#and i believe MOST people are inherently good

[adragonsfriend]

To expand on a particular point, but slightly to the left, I sometimes see the argument made that “Jedi are partly inspired by Buddhist beliefs, so to criticise Jedi is to critics Buddhism, so critisizing the Jedi is inherently prejudice, so stfu.” None of those things necessarily follow from one another.

(Please note: there are many, many words for how much I love the Jedi and believe they are right about how their world works and how to be good in that world, because I have written both essays and fics about it)

First, the world building of the Jedi involving significant inspiration does not in any way make them representative of Buddhism in the real world. A couple of movies could never contain the depth and breadth of any religion—at most SW attempts to communicate a few principles, with varying success. (Besides which, argument that Buddhism is the sole religious inspiration for SW and the Jedi when everyone or almost everyone involved it their creation grew up in a Christian culture, the main writer explicitly says their thematic opposition is “like the Devil,” and lots of the people involved probably have totally other religions in their lives as well, is frankly foolish)

Second, while a fan-base similarly steeped in a wider Christian and Western culture is certainly likely to be less knowledgable about and quite possibly prejudiced against other understandings of the world, people are allowed to criticise real religions. It should be done with the weight and understanding of what that means—telling millions or sometimes billions of people they are living they lives wrong in some way, and either tacitly or explicitly asking them to change it—but it is not inherently prejudiced to do so. Buddhism, like any other religion, is not some magical mystery thing which is above becoming part of societal or personal strife.

The difference comes in, like OP says, with how well you understand what you are arguing about. For me, criticising my parents Christianity is fairly easy to do with nuance: I used to believe, I went to the services, I read the book, I experienced having a church as a center of community, I’ve seen some good and some bad come of it. I could not say the same if I was critique any other religion, so if I wanted to, I would have to take far more care and do far more research.

There are many arguments about what went on in the SW universe, some of which come down to the ambiguity on interpreting fiction, and some of which come back to real world issues. Some of those arguments are fun, some of them are ones you and I have opinions on, and some of them are dumb; “Jedi are partly inspired by Buddhist beliefs, so to criticise Jedi is to critics Buddhism, so critisizing the Jedi is inherently prejudice, so stfu,” is one of that last group.

There are far more interesting rephrasings of it to explore, including but not limited to:

“I think your view of Star Wars is being limited by growing up in a Christian/other non Buddhist culture.”

“Well if you go and read this text, you’ll see that Buddhism actually says something similar to what Jedi say, but the text has a little more context…”

Or even, “clearly we both know fuck all about Buddhism, so let’s try talking about SW and the Jedi in their own rite, without drawing on real religions to make quippy one liners about how right we are.”

And remember, both-sidesism is always a lie—not just in that two or more “sides” are very rarely equally good—but in the very assumption that any issue of real importance has any inherent “sides” to it at all.

I don't and never will mind posts that criticize the Jedi, their beliefs, etc etc. I myself have pointed out the fact that many other people in the Pro Jedi community do not acknowledge or "allow" others to point out that, yes, the Jedi did have flaws as an organization, and they definitely had some very flawed members. What I do mind is when those posts (and their points) are made with a complete lack of understanding of the material being talked about. You are not building a good argument on the Jedi being wrong about attachments if you do not understand that attachment and love are not the same thing. You can be attached/develop attachment to something you fucking hate. Even then, attachment in the Star Wars universe, as in Buddhism, is defined by feelings of clinging or an inability to let things go/allow change.

You are not building a good argument on the Jedi having a slave army if you are not willing to bring up how they were put into that position, how they themselves dealt with that situation, and make an argument for what they could have done differently that takes the complexities of the entire situation into account. You are not making a good argument about the Jedi being wrong to hold Anakin's fear against him if you cannot and/or will not acknowledge that Star Wars' entire power/magic system is based upon negative emotions and our reactions to them. I could go on and on and on, but I would be beating a dead tauntaun at that point. My point is, approach the media and your arguments in good faith, with clear knowledge on what it is you are talking about, and you'll find people more receptive to hearing you out. That goes for both "sides." Just be good to each other, always.

