#anti tr characterizations really

[lucianalight]

@philosopherking1887 I wish I didn’t see this article that you linked in @lokiloveforever​  ‘s post, and remained blissfully unaware of all other awful things that TW has said about our beloved characters and the franchise we loved. At the same time I’m happy because it basically confirms everything we were saying this whole time. So thank you for it. While I was reading it, I had to remind myself that using my phone to break my laptop’s screen won’t do anything good. Instead I’m going to list all the reason’s that TW’s own words refute some of TR fans points and how it proves that Ragnarok isn’t part of MCU. Fair warning: this might resembles a rant because I’m really angry right now.

- “Ragnarok characterizations are like comics more than any other movie.”

Hate to break it to you but,

Cool art but he didn’t like how everyone talked? Well, you know who he reminds me of?

He removed one of the things that made Thor franchise unique and interesting, simply because he didn’t like it. And came up with this nonsense that Thor learned it from Tony, wait no, from RDJ, as an excuse.

“Yeah, Thor spent two years on Earth hanging out with Robert Downey, Jr.” Waititi explained. “So he’s got some sass. He knows a little bit more about irony and sarcasm now. He’s got a little bit of Earth humor.” [X]

Like two years of being on Earth in comparison with more than a thousand years on Asgard can change someone’s speech patterns.

Again with the rich kid comments.

“Thor and Loki are just two rich kids from outer space and we shouldn’t really give a sh*t about what their problems are.” [X]

This also shows he didn’t even watch or understood the previous movies. The whole point of the first Thor movie, was that this rich kid that we apparently shouldn’t give a shit about his problems, had fallen from grace and felt guilt for his wrong actions and tried to be a better person. But apparently the TR version, who thinks he’s a hero and always right and has the audacity to judge and use every character for his own goals feels guilt and is annoyed at his behavior. Yeah, okay.

The picture is taken from this post.

And don’t get me start on Bruce/Hulk. This bipolar, angry green beast who a lot of children have found empathetic, and who some of us boring, whining nerds can identify with has never felt guilt about his actions. It’s not like he tried to commit suicide because of his guilt and self-loathing. It’s not like Hulk has enough heart and intelligence to be upset about hurting innocent people in AoU after he was snapped out of Wanda’s mind control. But apparently killing slaves for sport and not feeling guilty about it give the character more dimensions. Right.

But, hey, as far as TW is concerned, people like Bruce and Loki who are suicidal and have mental illness are just whiny and need to get over themselves.

“Taika Waititi (…) is swift to launch into a description of Loki, the unbeloved son of Asgard, as, “someone who tries so hard to embody this idea of the tortured artist, this tortured, gothy orphan.” He’s discussing the character’s emotional arc in the film, one that sees him put away his childish fixations and step up to save his city from obliteration; to put into perspective his petty family squabbles and realise a home is still a home.” [X]

Anyone still thinks TW is not talking like an ableist?

And don’t forget that being pretty, talking and looking beautiful, not being able to fight like a warrior, and being a nerd are character flaws and make people boring.

“[With Valkyrie] I wanted to make sure we weren’t making a female character that was boring and pretty. What I wanted was someone who was going to play the opposite and be even more of the ‘guy’ character than the guys.” 

I wonder why I am reminded of the bullies I encountered in my life!? (I don’t)

- “TW loved those characters. Otherwise he wouldn’t use them in his film.”

Yeah, no. Not true. Because of all the above reasons about Thor and Hulk and all the reasons I listed in this post about Loki.

Oh, Look! he just confirmed this recent post of mine:

And yours too @magicmastered.  Btw, I completely support your idea to call Ragnarok universe “RCU”.

Also TR lacking emotions was a deliberate choice by the director. Like Korg’s line when Asgard was destroyed was intentionally put there to undermine the scene’s entire impact. 

Can someone please explain to me, a non-privileged person who’s always struggled with economical problems, that why being privileged and rich is considered a bad thing?

Again this is another proof that TW didn’t see and understood the previous movies. Asgard had a warrior culture and looked down on magic users(Loki). Magic that Thor explained was science that humans still don’t understand. Asgard has no parties? Yeah, like it’s totally true:

TW was so allergic to emotions that he changed Odin’s death scene because the audience reacted to it with too strong emotions! Imagine that!

