#Does this count as lacking media literacy?

[elainsgirl]

Koshei x Elain is such a disgusting ship. I can’t believe people are genuinely out there, shipping them.

Do they realise who Koshei is and what he has done? He isnt some morally grey, misunderstood villain. This isn’t dark romantasy where its normal to ship the Villain.

Koshei is a tyrant. He kidnaps women and forces them to turn into birds. Just like the archerons experience with the cauldron, it is a form of SA. He takes their autonomy away. Leaving them helpess and bound to his lake.

Why tf is such a monster being shipped with Elain? Istg, this isn’t dark romance. Its just messed up and literally wrong

And whilst you hve the right to ship KosheixElain, pls note I have the equal right to judge and criticise you on it. Bcs honestly? Its just disgusting. Gives the same vibes as those that romantacise Amarantha x Rhys or Amarantha x Tamlin. Just like Amarantha - Koshei is a villain not your cutesy, morally grey Villain.

[eldritch-flame]

"Paul has negative character traits" Yeah I sure hope he does ?????

Do they realize that part of making a character includes like. Giving them both positive and negative traits

Having the confessions account blocked is so good for me because what do you mean people are discoursing about whether or not Paul has negative character traits???

[silvershadow1711]

I have (mostly) put Arcane s2 from my mind because, for as much as I liked s1, it didn't grab hold of me and demand all my attention. Arcane joins Game of Thrones in the "things I liked that were pretty fucking great at the start and ended up being such massive trainwrecks that 100% of the enjoyment now comes from hearing in-depth critiques about it" category. But there's something that bothers me that I haven't really seen anyone else bring up.

Sevika. Specifically, Sevika's new role as a councilor. The "you lack media literacy" crowd cheers and applauds and weeps tears of joy because this is such a major victory for Zaun, it's a sign that things will be better! The critical crowd (rightly) points out that, given that everything the council does is by vote and everyone else on the council visibly hates her, Sevika will be outvoted any time she tries bring up measures that will help Zaun. But that's not my issue.

Who decided that Sevika gets to be a councilor?

That's not a snarky insult- seriously; who made the choice that this woman gets to represent Zaun?

Did the people of Zaun have an election? (If so, how? Who organized it? What counts as an eligible voter? Is Zaun a true democracy or are there representitives?) Because if they did, I kind of doubt that the majority of people really want Silco's gaurd dog deciding what happens to them. "Oh, but she was only following Silco because she cares about Zaun--" would the average Zaunite see it that way? Would the average Zaunite who we would assume would be part of the voting body see the enforcer for the (former) leader of the chembarons who we have been shown doing nothing but commiting acts of violence in Silco's name and think "yeah, she totally has our best interests at heart"? The one time we see her trying to rally Zaun and call for unity, not one person there wants to hear the shit coming out of her mouth... and these are the revolutionaries! The Firelights and Jinxers, the people who would most want change, still don't want to throw their chips in with Sevika!

So then... the councilors maybe? Did the councilors choose Sevika to join? Why would they? At best, they don't know her and she's some random Zaunite to them. At worst, they know exactly who she is, in which case, it's even less likely that they'd allow her to be on the council. No one in Piltover is going to want shit to do with someone that intrinsically linked with Silco and therefore Jinx.

Did she just... show up? Did they put out a "Help Wanted: Inquire Within" sign and Sevika was the only person who asked for the job? Or did she force her way in, demand a seat and threaten to kill them if they didn't give her a place at the table?

This is what happens when you don't give a shit about the world you're writing for. When you see the setting as nothing more that different action set pieces for cool fight scenes to take place in, rather than a place populated by actual people. This is what happens when you shrink your cast down to a handful of named characters; anything important that happens has to include the named characters, even if it makes no sense in-universe (see: Bronn, a man who admits he doesn't know what a loan is, being the Master of Coin in GoT).

[chaifootsteps]

I think this is less a media literacy thing and more a lack of education/determination to Stan at all costs but like

it's really something to see that some of the fandom's measure for what does count as coercion or slavery is literally just

"did the victim enjoy it or not though?"

when that's not. the damn. point.

The point is that buying or selling someone is slavery, period, end of.

Putting someone in a situation where they have to have sex they don't want is sexual extortion and coercion, period, end of.

It's really gross to see the show actively encourage a narrative that not only obscures these very obvious definitions but actively refuses to acknowledge Blitzo is a victim in these scenarios and then the fandom blames him for attempting to make the best of it

like that winceworthy slavery take asking whether or not, quote - "black children [had] the opportunity to have a cute day with their master's kid"

Um, how "cute" the day they had together is immaterial. It literally doesn't matter. Something being mildly enjoyable for the person who was forced into it does not suddenly make it right.

also the bit that is poor media literacy - Blitzo didn't want to go, had to be dragged away and guilt tripped into going and when he was there he was bored and annoyed until he made up a game to steal stuff to fulfil his father's wishes (which he was also forced and guilted into doing). even the text of the episode itself shoots this argument down because whatever 'enjoyment' Blitzo had was just him making the best of it in a situation he was forced into (and the fanbase still lambasts him for calling Stolas' interests 'boring' when he's never met this rich kid before in his life and is being forced to spend time with him, away from his real friend Fizz. like how dare he act out or be honest if it hurts Stolas' feelings)

like they can nitpick Blitzo was only bought for a day and not owned by the Goetias, but his time was still bought, still coerced. same as present day Blitzo is stuck with adult Stolas not because he wants to be there.

like if the show had decent writers these parallels would be intentional, but they're so obviously not because then they'd have to acknowledge the fact that Stolas is both complicit in and directly involved in perpetuating the unjust systems of Hell

The fact that anyone in the year 2024 who isn't a crusted over Kentucky senator is looking at any scene of coercion or slavery and asking "But did the victim enjoy it?" is honestly terrifying.

[spritecranverry]

"Does Hamilton count as rap" is such a layered statement. Not only is your main point of reference a musical that had black actors playing slaveowners while rapping for a "diversity win", but several hip hop songs are referenced directly by the musical, which later had a mixtape released full of remixes of the songs featuring the very artists Lin Manuel was inspired by. Profound lack of media literacy in every direction possible

[dresden-syndrome]

Political offender classification: Class 3

“Class 3 offense is a societally dangerous act which endangers the authority of the East European Socialist Union government and its social and political order, as well as the socialist order as a whole.