[schwarzwelter]

you ever start reading lenin and feel the most catharsis you've felt as a disabled fuck from a blue collar family at risd?

apologies to all my cutesy art school associates who think anarchism is trendy but it is an unsustainable ideology that actively promotes the destruction of systems that many disabled people could not live without.

you cannot mutual aid into making insulin. you cannot mutual aid chemotherapy. you cannot mutual aid disability out of society. we cannot undo colonialism.

if anarchism was a sustainable fucking ideology, we would still be cavemen. what supplants your revolution? basement raves and ketamine, or solidarity with the people mommy and daddy said were subhuman?

[shorthaltsjester]

the mighty nein - critical role

this is a place where i don't feel alone. this is a place where i feel at home.

[pidgydraws]

i was too fucked up at the time to be able to take part in this fandom during season 1 and WHAT (O A O) i am realizing is that there was a really loud subsection of peeps who were SO MEAN to the goodest, saddest, most pathetic boy in Piltover. and i do NOT get it????

bullying him? valid. hella valid. everyone should bully Jayce. but vilifying him?!?! WUHH???? when everyone was up-in-arms after episode 6 i thought it was just people being incensed over Viktor~ but NAH! some people really wanted to hate him! (and how could literally everyone not have been sobbing their eyes out on his behalf at the time??????)

Everyone in Arcane is fucked up~ but the idea that people would see this foolish idealist - this brilliant, naive boy - who's so full of love that he'd rather DIE than be unable to effect positive change in the world... some would see him be manipulated, make bad choices, be blinded by his own place in the world, and struggle and claw to find a way to be good, do good, and save the people he loves~ see him LEARN from and GRIEVE his every wrong turn, and would still VILIFY HIM???? dammmnnnn~

((O v O)) i'm glad i wasn't here for that. Jayce isn't even my favourite character, but i'm dumbfounded on his behalf. i was NOT watching the same show as a percentage of people. and that's WILD to me.

If anything~ learning that just makes me love him even more now. I was always, and will always be, on team: "Jayce did everything wrong and he is still the most good boy."

[bythehearts]

not to bring tiktok drama on tumblr but like every time a ‘scandal’ comes out with one of these ‘production companies’ that make fan films i always hope we’re finally gonna discuss how they professionalize something that should be an hobbyist endeavor… and yet every single time i’m disappointed.

[magnus-and-the-dragon]

I keep thinking how sad it is that Liam’s story ended where it did. People are ‘supposed to’ hit rock bottom and then recover; to use these moments to turn their lives around instead.

It’s so sad for him that he couldn’t see how loved he was or how much he still had to lose. It’s so sad for the people who loved him, whose last memories will be of him struggling.

I think Liam was just a normal kid who was victimized and exploited. He ended up being someone who took that suffering and turned it on the people around him, who was made to feel powerless and dealt with it by seeking power over others. That isn’t right. The things he is accused are horrible. But I don’t think he would have become that sort of person if he had been protected when he needed it. We should all mourn the loss of the kind and decent person he was once, and could have been.

He deserved the chance to recover, to climb out of the hole he was in, to get sober and make amends and find happiness. Everyone deserves that chance. And I am sad for all of us that we will never know who he could have been on the other side of healing.

[smile-files]

this might be a hot take... but if you care about disavowing media made by bad people out of fear of looking like a bad person yourself more than you care about actually doing good things... you might have your priorities (and your morals) screwed up a bit :/

(see my tags for more of my thoughts on this topic! please try to avoid making make bad-faith assumptions about what i mean!)

[the-abyssal-system]

Singlets stop talking about systems as if you’re an expert because you follow some on tumblr challenge (also warning the tags here are a huge rant so feel free to ignore that)

[fionnaskyborn]

one day when i am not busy dying on the inside and out i will write an honest-to-god essay about how people are, for the lack of a better descriptor but simultaneously for the lack of a more perfect one, too edgy about five.