Yeah, yeah, I know, we need to smile more!

The article ends with this paragraph.

“It's important to remember that Taika Waititi didn't make Thor: Ragnarok in isolation. He was chosen to direct this film by Marvel Studios off the back of black comedies, and they supported him in all his creative decisions. That may well indicate that Waititi's distaste with the Thor franchise is shared by Marvel, that they consider the last two to number among their weakest, and that they too wanted to toss the old aside in favor of a straightforward superhero comedy.”

And I agree. TW is not the only person I blame for TR. CH and Marvel Studios are all to blame for making a mockery of the franchise and characters we loved.

[warsofasoiaf]

I’ve been listening to Alternate History Hub & Cypher (Cynical Historian) and they had a terrific video described the 1912 Presidential Election as the most important in modern American history. They also postulated that had Teddy Roosevelt beaten Wilson: WWI would have ended sooner, the USSR likely doesn’t form, and Fascism doesn’t rise. Do you think this is a reasonable theory or do they place too much emphasis on Wilson’s importance?

CynicalHistorian has serious credibility concerns with me. I've listened to a few of his lectures and noticed multiple historical inaccuracies and misconceptions to the point where I had to stop listening because I was rolling my eyes too much. In fairness, a lot of these errors are endemic to the history profession as a whole, (the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact being characterized as a non-aggression pact being perhaps the most glaring one), so it isn't on him specifically, though he's smart enough that he really should know better. AlternateHistoryHub I'm more tolerant of, but mostly because his channel is primarily designed to be entertaining and probative. He even can be quite fun when he specifically goes for an entertaining option, such as when he floated the idea of a Tsarist Russian retreat into Alaska in his "What if Russia never sold Alaska?" video.

What if history always tends to trend Great Man and Singular Event for my taste, simply out of simplicity's sake. It's hard to accurately model trends and forces. WWI and the Bolsheviks never taking power is entirely probable if TR can actually get the United States into war (which is a big if, America was very isolationist and there is no Zimmerman Telegram yet, and the US Army at this point is tiny), but chances are good Russia is still beset by domestic unrest regardless. A lot of Russians died at Tannenberg and during the Brusilov Offensive, war mismanagement even in victory would cause significant problems. While the Bolsheviks coming to power is a distinct outlier given the weakness of their faction, that was also true of our own timeline. The Bolsheviks largely lucked into power due to the Kornilov Affair and the lack of White unity in the Russian Civil War, so it's entirely possible that in the post-war timeline, another bloody revolutionary might take power, either in Russia itself or somewhere else. There were plenty of other violent radicals besides Lenin who desired to establish themselves as the head of a new bloody order.

The idea that fascism would have never risen is preposterous. The intellectual roots of fascism existed before World War One. The fusion of Maurassian nationalism and Sorelian syndicalism was already underway in France, and the Futurist Manifesto in Italy, the precursor to the Fascist Manifesto and a writing that specifically praised violent vitalism as virtuous, was published in 1909. Nationalism, the idea of a national statehood, and revanchism/irredentism were already well-established ideas before the First World War. The videos put too much importance on the idea of fascism as an anti-Bolshevik movement to the point where it crowds out the idea that fascism was even moreso an anti-liberal movement - another common academic misconception when studying the history of fascism. The writings of fascism are littered with the idea of opposing bourgeois decadence, of the idea of the organized majority acting as a ruling class (gaining new prevalence in World War I with the industrial total war nature of the conflict which happens regardless), and the destruction of the plutocratic elite. Mussolini, already an established leader of the Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria initially praised the October Revolution before finding him a "red tsar." So fascism happens regardless of who wins in 1912.

Thanks for the question, Cle-Guy.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[samuelconrad]

Write down one great success you had in your lifetime.