Class 3 offenders are dangerous elements with a disdain for the regime, committing crimes with an intention to destroy it.”

In 1955-1960 class 3 was the most common prisoner class as the state needed a lot of camp labor while class 4 had a problem with lack of designation places and class 2 labor communes were still being built. 

Notes: 

Can be applied to adults only

Used for class 2 offenses during martial law 

Used for class 2 repeat offenders 

May be used for class 2 and 4 offenses when the state/region is in a great need of hard manual labor 

Milder penalties/restrictions for important fields skilled workers (ex. SSR) 

Offenses: 

Illegal country border crossing to an enemy state 

Written anti-government propaganda 

Anti-socialist propaganda material possession, private supply or production with an intent of such

Wrecking*

Organized acts of economical sabotage 

Personal acts of political sabotage 

Contact with foreigners in political purposes 

Contribution to class 4 crimes 

Deliberate use of media broadcasting devices for anti-socialist agitation or propaganda purposes 

Leaking or disclosure of secret information 

Acts of material support/contribution for the enemy states or regimes 

Penalties: 

Termination from the Party

Labor camp imprisonment for up to 10 years 

Deportation to labor communes for life**

Protection status: 

All remaining constitutional rights protected legally (but often ignored actually) 

Further restrictions: 

Not allowed to live outside the commune (same for class 2 communes)

Not allowed to vote 

Not allowed to return to the Party

Political literacy courses after release from the labor camp 

Life prospects: 

Located in a labor commune after release from the labor camp 

Cannot be released back into society 

Life never returns to normal 

Rehabilitation possibility: 

Partially rehabilitated after labor camp sentence 

Class promotion/demotion possibility: 

Promotion to class 2 for labor achievements and political loyalty 

Promotion to class 2 for good behavior 

Demotion to class 4 if attempted escape 

Demotion to class 4 if further political offenses committed 

Prisoner use methods: 

Hard manual labor for the state’s needs 

Cheap unskilled labor within their commune 

Cheap labor in the offender’s skill field within their commune 

May be used in SSR for secret projects 

May be used for other types of work in labor camp facilities 

Legal documentation: 

ID card replaced with rehabilitation certificate; other documentation replaced with class-appropriate ones 

Names used alongside camp identification numbers

*Wrecking - acts of vandalism for political purposes.

**Usually it’s not the case. Class 3 offenders often get eventually promoted to class 2 and return back to society in boring remote towns. This process is faster for those employed in SSR.

Picture: Labor camp prisoner Tibor Juhász being dragged by guards for a punishment for being caught slacking off work. PUR Hungary, 1961.

Art tag: @painful-pooch @prismpanic @generic-whumperz @suspicious-whumping-egg @onlywhump @whumpedydump @whumpthefifth @monarchthefirst @sunshiline-writes @project-xiii

Lore dump tag: @sweet-lost-husbands @whumpingandsmilinglikeanidiot

@randowhump does it count as factory whump?

[lazulian-devil]

Its shocks me hew aggressive the people around Eurovision content are.

Ive never much interacted with "Stans" but seeing people get really invested into what is essentially a talent show and accusing everyone of manipulation or being robbed feels very dystopian?

I understand that the ESC is very much political. Its always has been. Yes, we are united in music, but we also voice our support for each other and we try to make platforms. Ukraines high vote count is always down to them being at war and that they are somewhat fighting for EU values. Israel being allowed to participate when Palestine never was and is currently being bombed is political. Showing off your culture and your language and your traditions is political. Facing off against other EU countries in a competition is also somewhat political. And theres many other points, but you get what I mean.

My point is that seeing the posts on reddit, twitter and even tumblr show so much brainrot and lack of media literacy. Obviously its bad that Israel is allowed to compete but the EU makes so much money with this conflict that they cant not have them there because their political views and their economic views dont align. Thats obviously a bad thing.

And yes, your favourite blorbo getting not as many points as you wanted is just part of the competition. Its understandable that you're upset but please dont hate on other blorbos? Please continue respecting their humanity? I cant believe this is a hot take?

I genuinely cannot tell if these really loud and aggressively worded callouts and "We've been robbed, someone cheated, everything is manipulated" are real or not. Is this supposed to be satire? Are all of you okay?

The whole discourse feels like a boulevard newspaper battle for whoever has the loudest and most catchiest title with basically nothing more to say than that. Especially the hate and the callout posts are just appalling and so unbelievably aggressive and mad and emotionally charged.

It makes me kinda upset because yes. There is totally a lot of need for a discussion about Eurovisions importance for the EU, its values and its way of life. I was absolutely delighted when Israel was robbed of its "first place" by the overwhelming support for Ukraine and therefore clearly wouldnt win and then kept being pushed down the voting board. But I also have to recognise that that doesnt mean much and that Ive assigned values to this competition that it doesnt inherently have and yet it kinda does.

Its because Eurovision is so clad in politics that you cant really take it out. But you still need to be respectful to the participants. They are still people. They still deserve to be treated as people.

[watching-sam-and-dean-again]

Why This Doesn’t Mean Destiel: Part 2 - Dean Wrapping up Castiel's Corpse

Part 1 - Zepline Traxx - here

Okay, so I saw this take floating around Twitter and Tumblr again in the last week or so: if Destiel isn’t canon then why did they have Dean wrap up Castiel's body in 13x01? This obviously means they’re married became because this is a ritual for widows in …. You get it. Well, allow me to offer my rebuttals to this totally unbiased idea. Now, I know hellers will never listen or care because they have their heads buried too far in the Destiel quicksand to ever see the light, but honestly, I just like to argue against takes that show a lack of media literacy, or takes that deliberately ignore the rest if the text, especially when it’s easy to do.

Arguments and screen shots under the cut due to length.

First: Let’s go with the Wincest reasons, just for funsies, and because I know it would piss hellers off. Dean can’t be married to Cass because, in Season 8, he already married Sam in a hand-fasting ritual. In a church. In front of a witness (Crowley). And despite some rough times in Seasons 9 abd 10, they never did get a divorce.

