sorryabout-theblood

[sorryabout-theblood]

this is basically a short horror film

[sorryabout-theblood]

I love being a party pooper every time someone mentions harry potter I have to be like I hope jk rowling and her little shitty ass magic dystopia rot in hell and I hope that show you're so excited about gets cancelled with the shittiest ending possible

[sorryabout-theblood]

doc there is a fucking hole where something was

[sorryabout-theblood]

[sorryabout-theblood]

you used to be able to put a dvd in your laptop and play it. you used to be able to burn cds.

[sorryabout-theblood]

I hope Trump emotionally abuses Elon Musk regularly at least

[sorryabout-theblood]

[sorryabout-theblood]

[sorryabout-theblood]

nothing funnier to me than when AI does math wrong. like I get why it happens, it's a language model that's treating the numbers you feed it as words rather than integers and then giving you an answer based on how those words typically appear in a block of text instead of actually performing a calculation. but the one thing computers are genuinely incredible at. you fucked up a perfectly good calculator is what you did, look at it it's got hallucinations

[sorryabout-theblood]

Some mental wellness Talking Heads

[sorryabout-theblood]

I feel like we need a refresher on Watsonian vs Doylist perspectives in media analysis. When you have a question about a piece of media - about a potential plot hole or error, about a dubious costuming decision, about a character suddenly acting out of character -

A Watsonian answer is one that positions itself within the fictional world.

A Doylist answer is one that positions itself within the real world.

Meaning: if Watson says something that isn't true, one explanation is that Watson made a mistake. Another explanation is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made a mistake.

Watsonian explanations are implicitly charitable. You are implicitly buying into the notion that there is a good in-world reason for what you're seeing on screen or on the page. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie all the time because they're from a desert culture!")

Doylist explanations are pragmatic. You are acknowledging that the fiction is shaped by real-world forces, like the creators' personal taste, their biases, the pressures they might be under from managers or editors, or the limits of their expertise. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie because somebody thought they'd sell more units that way.")

Watsonian explanations tend to be imaginative but naive. Seeking a Watsonian explanation for a problem within a narrative is inherently pleasure-seeking: you don't want your suspension of disbelief to be broken, and you're willing to put in the leg work to prevent it. Looking for a Watsonian answer can make for a fun game! But it can quickly stray into making excuses for lazy or biased storytelling, or cynical and greedy executives.

Doylist explanations are very often accurate, but they're not much fun. They should supersede efforts to provide a Watsonian explanation where actual harm is being done: "This character is being depicted in a racist way because the creators have a racist bias.'" Or: "The lore changed because management fired all of the writers from last season because they didn't want to pay then residuals."

Doylism also runs the risk of becoming trite, when applied to lower stakes discrepancies. Yes, it's possible that this character acted strangely in this episode because this episode had a different writer, but that isn't interesting, and it terminates conversation.

I think a lot of conversations about media would go a lot more smoothly, and everyone would have a lot more fun, if people were just clearer about whether they are looking to engage in Watsonian or Doylist analysis. How many arguments could be prevented by just saying, "No, Doylist you're probably right, but it's more fun to imagine there's a Watsonian reason for this, so that's what I'm doing." Or, "From a Watsonian POV that explanation makes sense, but I'm going with the Doylist view here because the creator's intentions leave a bad taste in my mouth that I can't ignore."

Idk, just keep those terms in your pocket? And if you start to get mad at somebody for their analysis, take a second to see if what they're saying makes more sense from the other side of the Watsonian/Doylist divide.

[sorryabout-theblood]

People are trying to bring back 1880s-era anti-ASL sentiment. Worst timeline.

[sorryabout-theblood]

Hey all, Crips for Esims for Gaza has been purchasing E-sims for people in Gaza and need help to continue their advocacy!

We link them in our Hi Nay episodes but want to remind people to help out if they can and donate! They're an offshoot of the E-sims for Gaza program created by Mirna El-Helbawi, and allow you to, if you are overwhelmed by the E-sims purchasing process, streamline it.

You donate to Crips for Esims for Gaza, and they do it for you. Help these fantastic disabled activists if you're able!

Link in replies so Tumblr doesn't hide this!

[sorryabout-theblood]

i am glad queer representation has drastically improved in my lifetime. because now i can say that i dislike a gay book and not feel like i’m invalidating stonewall

[sorryabout-theblood]

Just in case

[sorryabout-theblood]

Historical women from Palestine.

[sorryabout-theblood]

“Lemme tell ya, ‘Star Wars’ always had the vibe of being in the most whitest, elite space. It’s a franchise that’s so white that a Black person existing in [it] was something,” Boyega said in the documentary. “You can always tell it’s something when some ‘Star Wars’ fans try to say, ‘Well, we had Lando Calrissian and had Samuel L. Jackson!’ It’s like telling me how many cookie chips are in the cookie dough. It’s like, they just scattered that in there, bro!”

(Source)