Write down one great success you had in your lifetime. Then write down the disadvantages or challenges that you had to overcome to achieve zapatillas estilo valentino that success. Then identify zapatillas de tacos futbol how those disadvantages forced you to look at your situation differently and ultimately help you achieve success. As empresas da moda rpida copiam os visuais das passarelas e costumam usar redes de fornecimento extremamente eficientes para a cada ano lanar um nmero maior de colees do que as demais varejistas. Mais do que dar dicas de estilo das empresas de moda rpida marca de luxo, o que Larsson pode trazer para a Ralph Lauren, segundo analistas, sua experincia em varejo internacional e em aperfeioar reas administrativas de pouco glamour, como o gerenciamento das redes de fornecimento. "A Ralph Lauren no pode ficar copiando outras pessoas, uma marca que copiada", gioco cubo di rubik amazon diz Michelle Grant, diretora global de anlises sobre o mercado de varejo na Euromonitor. POLO NO: Ralph Lauren said it will close stores and cut jobs as part of a restructuring plan that is intended to save the company about $200 million a year. It expects to take more than $500 million in one time charges related to the move. The retailer stock fell $4.58, or 4.8 percent, to $91.75.. But no matter how tightly the fashion camera focuses on men, women are still the lead consumers, the ones who put money down on most things, including the lion's share of men's clothing and men's fragrance, and it's doubtful that the tables have really turned. 'There's been an overdose of the cult of the female model,' suggests Kimberly Bartel, an advertising professor at Boston University. 'Your choice is either Cindy Crawford and Kate Moss, two ends of a continuum that most normal women can't fit themselves in on. He wants to separate me from зимни обувки adidas 2016 my money by making me fall in love with the silken Kashmiri jewels hanging in the light behind his smile. They are woven by hand in a part of the world that was once famous for its houseboats and floating gardens, but is now a frightening place where Hindus and Muslims terrorize each other and the world. They are artifacts from a time and place where life can be spent weaving silken knots of colored thread on a cotton mat, 10 hours a day for two years; the result is like a stained glass window made of cloth.. Lipstick. Mascara. Best Eye Cream. It's incredible. How does he stay on course to his vision. I just want a few formulas to take with me back to my office.". Well for mens clothing, Purple Label is considered the most exclusive with all their garments made by boutique houses in England, Italy or France. A PL suit can easily cost $5000 and up. A step down is Black Label, which is their standard neve e sale amazon luxury line and found at Bloomingdale's and Nordstrom's, so you come across their items on the sales rack regularly. Remember Marky Mark, ne Mark Wahlberg, modeling Calvin Klein underwear? Fabio might have been the high point, or the low point, depending on your viewpoint. He was the over the llantas 4x4 online top, tongue in cheek update of the 1950s sex goddess, presented as all bod and drk gumicsizma sütétkék precious little brain. He was beautiful to look at. The SA node and AV node contain only one stimulus. Therefore every time the nodes release a stimulus they must recharge before they can do it again.Imagine you are washing your car and have a bucket of water to rinse off the soap. You throw the bucket of water over the car but find you need another one. Sinatra g?r lidt bedre ved langsommere, s?som the christmas song2 1/2 stjerner the classic julealbum, tony bennett: i mods?tning til sinatra, lyder bennett som om han har et skab fuld af julen tr?jer. Det er sagt, er dette en sammenstykket samling flikket sammen fra optagelser som gamle i 1968, og s? sent som 2011. Det tidligere uudgivet hvad child is this er stiv og n?ppe v?rd at nike black tn 001 k?b af hele albummet, hvis du allerede har en bennett ferie s?t. The complainant, Shoel Silver, noted that a reporter labelled demonstrators against an anti Islamophobia resolution as but supplied no characterization of those who supported it. He thought that was unbalanced and challenged the basis for the characterization. CBC policy frowns on the use of such broad descriptions. He serves on several national and international scientific panels on respiratory dolce gabanna adidași bărbații diseases and sits on the Editorial Boards for CHEST, Journal of Applied Physiology, Journal of COPD, the International Journal of COPD, and is an Associate Editor of the Canadian Respiratory Journal. He is the Past President of the Canadian Thoracic Society and is a member of the Institute Advisory Board (IAB) for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Circulatory and Respiratory Health). Exertional breathlessness in patients with chronic airflow limitation: the role of lung hyperinflation. Styling changes limited to the grille, lights and the bumpers, though even these are pretty difficult to spot. Good looking as ever, then.What is significant is Volkswagen's work underneath that new, if familiar, body. The engine range has been extensively re engineered, the Polo as fresh breathed as it comes with its EU6 emissions compliant engines, the fuel efficiency gains as much as 23 per cent over its predecessors.The line up baby nike trainers consists of a pair of three cylinder petrol MPI units of 59bhp or 74bhp, two 1.2 TSI four cylinder petrol choices of 89bhp or 108bhp, a 1.4 TSI with 148bhp and a pair of three cylinder 1.4 TDI units with 74bhp and 89bhp.It's not just under the bonnet where the Polo has been tweaked, the 'new' car featuring a far more comprehensive equipment list as standard. At left, Senior is wearing a soft blue Madison sportcoat, Izod seersucker shorts, a white Ralph Lauren polo and slip ons by Dockers. Junior is wearing Ralph Lauren from head to toe, including a striped polo shirt, cargo shorts and green sneakers. All fashions can be found at Belk. It's really amazing. People come in and buy six at a time and it's businessmen buying them. I wanted a little shine but I also wanted the eye to go to the cut of the suit and to clean lines.