And:

So, if we need to put romantic significance on a moment like Dean wrapping Cass' body up for burning, then we also need to put romantic significance on Sam and Dean exchanging promises of devotion in a church (wedding), especially when the later is a very popular Western tradition and Suoernatural does, in fact, take place in the Western world. "But they’re brothers!" I might hear you cry is disdain. Well, Sam and Dean are weird, so there is that. But, it’s true, they are brothers, so they aren’t technically married in a romantic sense. But, neither are Cass and Dean. Dean considers Cass like a brother, too (which he has said more than once). He has also never referred to Cass and himself like a couple, even in passing or as a joke. In fact, he’s taken exception to the very suggestion (10x05). Thus, it’s not a romantic gesture on his part, but a familial gesture, a brothers in arms gesture.

Second: if Dean wrapping Castiel’s body can only be read as romantic in nature then how do we explain all of these moments:

1) Is it Sam or Dean who are in love with their dad? Or did they prepare John for burning together? Or did they get someone else to wrap him up before they burned him, so as to avoid the primarily spousal burial ritual from another culture that would have implied incest?

2) I guess nodoby could have had any romantic feelings for Ellen or Jo because, seeing as they got blown up, and didn’t have bodies to lovingly prepare before the ritual hunters cremation. Sucks to be them, I guess.

3) I guess Dean had to be in love with Charlie, even though that idea is not allowed because she’s a lesbian, since someone had to prepare Charlie’s body. Or was it Sam? It certainly looks like both of them where dealing with her body. No wait! Maybe Castiel did it, because he’s an angel so it doesn’t count. But, then it does count, but only if Dean is doing it for him... ?

4) What about Asa Fox and the other hunters who died in 12x06? Who was in love with them?!! Asa's body was wrapped up before Jody got to the wake, and she was the closest to being in a romantic relationship with him.

5) Oh no, who's in love with Mary? Which of her deviant sons prepped her before cremation? Or did Castiel do it? But, again, that would mean he’s in love with her. If only preparing somoncy's body before cremation didn’t only mean a character was in love with them. But, it does, I guess … So many plot-holes about who prepares the bodies in this show. If only there were an easier explanation. Also, it doesn’t look like Dean is feeling too romantic towards Castiel at this hunter's funeral, and this came after his preparing Cass to be burned.

6) Finally, who prepared Dean's body? Surly, it couldn’t have been Sam, even though he were the only one present when Dean died and he was the person who loved him most, because that would mean … Wincest. Gasp! Once again, if Destiel is canon because of one particular detail, so is Wincest (only Wincest has more "proof"). It certainly looks like Dean was wrapped with a lot of care, but who could have done it since no one on earth was in love with him at the time?

I guess for the preparation for cremation argument to be valid, it only counts if we see the preparation on screen? Because that is the only time it matters. So, Castiel's death and preparation for burial mattered more than John's, or Dean's? That seems really unlikely.

Finally: Let’s take a look at the scene in context.

Dean is upset, no one is arguing against that, but he’s not only upset about Castiel (despite what certain fans like to claim). Castiel, however, is the only corpse available to prepare and burn. Sam is off supporting a new-born Jack while he pays his respects to his mother's body, something Dean certainly wasn’t going to get involved in when he hates Jack at this point. So, while Sam is supporting his new angel (a clueless child in the new world) because someone has to, Dean is saying a last private goodbye to his angel, a fallen ally. There is a clear parallel here, as well as a sunrise-sunset thing going on here, and unless Jack is in love with his mother, it’s more about saying goodbye to family than to a lover. Also, this is Dean, he needs to take action rather than sit around and watch, especially when he’s upset, so him wrapping up Cass makes sense, but it’s in no way is inherently romantic.

But, those arguing that the scene set up in this way just to show Dean is in love with Cass, or that he loves him more than anyone, ask yourselves what Dean would do if it was Sam who died. Would he be sharing preparation duties with Castiel? But, then, we don’t have to wonder. The answer is No. He didn’t even want Bobby around when Sam died. When Sam died, Dean was so distraught that he couldn’t even prepare Sam's body, but sat with his corpse, mourning him for days (2x22). Then when the guilt and grief got too much, he went and sold his soul to bring his baby brother back. He didn’t even do the same for either of his parents, Castiel, Bobby or anyone else. Or, Dean literally Romeo-Ed himself on the spot when he thought Sam died in Season 11, and it doesn’t get a lot more "romantic coded" than Romeo and Juliet. So, even if someone had to read the scene with Dean wrapping Castiel as romantic (you really really don’t), it still wouldn’t mean destiel is canon because there always has and always will only be one great love is Dean's life. And it’s not Cass. With Sam and Dean (canon Gencest or fanon Wincest), there is no room for anyone else.

[mamadarama]

Count me in the overthinking club. Moreover Im so worried that Im delusional or my interpretations of characters are wrong that I cant keep calm.

But anyways thanks for enlightening me of madakana and madarei because thats ones of my total favourites now

the thing about analyzing stories is that youre gonna get it wrong sometimes, but that doesnt necessarily mean your interpretation is incorrect. the creators point and the audiences interpretation arent mutually exclusive .

context is everything when it comes to understanding this stuff. everyone has a unique set of background information that puts the story in a different context than everyone else, including the creator of the story. thats where personal interpretation comes from... to understand the actual meaning of the story (that is, the creators intention with writing it) you have to puzzle out what context they had (or even lacked in some cases) when writing it. and thats not easy to do because obviously, you didnt live their life. this is why story/character tropes are useful; theyre a universal context thats easy to learn since it's just pattern recognition, and its much more noticeable when a character or story is following or diverging from a trope if everyone knows what the trope is. basically, true media literacy is the ability to recognize what the creator intended and what youre interpreting of it. like... if someone is colorblind and looks at a painting and asks why the sky is green, and the artist says its not green its blue, that doesnt make the sky in the painting look any less green to the colorblind person , but it does give them new context to look at the painting with now that they know its supposed to be blue.

there is other stuff that makes it a lot more convoluted than this, but i digress. all of this to say, you cant be wrong about an interpretation, but you can miss the point , which is okay because maybe in the future youll have enough information to understand it better. its not permanent. sorry this went on a little longer than i intended , worldbuilding/char design is one of my special interests xP hope this helped at least a little tho !!!