[dashiellqvverty]

something i keep thinking about is this video of a nonbinary person speaking either at a meeting or in front of a state legislature or something about book censorship and they were talking about how like “if i’d had books like this when i was younger i wouldve been able to put a name to what i was feeling and understand myself better etc etc” and it just fucking breaks my heart bc. i mean people were booing and jeering and standing up to walk towards them and having to be restrained and that was SO fucking brave of them but also like. yeah. they know that. and thats exactly why they want to ban the books.

[starscay]

It’s hard being a pragmatic bitch and an optimistic loser but somebody’s gotta do it

[catboyfurina]

I hate being a 'gets mad when I'm scared' person but also like. At least I know so I can make sure to not do anything until I've calmed down....

[callme000]

I don't think audiobooks are bad or an inferior format - but they're not necessarily reading and they're not equivalent to oral storytelling! When people pass on stories orally, they are directly interacting with their audience, tailoring that retelling in that particular instance to that particular audience. Easiest example being campfire stories that are always about "nights like this" and "not too far from here". It's a false equivalence because audiobooks do not and cannot do that. (Ted Chiang has a very interesting story about oral storytelling called Truth of Fact, Truth of Feeling which is centered on the differences between oral and written tradition - fantastic read) The malleability of oral tradition is the most important part!

Audiobooks are wonderful for accessibility, for those who may have learning or physical disabilities that can make traditional print inaccessible - 100% in agreement. But audiobooks, especially in this day and age, are very often used as background noise when completing another task. Not saying it's impossible to be focused on an audiobook, but reading traditional print requires pretty significant active involvement and is hard to do while also dedicating some portion of your concentration elsewhere.

Imo you lose a lot with audiobooks: you can't make annotations, the reader/narrator's intonation and performance choices will color your perception of the book, it is difficult to jump between passages or sections or quickly browse through the book, you cannot really set your own pace without audio distortion - you also gain a lot: integration of music and background noise and multiple voices expand the world far beyond the page, it's great for accessibility, it can help incur a more visceral reaction (ex: Lolita's audiobook, which is excellent and I highly recommend it) in the listener.

But it is fundamentally different and I don't think it's entirely unfair to assume that people are often engaging with audiobooks in a less active way than they do with traditional print. Relinquishing your ability to "steer" the reading makes it a significantly different - and not necessarily equivalent - experience. To the point where, in my experience, it's often incomparable.

[steveyockey]

To be aware you might be trans but unwilling to do anything about it is to create endlessly bigger boxes within which to contain yourself. When you are a child, that box might encompass only yourself and your parents. By the time you are a gainfully employed adult, that box will contain multitudes, and the thought of disrupting it will grow ever more unthinkable. So you cease to think of yourself as a person on some level; you think not of what you want but what everybody expects from you. You do your best not to make waves, and you apologize, if only implicitly, for existing. You stop being real and start being a construct, and eventually, you decide the construct is just who you are, and you swaddle yourself up in it, and maybe you die there. There is still time until there isn’t.

This reading of TV Glow’s deliberately anticlimactic, noncathartic ending cuts against the transition narrative you typically see in movies and TV, in which a trans person self-accepts, transitions, and lives a happier life. Owen gets trapped in a space where he knows what he must do to live an authentic life but simply refuses to take those steps because, well, burying yourself alive is a terrifying thing to do. The transition narrative posits a trans existence as, effectively, a binary switch between “man” and “woman” that gets flipped one way or another, but to make our lives so binary is to miss how trans existences possess an inherent liminality.

Humans’ lives unfold in a constant state of becoming until death, but trans people are uniquely keyed in to what this means thanks to the simple fact of our identities. You can get lost in that liminality, too, forever trapped in a midnight realm of your own making, stuck between what you believe is true (I am a nice man with a good family and a good job, and I love my life) and what you know, deep in your most terrified heart of hearts, is real (I am a girl suffocating in a box).

And yet if you want to read the film as being about the dangerous allure of nostalgia, you’re not wrong. I Saw the TV Glow totally supports that interpretation, too! But in tempting you with that reading, the film creates a trap for cis viewers that will be all too familiar to trans viewers. Somewhere in the middle of Maddy’s story about The Pink Opaque being real, you will make a choice between “This kid has lost it!” and “No. Go with her, Owen,” and in asking you to make that choice, TV Glow is simulating the act of self-accepting a trans identity.