[russellthornton]

Malignant Narcissist: How to Read the Signs You’re Dealing with One

Whoa, malignant narcissist? That’s a pretty heavy name to call somebody, don’t you think? Well, yes, but I promise you that it fits quite well.

Do you ever wonder if you are a malignant narcissist? Well, I’m going to assume that you don’t. I can’t imagine people lying awake at night, staring at the ceiling wondering, “Hmm, am I a malignant narcissist?” It just doesn’t seem likely. “Am I too clingy?” or “Am I obnoxious?” More likely.

What is a malignant narcissist?

A lot of you may be wondering what the heck is a malignant narcissist. Well, you’re in luck because it’s sort of my job to tell you. Like, literally that’s why I’m here.

As quoted by Wikipedia *a great source of information, honestly*:

“Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism. Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines families and organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.

Malignant narcissism is a hypothetical, experimental diagnostic category. Narcissistic personality disorder is found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), while malignant narcissism is not. As a hypothetical syndrome, malignant narcissism could include aspects of narcissistic personality disorder as well as traits of antisocial personality disorder and paranoia. The importance of malignant narcissism and of projection as a defense mechanism has been confirmed in paranoia, as well as ‘the patient’s vulnerability to malignant narcissistic regression’.”

So, if I am to understand this correctly, malignant narcissism is an actual disorder. While the argument of whether or not it actually exists is valid, for the sake of this feature, we are going to sit on the side of “it exists.” Personally, I truly believe that being a malignant narcissist is a real thing—whether or not it is characterized as a mental illness is up for discussion. Honestly, it’s not really my business or job to determine that.

It is my business however, to overanalyze things that don’t need analyzing and write about them for the people of the internet. So, hello, welcome, I’ll be here for a while. [Read: Toxic people: 25 early warning signs to watch out for]

How to tell you are dealing with a malignant narcissist

Could I be a malignant narcissist? Maybe. Probably. I take a lot of selfies, so? Whatever forever.

#1 They put you down whenever they can. Any opportunity to put you down, they will. Putting you down increases their superiority complex, and allows them to feel better about themselves. The whole point of being a malignant narcissist is that you believe you are better than everybody else, to be frank. They may even undermine you in a way that feels natural and as if they weren’t even meaning to. [Read: Do these secret signs reveal you’re in a bad relationship?]

#2 Backhanded compliments. Do they make compliments that seem somehow rude? Perhaps they say things like “wow, you’re really good at that for a woman.” Hmm, listen buddy, I’m just good at this, period. Backhanded compliments are another way they take control of the relationship and make themselves feel better about their shit personality. [Read: How to react to a backhanded compliment]

#3 Short-tempered. Do you feel like you walk on egg shells when they are around? Yah, probably because you are. Seriously, they turn even the smallest comment into something massive. You might bring up dinner plans and they snap at you for never taking their feelings into account. Cool. Great. Fabulous. You just wanted some eggs rolls, but okay, I guess we’re yelling now.

#4 Turning down plans.  Maybe you were invited to attend an event together, and they say no because they would rather spend time alone *because they love themselves, duh*. Normally, this would be totally fine. I get it, we all need our alone time, but when it is every single time you get invited to go somewhere? Yeah, okay something isn’t quite right here. Anti-social behavior is a huge sign you are dealing with a malignant narcissist.

#5 Holding a grudge against you or someone else. Perhaps they still hold an argument over your head from months ago that you thought you moved past. Well, think again. They bring it up and don’t you dare think they are just going to let that go, because they won’t.