[trickstarbrave]

i have a lot of thoughts about "problematic" media and the dumb fucking "pro-ship vs antis" discourse that are probably disjointed bc i am half awake

for one i wanna preface this with: i think it is good actually to critique problematic elements in any media. movies, games, comics, tv shows, even fanfiction. if you think me saying something is "problematic" means i think it should be outlawed and banned and i personally want you, a fan of that thing, to die and i support suicide baiting you, you are just as braindead as the people you claim to hate. you are annoying. this post is not for you and is in fact also about you. you are a tar pit.

there is a vocal minority of people who do in fact see any depiction of something bad and think it has to be condoning it. they are genuinely few and far between, but they are VERY vocal, and typically very young. but i think after looking at how these people thing and present arguments, i really understand why they think this

depiction, if you are something with any critical thinking skills, does not inherently condone or condemn its subject matter. it can condone it, yes, but it can also condemn it. typically a story is mature enough to depict certain things, it is doing so for a reason and has a lot of nuance and shows if it condemns or condones it in indirect ways. for example in a very clear cut way: slasher films show a killer murdering people. they are screaming and dont want to be killed and try to stop him or run away. it is supposed to make you, the audience, feel bad and go 'well i wouldnt wanna get killed'. but at no point does someone look at the camera and go "killing people is wrong and should not be condoned. people dont like being killed".

this gets a bit more messy in other topics that are commonly normalized or go under the radar like racism and abuse. ultimately i think many stories that are "problematic" arent really done that way on purpose, hence why i dont believe in attacking the people who made that story for these things. a lot of times these things sneak their way in subconsciously or by pure carelessness. example: i do not think all of the designers for skyrim are racist white supremacists who intentionally made this story to be a perfect recruiting and radicalization tool for white supremacists. skyrim is a story about fantasy pop culture vikings in fantasy pop-culture viking land where you kill dragons. however there are also elves, which oppose the fantasy pop culture vikings and the vikings hate, and a civil war where many of the fantasy vikings want to purge and non-pop culture fantasy viking out of magical fantasy viking land. that shit is like catnip to white surpremacists. they love that shit. ultimately skyrim is just written badly. at no point was that the INTENTION behind the game, but it has been used to radicalize a lot of white guys and also is still beloved by white supremacists for these reasons.

ultimately that example is one most people im talking about wouldnt even get though, because it requires a lot of thought, understanding of how white supremacy operates, how we even got the concept of "vikings" in our larger pop culture (it was nazis, lol) and that those concepts are wildly inaccurate, etc. instead these kinds of critiques go after very overt depictions of subject matter or literally children's media.

and i think there is a very real reason why they do this i have come to realize: not only do they not know how to critically think, actually trying to think critically even in the slightest is mentally exhausting to them. by this i don't mean "ha ha they are stupid and lazy" i mean they genuinely dont understand critical thinking. at all. like they lack media literacy entirely. ive heard dumb takes from these people like "symbolism is trying to hide/bury the themes of a story" or "because the abuse in this story is metaphorical it doesn't count". they dont understand the parts of a story and why they are utilized as literary devices and actively resent having to think about the things presented to them.

this is a larger cultural issue. i see it beyond just self aggrandizing, black and white morality faux activists. you can see it in spaces of pretty much any political view or in any community: a lack of understanding of how to break down information and stories to evaluate it. we all have a tendency towards bias and they familiar and things that make us comfortable, but these people are on a whole other level. thinks like metaphor are seen as nothing more than lies and detraction used to obscure information rather than help build information up. understanding nuance, personal flaws, deeper intentions, and how you actually convey complex information is completely beyond them.

they live, ultimately, to just drink up content and media while having to think as little as humanely possible. they crave exciting stories but with extremely simplistic meanings and those stories just don't exist. because confronting these topics means rethinking their entire world view, be they extremely insular "leftists" or right leaning morons. it means admitting maybe they are not always right and perfect in more complex ways than simple mistakes a 4 year old would make. even when people like to bitch and moan that "depicting something doesn't mean you inherently condone it" they don't give examples on how you can tell. they don't talk about how personal biases can contribute to a story condoning it when the author does not consciously believe it. unconscious biases aren't even necessarily harmful, but going unchecked they can evolve to full on bigotry, born out of a refusal to admit you can be wrong about things and things are allowed to make you uncomfortable without being a personal attack on you.

because again, this thought pattern exists to preserve the ego and to think as little as possible. admitting things have nuance means admitting EVERYTHING can have nuance. that maybe the people who hurt you are not all irredeemable monsters or that you were the villain in someone else's life. that people you love to attack for moral superiority are complex individuals with their own lives and experiences.

this thought process is ultimately AGAINST accountability too. things are bad because they are bad. there are no pieces that give it nuance, the existence of them is either morally good or morally bad. which means if you think of yourself as morally good, as we all like to, that means you can never, EVER admit to doing something "morally bad", intentionally or not. i saw it recently with mods for a community refusing to admit they did something racist (attacking a black woman and making her life miserable) and would instead rather burn the community down with them while whining about they feel "unsafe" because people said that behavior was unacceptable, wanted them to apologize to the person harmed, and put steps in place to keep it from happening again. which is basic accountability. but that requires thinking about your actions, why they happened, that it doesn't make you an irredeemable monster who can never be better ever, and accept responsibility for what you did.

it is protection of biases and your own beliefs rather than challenging them. to think critically we need to know how to break these things down, evaluate them individually, how they work in a larger whole, and why these things are being told to us. maybe people refuse because they are comfortable in their biases. maybe people are comfortable in their biases and dont like acknowledging them because they dont understand critical thinking and media analysis. maybe its both. i dont really know.

all i know is it is annoying and maybe we really need to by and large teach people literary analysis and critical thinking skills from the ground up. because i cannot keep looking at the same brain dead takes in every community about how symbolism exists to obscure and metaphors are actually lies because "why not just be literal" and watch people make the dumbest moral arguments on both sides of any debate

[pageofheartdj]

Yeah, Western ideology does very much enjoy infecting others as best it can. The USA education system is one of the most divided if I'm not mistaken? Divided in like, the quality of your education can vary wildly depending on where you live instead of a standard being approximately the same throughout schools. People dont choose where they are born and must live (until they move out) but it seems absurd that being born on one side of a city versus the other could be the difference between getting an education that'll prepare you for high school and/or post high school, and one that prepares you for the ever-shrinking factory worker role.

