alone

I leave the road and follow behind you

You're showered in the pouring moonlight

I've never seen that entrancing expression before

I look at you who's stopped like a picture and at the end of that gaze

A place where I can't touch you and can't even hold you

The reflection on the surface is not her

My sad story that can't come true

The closer I go, the more I'll hurt, so

Stop, stop, stop, stop, that love

Stop, stop, stop, stop, that love

I'm anxiously calling out to you like this

Don't get any closer babe, those wings will get wet

No matter how many times I tell you, you don't listen

You throw yourself against him again

Why do you dream such dangerous dreams

(Now stop tiring) your heart and let it rest

My heart feels as if it'll rip as well watching you

You're showered in the pouring moonlight

I've never seen that entrancing expression before

I look at you who's stopped like a picture and at the end of that gaze

A place where I can't touch you and can't even hold you

The reflection on the surface is not her

My sad story that can't come true

The closer I go, the more I'll hurt, so

Stop, stop, stop, stop that love

Stop, stop, stop, stop that love

I'm anxiously calling out to you like this

Don't get any closer babe, those wings will get wet

As if nothing happened, you painfully smile at me

But your slender and white shoulders shake a little, I'm telling you

It's okay if you let everything go and rest at my side for just a little while

When the sun rises, follow the place where the moon gets dark, fly away then, yeah

A place where I can't touch you and we can't be together

It's not you who flew to me when night fell

My sad story that can't come true

The closer I go, the more I'll hurt, so

Stop, stop, stop, stop that love

Stop, stop, stop, stop that love

I'm anxiously calling out to you like this

Don't get any closer babe, those wings will get wet

(Stop) those wings will get wet (stop) those wings will get wet

♤♡◇♧☆

Interpretation:

I believe that this song metaphorically follows the story of a man whose love is unrequited, the woman he loves desires another man. The narrator follows a bird, perhaps a dove-- a bird that has strong connotations of beauty, it has "slender and white" wings. The dove he follows symbolizes the woman he's in love with.

The dove stops in front of a body of water. It could be a pond, it could be a lake, the song never specifies. The narrator, too, glances into the lake, expecting to see the dove's reflection, but instead he sees someone else. He sees the face of the man she loves, he sees the moon reflected on the water's surface.

Compared to the moon, the dove is so small, so insignificant. The moon doesn't know that the dove exists, she's in love with a man she can never attain. And yet, she is basked in moonlight, highlighting how significant this other man is to her. And ironically, it's the moonlight that gives the dove her beauty, it's what draws the narrator to her. In a sense, perhaps the reason why the narrator finds her so appealing is because she is unattainable to him. As Watari from Your Lie In April puts it: "It’s only natural for the girl you’re crushing on to be in love with someone else. Since you’re in love with her, she sparkles in your eyes. That’s why people fall so irrationally in love.”

Furthermore, the moon is so far away. Despite the fact that she can see the moon, despite the fact that she can observe the man she loves, he is out of her reach. This may be because they come from different social backgrounds or because they have different social circles, the beauty of the song is that it can be interpreted in a rather ambiguous manner. However, we really feel as if the narrator is closer to her than the moon is; he is able to give her advice: "No matter how much I talk, you can’t hear me/You’re throwing yourself at him again/Why do you dream so dangerously?" Despite the fact that she ignores his advice and continues chasing after the moon, it's still him she awakens, and it's still him whose side she sits by. He's close to her, he's very much attainable, but she still rejects him. He's only a platonic figure in her life. And this, we're supposed to feel, is causing the narrator grief.

And yet, despite the fact that she knows that the man she loves is unattainable, she still desires him. And she'll go to any means, no matter how artificial they are, to try and deny what she already knows. The only way that she can be together with the man she loves is by plunging into the lake, so she can be united with the moon.

The narrator is hit with the sudden realization that the dove is about to plunge into the water, and he calls for the dove to stop. To reconsider before her wings get "wet". He has hindsight, the narrator knows that the only love that the dove will attain by doing so is an artificial one. She won't be united with the moon, only with its reflection. And even its reflection will disappear once she starts to sink. This could refer to her having a one night stand with the man she loves, or trying to gain his attention by finding ways to infiltrate his friendship group. She may be momentarily satisfied, but only momentarily. She'll eventually sink, and with that, all her illusions will be disrupted. She'll be disappointed and broken hearted.

I'll even take it a step further and speculate that the dove could possibly drown. Some birds have difficulty becoming airborne again after coming into contact with water, much less if they were to plunge directly into it. Now, by no means am I suggesting that the girl will die because of the fact that her love is unrequited, although that in itself isn't completely impossible. In fact, I believe that it's her beauty and naivety, everything that a dove is symbolic of, that will die if she were to take such extreme measures. The disappointment she'll face will only render her as the shell of the girl she once was. The narrator continues calling to her, telling her not to make the jump, not because he is selfish, but because he genuinely loves her. He doesn't want her to suffer.

The extent of his love is shown towards the end of the song. He releases her, knowing that she can never be happy with him. He could just as easily entrap her and hold her captive, but he doesn't. He wants her to be happy, even at the cost of his own happiness. What I find interesting is the conditions he releases her under. Just as the dove is about to make the jump, he calls to her and she pauses. She hears his pleas, and she stops to "painfully smile" at him, "as if nothing happened", as if she wasn't contemplating her own destruction. And he stays to comfort her. He stays until dawn breaks, when the moon's reflection has finally faded off the water's surface. Then he releases the dove, telling her to fly to the moon.

Of course, he knows that it's impossible that she'll ever make it to the moon, but he'd rather she suffer trying to make it there than if she threw herself into the water. She'd suffer less if she continued living the way she always has than if she were to lose her identity. The songs ends with the narrator finally coming to terms with the truth: "it's not you who flew to me when night fell". And yet, just as she leaves, he still calls to her. He reminds her not to get her wings "wet", he reminds her to resist the temptation of attaining an artificial love. He doesn't want her to be unhappy. He genuinely means what he's saying, his words aren't just for show, because they continue to echo even after she's gone. At the end, the listener is really given the impression that the narrator genuinely loves her.