They want the control, because to them, you don’t matter. They are superior to you, and they won’t miss an opportunity to make sure you know it. [Read: How to let go of a relationship that’s bad for you]

#6 Shuts down your personal opinions or others. Basically, your opinions mean nothing to them because they are yours and not their own. You’d better get used to this if you plan on continuing a relationship with this person because this behavior won’t end overnight. It takes time, and they actually need to want to change their behavior. Chances are, they don’t even believe they need to change a thing. Remember this: They can do no wrong.

#7 They don’t react well to judgements *against them*. Most people can handle some gentle criticism, right? Everybody could improve little parts about themselves, even a malignant narcissist. Unfortunately, if you try to give them some gentle criticism, you might be in for a world of criticism yourself.

They will likely turn the tables and start picking out all of your flaws and things that you should change. They are perfect, you’re the one that needs to adjust. Well, according to them anyways. To me, you’re perfect. Okay, maybe I’m not a malignant narcissist. [Read: 16 clear signs you’re in a narcissistic relationship]

#8 They don’t even ask you opinions, because they really don’t care. You’re not actually surprised, are you? They truly don’t care what you have to say, unless, of course, you are complimenting them. In that case, please never stop talking because they clearly need an ego boost. I mean come on, they must be so insecure, wow, wow, wow.

#9 Grandiose gestures are their thing. They act sporadically and irrationally. To win your affections, they may use grandiose gestures such as elaborate date nights or gifts. Buying you a car, or a trip to Europe–something totally insane. Or perhaps they might even propose out of nowhere. [Read: Are they a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Know the warning signs of a psychopath]

#10 They idolize interesting public figures. I once knew a malignant narcissist that had a strange obsession with Hitler. I know a lot of people think that he was an interesting man and had a sick, twisted mind, but to idolize him? I don’t know, man, that just isn’t right.

[Read: How to get out of a toxic relationship with your dignity intact]

Dealing with a malignant narcissist can be quite taxing and exhausting–don’t fret. Notice the signs early and get out while you can. Like, now.

The post Malignant Narcissist: How to Read the Signs You’re Dealing with One is the original content of LovePanky - Your Guide to Better Love and Relationships.

[isisprisoner-blog]

BILLY COTTON – SEXUAL SADIST AND ACUTE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (APD)

BILLY USED TO TELL ME THAT HIS STEP-SON SAID TO HIM MANY TIMES THAT HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE CHILDREN, BECAUSE IF HE DID HE WOULD HURT HIM.  THEN BILLY WOULD ALMOST SMILE.  I DID NOT KNOW HOW DISTURBED BILLY WAS WHEN I DATED HIM.  I THOUGHT JASON MEANT THAT HE WOULD BE SO HARD ON A CHILD THAT IT WOULD EFFECT HIS CONFIDENCE.  BILLY DID NOT BEGIN TO REALLY ABUSE/TORTURE ME UNTIL AFTER WE STOPPED SEEING EACH OTHER. I NOW UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT HE HAS DONE TO ME THAT JASON’S STATEMENT WAS A VERY SERIOUS ONE.  I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT BILLY DERIVED PLEASURE FROM PHYSICALLY HURTING PEOPLE.  IT EXCITES HIM AND ONCE A SADIST STARTS THE ABUSE, IT ESCALATES RESULTING IN RAPE, MURDER THEN MUTILATION.  HE ALSO DESIRES TOTAL OBIEDIANCE FROM HIS VICTIMS AND BELIEVES THAT HIS VICTIMS LOVE HIM EVEN WHEN HE IS KILLING THEM.  IF THE FBI DOES NOT STOP BILLY AND HIS FRIENDS, HE WILL SUCCEED IN KILLING ME

“The essential feature of sexual sadism is a feeling of sexual excitement resulting from administering pain, suffering, or humiliation to another person. The pain, suffering, or humiliation inflicted on the other is real; it is not imagined and may be either physical or psychological in nature. A person with a diagnosis of sexual sadism is sometimes called a sadist. The name of the disorder is derived from the proper name of the Marquis Donatien de Sade (1740-1814), a French aristocrat who became notorious for writing novels around the theme of inflicting pain as a source of sexual pleasure.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , also known as the DSM , is used by mental health professionals to give diagnoses of specific mental disorders. In the 2000 edition of this manual— the Fourth Edition, Text Revision, also known as DSM-IV-TR — sexual sadism is listed as one of several paraphilias . The paraphilias are a group of mental disorders characterized by obsession with unusual sexual practices or with sexual activity involving nonconsenting or inappropriate partners (such as children or animals). The paraphilias may include recurrent sexually arousing urges or fantasies as well as actual behaviors.”