I'm from canada personally and I won't say that ours is much better (our schools are entirely modelled into preparing people for factory work. That was the original goal of our schools. Learn to stand in line, follow the bells, etc. Out high schools (in some provinces) are split into two ""tracks"". University (called academic) and college (called applied). Applied teaches you the absolute basics and pretty much prepares people for factory work. Academic focuses on teaching analytical thinking, critical thinking, essay writing and applying thought to ideas. Totally definitely totally a fair system, because you cant go from applied to academic but you can go academic to applied (applied versions of the classes dont count as prerequisite to academic classes. Basically locks people into a worse education. Theres also a big judgement culture on getting into university because college is considered lesser and for idiots because in canada university is theory and thought focused and colleges are skill and applied knowledge focus)

I think you make good points and it definitely is most obvious in USA where literacy is declining. Unfortunately it happens here in canada too, people just dont talk about us much lol

I think part of it, especially with the us is control. It is a LOT easier to control people if they struggle with critical thinking. Not teaching people how to find information and formulate opinions without (much) outside influence means it is a ton easier just to tell people what they should and shouldnt do. Obviously this thing is bad if it hurts kids, right? But they arent taught how to consider how would it hurt them? Why? What are the alternatives? If kids are hurting why are they pushing other laws and whatnot to hurt them more? Etc etc

Which... not to get political because it isnt quite the best area to bring up randomly, but just going to mention the rise of facism and decline in critical thinking and media literacy are oddly in sync in the US. And there have been studies (here is a quick link but theres tons of articles and papers you can find quick https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washington.edu/provost/2018/04/23/fake-news-and-misinformation-why-teaching-critical-thinking-is-crucial-for-democracy/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiB89mKnLmAAxUyFzQIHeOnAgYQFnoECAEQAg&usg=AOvVaw2s4TP6UzreLCWaEozRvTPx) that link a lack of critical thinking to people being more firm in biases, more susceptible to misinformation and propaganda, and to a lack of wanting to learn (stagnant beliefs).

Just. To point out that it might be partially not just people being addicted to phones, though that is a big factor. It's one of those situations where you need to ask "who might benefit" if it seems like there are no positives.

Anyways, it is really sad that people aren't being encouraged to think, really if you think about it? Social media is a lot of parroting back and blending in, making your literal person a brand, and echo chambers. Younger folks especially are losing out on those in person social interactions as most is replaced online, which means people arent getting together to chat as much. There is always something else, which limits a person's opportunities to get deep, debate in a risk free space, and just be around other people.

Its complicated and sad, and really weird that the supposed age of information brought about a general decline in thinking capabilities.

We have something similar too with colleges and universities and maybe there is some bias but not big and honestly more people talk how learning skills is more useful that just whatever they do in universities xD

And yeah it's logical for facsist regime to want dumb people. A person can know that some things are bad, but not because WHY it's bad. And that's how we get progressive young people eagerly support censorship. Indirectly support fascism. And when they will notice what is happening it will be too late. (and it's sad to see them ruining what previous generations were fighting for)

Internet definetely also desentitised people? With so much information about the world, there is less compassion. People have no problem being horrible to others because the screen separates them.

It's a mess. Honestly I think it was a mistake letting kids into social media. They are too impressionable and there is too many bad people who will take advantage of it. And it's harder for parents to keep track of dangerous people around their kids(not to mention parents who don't care what their kids do on internet in general). But it's still complicated, because internet also gives kids community they can't get in real life =(

[grapenehifics]

I’m rereading Solsbury Hill but this is the first time I’ve read it since all chapters have been published. Anyways, I enjoy of how you write Satine and Obi-Wan’s relationship especially with Anakin like I’d say you did so much better than The Clone Wars writers. I do remember all that’s going to happen and how slow Obikin eventually do happen, but it’s definitely worth the slow burn because it’s so palatable of how much they already love and care for each other. I do hope you write more long form Obikin.

(Sorry for the paragraph wall)

But I love your paragraph wall!

This is an extremely roundabout way to get to my point, but if you'll indulge me in a quick personal story: I once dated someone who looked me dead in the eye and called Boromir a villain. And it was such a ridiculous thing to say that I laughed, because it had to be a joke, and said something like, 'Oh, yeah, sure, just like Darth Vader is a villain,' and she said, 'Yes??' like *I* was the one who was confused, here. Like there couldn't possibly be any other way to read those two characters. And maybe that's a weird thing to break up over but that was the exact moment when I knew we weren't going to work out. Because besides a lack of basic media literacy - both those franchises are pretty goddamn clear about who the villains are, and it's neither of those two characters - it just showed such a startling lack of sympathy and empathy and grace and curiosity about how the world works and other people's lives and experiences.

All of that to say - Solsbury Hill has no villain except Palpatine, because real life doesn't actually have very many villains, it just has people, and I was never ever going to villainize Satine, or Padmé, or even Anakin at his lowest point when he's being incredibly shitty to the people who love him. Was there technically room in the story for Anakin to be jealous of Satine's relationship with Obi-Wan, or for Obi-Wan to be jealous that Padmé's married to Anakin when he isn't, yes, of course. But it's never that black-and-white, right? Satine is stubborn and smart and sarcastic and loyal and so is Obi-Wan. If Anakin likes those things in Obi-Wan - and he does - he is at least smart enough to, even if it's grudgingly, recognize that Obi-Wan fell in love with her for a reason, and Anakin can respect the fact that Satine loves Obi-Wan, because he believes so strongly that Obi-Wan is worth loving. And maybe Anakin and Padmé's marriage was hasty and ill-thought out, but marriage is 50-50, and if Obi-Wan can extend Anakin enough grace to say, it's okay to make a mistake, then he has to extend that same courtesy to Padmé.

The other really big point I hope comes across, is that Star Wars, besides being about mercy and forgiveness and second chances, is about community. That was the whole point of the ice bath story in Solsbury Hill - not just that one instance but every part of the first 24 chapters was there to say, sure, on some level these two boys relying on each other for everything is kind of adorable. On another level, though - and it got worse as the chapter count climbed - it was an absolute mess. They were in need of so much help and were not getting it. They needed support, they needed community, they needed help.