See, the grimmer read of the film’s ending truly is a nihilistic one. It leaves no hope, no potential for growth, no exit. Yet you must actively choose to read that ending as nihilistic. If you are cis and the end of I Saw the TV Glow left you with a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction, a weird but hard-to-pin-down feeling that something had broken, and a melancholy bordering on horror — congratulations, this movie gave you contact-high gender dysphoria.

In an infinite number of possible universes, there is at least one where I am still living “as a man,” embracing my fictionality, avoiding looking at how much more raw and real I feel when I “pretend” to be a woman. I think about that guy sometimes. I hope he’s okay.

Consider, then, my cis reader, that TV Glow is for both you and me, but it is maybe most of all for him. I hope he sees it. I hope he breaks down crying in the bathroom afterward. I hope he, after so many years locked inside himself, hears the promise of more life through the hiss of TV static.

Emily St. James, “I Saw the TV Glow’s Ending Is Full of Hope, If You Want It to Be,” Vulture. June 4, 2024.

[ask-the-rag-dolly]

edit : i'm sorry but this post is messy i don't like how this is the ramble that got the most attention shhffs please check out the addendum in the reblogs if you want a more clearer analysis

-

FIRST OF ALL the thing about the paint huffing - Other than that it's funny - is that we were getting ragatha at her most honest . she's more reflective and reveals her mind more which is a Lot considering that she has shown herself to be a people pleaser trying to avoid conflict . this is Literally The Last thing she wants

and honestly it would be fun to see the fallout of this in episode 5 when she would inevitably sober up and be Mortified about that fact considering she said This to gangle here

like . interesting ragatha . is that why you Do Not Stop Jax when he goes to bully gangle . other than not wanting him to hate you you also prefer it if gangle is in her tragedy state . is that it . Is That It -

also you guys don't know how much i fucking screamed at these scenes okay . there's nothing i love more than nice characters that show their less than desirable traits . my favorite thing about ragatha is not that she's a sweetheart but that she's Dishonest . even to the point that gangle mentions it in her talk with pomni

like my ongoing theory right now for the ' evil ragatha ' comment gooseworx made for episode 5 is that ragatha's going to say or do the Most Morally Ambiguous thing possible that will send the entire fandom on fire . like we're talking Arguments on whether she's in the right or wrong Even though this is a show that invites nuance instead of black and white views , and it'll be so fucking marvelous to witness

NOW . i really don't think she's faking being nice ! i believe with all my heart that ragatha's inherently Good and i will throw hands at anyone who thinks otherwise . it's just that she's just Repressing What She Thinks About The Others because , again , Avoiding Conflict ! which is shown by how annoyed she got with pomni talking to gummigoo ( gayass ) , what she said to gangle , and what she said to zooble

yes i screamed about the toybox interaction i knew that ragatha was going to not like zooble's grouchiness But I Digress .

all of this is interesting because . again , ragatha's a people pleaser trying to avoid conflict . i think her reasons for being nice and helpful are both selfless and selfish . selfless - she doesn't want anyone to go through the stress and pain of feeling alone , and selfish - she doesn't want anyone to hate her . they're like a smoothie , she's not one or the other . it's just that the latter reason ... has a lot more influences on her thought processes than she'd like to admit .

and that's showcased if you look at episode 2 with her conversation with kinger . she was worried about pomni going through something traumatizing , yes , but she added that she thinks pomni doesn't like her that much . which . it's a small piece of dialogue but it really shows how much ragatha's Gripping That Fucking Fawn Response . yes , her concern is everyone's wellbeing , but she also Would Not Like It If Anyone Hates Her , to the point that it'll stick to her . and she'll try So Hard to compensate for it .

like . she is really a nice person but she's dishonest because she doesn't want to be hated which is very much a selfish reason . she's falling into that pitfall of ' a friend to all is a friend to none ' . argh . why is she so complicated god i'm going to put her in that deepfryer again

[tenok]

.