Palpatine's whole deal, in every version of the character, is that he tries to isolate Anakin, remove him from his support system, make him feel alone. That's specifically what the Jedi Order is there to prevent - it may be no one's biological family but it is absolutely a community. Star Wars says it over and over again: it's Han Solo's character arc, it's Lando's, it's Din Djarin's, it's Rey's, hell, pick anybody. People are not meant to be alone, and I say this as someone who is super, super far toward the introvert end of the scale. Anakin and Obi-Wan didn't start getting better until they added more people to their team, or family, or whatever you want to call it. Obi-Wan outright says it at Anakin's (first) wedding. The whole story built up to a wedding because I wanted an excuse to show just how many people showed up for them, and how stark a contrast that was to where they started out. They have kids. They have exes. They have friends. They have colleagues. (And therapists and prescription medication.)

Part of the reason this story is so goddamn long is because I wanted a happy ending, and I could not realistically give them a happy ending if they'd gotten together any earlier in the story. Anakin was, to use a very clumsy metaphor, way at the bottom of the pyramid of needs, and having a stable romantic relationship is way at the top. He needed to learn basic friendship (starting with Obi-Wan and Satine) before he could...level up, I guess? Anakin needed to unlearn this - erroneous - idea that love is finite and that if Obi-Wan gives some away to Satine, he'll run out of love for Anakin. And he needed the time to see that that wasn't the case.

Anyway. I've gone on too long. (That's the other reason Solsbury Hill is so long, is that I personally cannot stop talking.) The upshot is, thank you for putting in the time to read and love this story, and thank you for telling me that you enjoy it. I loved writing it, and it makes me happy that anyone else is getting something out of it too :)

[crypticpuffin]

I know this is an important statistic to repeat to keep people informed of the movie's dramatic negative consequences on shark populations in the wild, but I feel like this is often repeated without further context. people don't seem to realize that that had not been the intention of the movie at all-- it's hard to predict the impact a work of fiction will have on the general public, and the movie itself is not really anti-shark at all. most people, however, simply assume that it is, when this is very far from the truth.

very long rant continues below the cut, TL;DR at the bottom.

the fact remains, not only was it not the intention of the movie's creators to contribute to anti-shark stigma, the movie itself does not promote this message: the first half of the movie is focused entirely on not necessarily the shark at all (very little of it is seen in the first half at least), but on the selfish and irresponsible reaction of the town's council members that prioritize profit over the lives of beachgoers. I've seen this movie too many times to count, and I can't place any moment at all where the shark is directly blamed for its behaviour in this first half, only shown as a terrifying force of nature that, yes, is inaccurate to real life sharks. but it's a horror movie meant to frighten viewers, so it makes sense that they went down that path. they didn't predict the impact it would end up having on real sharks-- perhaps they assumed most people could tell the difference between a movie and reality, a common mistake.

(also want to mention that one of the main cast of the film, the character matt hooper, played by richard dreyfuss, is an oceanographer with a passion for studying sharks and even tells the story of how his boat getting eaten by a juvenile shark sparked his interested into his current field. again, very much not anti-shark.)

the second half of the movie is a bit different in the sense that it takes place entirely at sea with the three crew members of the boat tasked with finding and killing the shark-- they're doing this, again. because in the fictional world of the movie, highly influenced by a lack of available research on shark behaviour at the time, it was presumed that once a shark found a food source in a beachside community, it would not leave until said food source was depleted. in the movie, they do not set out to kill the shark out of anything but pure necessity to ensure no more deaths take place.

(also notable is that everyone seems to joke about the shark eating people and how that's the whole movie, which is evidently not true to anyone who's seen it and has any media literacy skills, and also fail to mention that the second victim of the shark attacks was a child. one of the most emotionally resonant scenes in the movie is the grieving mother of said child placing the blame on the town's police chief for not warning anyone of the threat he knew was present. yes, she does offer a bounty to kill the shark which turns into a veritable circus of amateur shark hunters trying to win it for themselves-- but this is only because she doesn't trust the authorities of the town itself to deal with the situation. the amateur shark hunters are also explicitly portrayed as inexperienced, careless, and insensitive, merely in it for the money and not even caring about the young boy's death that led to this situation. famously, the hunters that kill the wrong shark at first are shown to have no idea what kind of shark it is, simply assuming it's the one they're looking for.)

I think most of the criticism of the movie's attitude towards sharks probably comes from quint's character, the captain of the boat tasked with killing the shark-- especially concerning his one famous monologue about the tragedy of the USS Indianapolis (a real event that was only slightly altered for the purposes of the film). yes, he describes the sharks as terrifying and relentless, but that not the point of the story at all. awfully convenient how everyone remembers him comparing sharks' eyes to doll eyes, but not the part where he says the government failed to mark their mission as overdue for a full week after the ship had sunk, due to its secrecy, resulting in no distress signal having been sent during that entire time. the fact that the survivors were even rescued was more sheer luck than anything.

the point of the story he tells, if you actually pay attention to it, isn't that he was frightened of the sharks that killed much of the ship's crew-- anyone would be frightened in such a situation, and sharks are predators, after all (not evil, just animals that survive by feeding on others, but most people seem unable to see the distinction). no, the point was that that was the ship that delivered the hiroshima bomb at the end of WWII under the orders of the U.S. government. "anyway... we delivered the bomb." being the end of the story he tells means a great deal: the way I see it, he's saying "anyway... all that suffering, all that indifference towards the loss of human life... for the sake of more indifference and more death." the sharks are not the villains here-- the american government is, just as the town council, mainly the mayor, are the antagonists in the first half of the film.

oh, and, no one ever seems to mention: peter benchley, the author of the frankly, yes, very dated and problematic original jaws novel that nevertheless does make the point of anti-capitalism clearer despite all the novel's many problems... he spent the better part of his life after the movie came out trying to make up for the negative impact it had had on the perception of sharks worldwide. something like 40 years, he spent working closely with marine conservation organizations and educating people on the truth about sharks and the urgent need for their conservation. in the introduction included in a later edition of his novel, he not only says he could never have written jaws after learning what he knows now, but that he felt compelled to help sharks and to give back to them after they'd given him so much in life.

in conclusion, yes, the shark in the film is portrayed as fearsome and unprecedented. again, it's a horror movie meant to terrify, and again, benchley believed the incidents of shark attacks he portrayed in his novel were based in reality, due to the lack of available research at the time. it's hardly unique as a creature feature portraying real animals as frightening though-- like Stephen King's novel, Cujo, that was soon after adapted into a movie, portrays the titular dog as vicious and relentless. sure, this is shown to be the result of something else-- namely, having been bitten by a bat. which, yeah, also spreads misinformation about the likeliness of bat bites and rabies infection. btw. sure, saint bernards were not killed in real life as a result of the book or the movie, as far as I know-- again, audience reaction is difficult to predict.

but the fact still remains that what happened to sharks as a result was unintentional and horrifying to everyone involved in both the movie and the book. blaming the movie, (not necessarily what OP was doing, I just think they left out some crucial context that I have now tried to provide) to me, is just blaming a very good work of cinema (that I think is extremely worthwhile to watch, pirated preferably so as not to give spielberg any money, especially for the stellar screenplay and very obvious queer undertones) for being misinterpreted by its viewers and as a result, in pop culture as a whole. it had heavily negative impacts, certainly-- though it also inspired many people to get into shark conservation and marine biology, btw-- but to entirely blame the work itself for this seems to me a very uninformed and simplistic view of the situation surrounding it.

TL;DR: Jaws is not anti-shark as a movie and its negative effect on the perception of sharks in the public consciousness was completely unintentional and can be chalked up mostly to lack of media literacy and subsequent mass misinterpretation of the movie. the author of the novel it was based on spent the rest of his life trying to make up for this by working towards shark conservation nevertheless.

btw even spielberg (who has used his success as a platform for his zionist and therefore highly prejudiced and destructive views, so please don't support him) has expressed guilt and remorse at the impact the film had on sharks.

again, not saying OP was dunking on the movie, just trying to provide additional context to clarify that the impact Jaws had on the marine environment was not nearly as simple and straightforward as most people seem to think.

and yeah. it's annoying to me when people go on social media or anywhere to say negative things about Jaws in this regard-- as a fan of the movie myself, I keep having to justify my enthusiasm for it-- when most of these critics have not even watched the movie they are criticizing. so all that I want to say really is to think twice before even jokingly accusing a work of fiction of something so serious, that's all (not what I'm saying OP is doing, just what I've seen previously on the internet and from people I've spoken to). and yeah, fiction affects real life, that's the idea. and especially due to the lack of media literacy, which is very noticeable today, this can lead to negative consequences that the creators of the media in question did not foresee.

‘’It’s just fictional! It doesn’t hurt anyone!’’ The Jaws movies sparked a shark-hunting trend that resulted in a decline of shark species up to as high as 90% But sure! Yeah! Fiction has no bearing on real life and human actions what so ever!

[crossguild]

anyone who projects bigotry and malice onto kepler displays a fundamental lack of uh, it's not even media literacy because that involves actual interpretation of authorial intent, it's just reading comprehension of the actual events of the podcast where he did not do those things. because manipulation (especially successful manipulation) involves…. a lot of the time… just being nice.

you can see it when eiffel for once in his life did a successful manipulation on lovelace by acting cooperative and helpful, except he didn't have the experience or awareness to not harm her on a deep and irreparable emotional level while trying to achieve his own objectives

kepler does a lot of thoughtful and outwardly kind things that all forward his agenda; it doesn't automatically make those things malicious because his objective isn't to hurt people, and it doesn't mean he's suddenly an altruistic angel lmao he's simply willing to hurt (and help!) people in order to accomplish his goals.

the fact that someone can (checks notes) list the events of canon as they happened, cite and source producer commentary along the lines of 'yeah we tried to write a nuanced and human character with kepler, as we try with all our characters' and have ppl assuming they a. want to fuck him or 2. think he's actually a good person... oof! yikes! tell me how YOU engage with fictional characters you like without telling me how you engage with fictional characters! extremely awkward to have all of that shit projected on me.

thinking a tragic backstory or being emotional excuses people who commit atrocities, crimes, violations of other people's autonomy or even are just giant assholes is a you problem! thinking that a lack of bigotry automatically makes someone a good person is a you problem! thinking that liking a character means wanting to fuck that character is a you problem!

i like characters who interest me on a narrative level, not characters i think will give me some imaginary moral high ground in the imaginary character-liking contest some people seem to think fandom is. i like the canon that i'm making content for, so i'm also not pretending that anyone's a hapless victim in the narrative of wolf 359, where every character is kind of an asshole with a different laundry list of skeletons in their closet and an agenda of their own. very reflective of real people, actually.

wild that someone can go into someone else's space and immediately show their entire ass because they don't like a fictional character that other people do. happened in the server twice now, by my count. although it has resulted in a treasure trove of inside jokes, so in a way i appreciate it!

[starlightshore]

just had the passing thought here

i was thinking about UT/DR morality (as i do all the time) and i was like, damn, sure is weird to consider DR doesn’t tackle morality in the same way UT does. In UT, if you even so much as kill a moldsmal you can’t get the good ending and the game confronts you with your actions.

btw this is of course with more nuance than people give i credit for, seriously look into how Sans judges you depending on your kill count. it’s not “you’re a murder go die” its “hmmm yeah murders bad, but one kill is probs self defense.” cause in the situation, frisk is in danger all the time.

anyway with UT the game’s core is about a world of monsters who just LIve in this cave and have lives and you can either save them or kill them. You decide their fate, and those who survive the encounter will live on regardless. The point is, they’re alive. they’re people.

and with deltarune, we DON’T know how the dark world citizens will handle the missing people, the frozen corpses, the loss of their own world as you don’t recruit them to Ralsei’s fountain.

that feels odd! its weird. and there’s a huge wealth of discussion we could get into here but something clicked to me.

in undertale, the monsters are meant to be people. of course they’re video game characters IRL, but in the game, they’re real. and flowey parallels the player in how he views these people as just NPCs and exp. but if you show compassion, the game (and flowey at the end) will ask you to not treat it like a game by literally not playing it. Don’t reset, let these characters live their lives. They’re happy.

but in Deltarune, Darkners... are people and they’re not. they have histories but they’ve only existed for a day. they’re literally toys, objects, code. It’s the will of the Lightner who makes them real, brings them to life. Monsters in undertale are the enemies you uncritically kill in RPGs. Darkners are fictional story characters you can dream up and beat up and kill without considering how the fictional characters feel.

and just like how UT has more to say about violence than just “killing is bad” i don’t think toby is saying “wow you made an oc and have them die? thats fucked up” like LITERALLY that’d be a horrible take. Deltarune is going to be a long ass game series and I don’t really know where’s it’s going or trying to say about narratives and the characters that exist in them yet.

it’s going to be one hell of a ride and i’m here for it. i really, really really like how toby uses the enemies of the game to have us think more critically about our own lives and actions, and in DR, our lack of options. honestly, i am seriously hoping deltarune helps people consider the game series’s themes more and think more analytically because both of these games are rich with depth, morality and themes. engage with media literacy <3 its fun and cool i promise

[firsthopemedia]

Lessons in literacy: How to raise a reader FIRST HOPE MEDIA https://firsthope.media You want to raise a reader. That much you know. But how? That's the $20,000 question. You could probably spend that $20,000 on how-to books for you, readers for your child, flash cards and other accessories, and specialized reading programs promoting every possible avenue to full literacy. You could, but you don't have to do all that. The facts are simple. Between 80-85 percent of children learn to read by the middle of first grade and most of those children will learn without the benefit of fancy reading programs and books. Many of those children will learn to read as the result of simple preliteracy activities they encountered at home and/or school. In fact, studies show that starting early is not necessary and could do more harm than good. Formal reading instruction, especially if introduced too early and if focused on "skill and drill," can actually interfere with emergent literacy. However there are things you can do before you get to that point--and these activities are fun and can lay a strong early literacy foundation to make it easier for your child to learn to read later on. As a basic foundation for learning to read and write, kids need strong speaking and listening skills. When you and other adults around your kids encourage them to talk, ask questions, and use dramatic play, it increases their vocabulary, allows them to hear and practice building sentences, and gives them more knowledge to understand spoken and written language. Simply reading, talking, and listening to a young child in a warm and positive environment at every opportunity are among the most important things you can do. There are three skill areas that form the foundation for reading. Kids who develop strong skills in these areas have greater success learning to read: Print Knowledge, Literacy Awareness, and Language Understanding. Print knowledge is simply the understanding that print (letters, words, symbols, and printed media such as books and signs) carries a message. This encompasses learning that people read text rather than pictures and the correct way to read a book or page (right side up, left to right, top to bottom). Literacy awareness encompasses a child's first efforts to use print in a meaningful way. This includes recognizing letters and groupings of letters (the child recognizes his or her name or the name of a store) and attempts to write letters and words such as his or her name. Language understanding is just that-understanding how language works. This includes being able to sound out individual letters in a word and counting the words in a spoken sentence. Children develop these skills by having many early experiences with language, books, and print. They can have these experiences as part of everyday life, through play, conversation, and a wide range of activities. Young children use play and talk as a way to expand, explore, and make sense of their world. When kids talk about daily tasks and special events, tell stories, sing songs, and scribble, they are laying the groundwork for reading and writing. The primary reason many children struggle with learning to read is because they simply do not have enough experiences with language, books, and print. They need more time at home and in their early childhood programs devoted to helping them develop the skills that lead to reading. A lack of developmentally appropriate skill-building at an early age can significantly limit the reading and writing level a child attains. Becoming literate Becoming a literate person is something that every human begins almost from birth. In essence, we are actually programmed to become literate. However, that does not mean the path to literacy is smooth and easy. While the progression to literacy is a natural evolution we are all programmed to follow, literacy does not occur in a vacuum. Literacy emerges in individuals only when they are immersed in a community of literacy. Interactions such as sharing a picture book, telling a story, and talking about experiences are central to emergent literacy. Most parents are aware of the importance of reading to their child, but it is so important that it cannot be emphasized enough. According to the Partnership for Reading, a project administered by the National Institute for Literacy, "Reading aloud to children has been called the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for success in reading." Typically, parents play an important role in developing this skill by reading to children and showing how important reading is to their daily life. Find time to read aloud with your child every day. Lap time with picture books and stories can strongly motivate your child to enjoy reading. Studies focusing on parents of successful readers found that they do more than simply read to their children. They also engage in specific strategies, which maximize the reading experience. These strategies are actually fairly simple: talk about the book with your child before reading it; read aloud using an enthusiastic voice; and let your child ask questions about the book. Parents can also encourage their child to "read" the story back to them (especially if it is a favorite that has been read many times to the child) and/or share fun variations of the story. However, while this is significant, this is not the only way your child learns. Knowledge is constructed as a result of dynamic interactions between the individual and the physical and social environments. In a sense the child discovers knowledge through active experimentation. Try to make books available for your child to explore and enjoy on their own as well as with you. It is important to remember that literacy is much broader than simply reading. Allowing a child to draw or color and playing word games and singing songs are also a part of literacy. Sometimes literacy development does not actually involve print. There are many ways of learning to read and write. Some of these ways may look suspiciously like play which makes them all the more effective. Children learn through play. Play provides opportunities for exploration, experimentation, and manipulation that are essential for constructing knowledge and contributes to the development of representational thought. During play, children examine and refine their learning in light of the feedback they receive from the environment and other people. It is through play that children develop their imaginations and creativity. During the primary grades, children's play becomes more rule-oriented and promotes the development of autonomy and cooperation which contributes to social, emotional, and intellectual development. Make-believe among peers also plays an important role in emergent literacy. Pretending is, in fact, an ideal area in which children can develop literacy-related language skills. In pretend play, children use language to create imaginary worlds; and the manner in which language is used when pretending has much in common with reading. It is important to provide children time and settings in which they can use language with each other in a variety of social dramatic play activities. Block play, too, can serve as a foundation for literacy. While reading and writing and playing with blocks seem miles apart at first glance, block play offers the literacy-related benefits of helping children understand symbolization, refine visual discrimination, develop fine-motor coordination, and practice oral language. So remember, your goal is not to teach your child to read so much as it is to help them become literate. Immerse your child in literacy by talking, reading, singing, pretending, and playing and you will have done a great deal to prepare your child to become a reader. ing