“DSM-IV-TR criteria for sexual sadism include recurrent intense sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving real acts in which another person is suffering psychological or physical suffering, pain, and humiliation. The victim's suffering, pain, and humiliation cause the person with sexual sadism to become aroused. The fantasies, urges, or behaviors must be present for at least six months.” Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Sexual-sadism.html#ixzz4WphTEyIZ

“the FBI's database indicates that these people— almost always males— start out by collecting pornographic materials that depict sadistic acts, or they may draw ropes and chains on the photographs of models in swimsuit or lingerie advertisements. They then typically progress to following women at a distance, to hiring a prostitute in order to act out the fantasy, and to asking a girlfriend or other willing partner to cooperate with their fantasy. In other words, the severity of sadistic acts tends to increase over time.”

“Non-consensual sadistic behavior often leads to problems with the criminal justice system. Issues related to legal problems may impair or delay the patient's treatment. Persons with sexual sadism may be reluctant to seek or continue treatment because they fear being reported to the police or being named in a lawsuit by an unwilling partner.”

Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Sexual-sadism.html#ixzz4Wph5k3Zb

Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Sexual-sadism.html#ixzz4Wpgfw3eE Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Sexual-sadism.html#ixzz4Wpg1byi4 

Anti-Social Personality Disorder (APD)

“The central characteristic of antisocial personality disorder is an extreme disregard for the rights of other people. Individuals with APD lie and cheat to gain money or power. Their disregard for authority often leads to arrest and imprisonment. Because they have little regard for others and may act impulsively, they are frequently involved in fights. They show loyalty to few if any other people and are likely to seek power over others in order to satisfy sexual desires or economic needs.”

“People with APD often become effective "con artists." Those with well-developed verbal abilities can often charm and fool their victims, including unsuspecting or inexperienced therapists. People with APD have no respect for what others regard as societal norms or legal constraints. They may quit jobs on short notice, move to another city, or end relationships without warning and without what others would consider good reason. Criminal activities typically include theft, selling illegal drugs and check fraud. Because persons with antisocial personality disorder make "looking out for number one" their highest priority, they are quick to exploit others. They commonly rationalize these actions by dismissing their victims as weak, stupid or unwary.”

“Some legal experts and mental health professionals do not think that APD should be classified as a mental disorder, on the grounds that the classification appears to excuse unethical, illegal, or immoral behavior. Despite these concerns, juries in the United States have consistently demonstrated that they do not regard a diagnosis of APD as exempting a person from prosecution or punishment for crimes committed.” Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Antisocial-personality-disorder.html#ixzz4Wpj9xE45

Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Antisocial-personality-disorder.html#ixzz4WpidjdYk

BILLY AND THE COTTON CLUB PARTY EVERY NIGHT.  THEIR ENTERTAINMENT:  SEEING HOW CLOSE THEY CAN GET ME TO DEATH, WHILE HUMILIATING AND TORTURING ME...THEY ALSO INGEST LARGE QUANTITIES OF METHAMPHETAMINE, WATCH EACH OTHER HAVE SEX AND USE ME AS “THE SACRIFICE”

[lucianalight]

It is curious that Marvel in Loki's official biography claims that Loki was the obligatory son and not a traitor. This Mobius is really weird. He says he knows everything about Loki and everything doesn't add up. It really confuses me. Maybe they caught the wrong Loki's variant?

I doubt it since he showed Loki moments of his life. I just hope they’re not doing TR’s retcons for Loki’s characterization. Mobius sounds like anti-Loki fans.

[lucianalight]

What I meant, was that I see a lot of anti ragnarok people praising the trailer, as if it doesn't look JUST as cheap as ragnarok. Also, the creator of the show, in his interview, not ONCE talked about Loki or how excited he was about directing Loki or anything Loki wise AT ALL. He expressed his interests in all the other characters but not Loki. hmmmm sounds familiar.

It's very evident in the first episode, he's mentally still stuck in a mashup between ragnarok and Thor 1-2 and not in a good way. He still isn't being treated fairly and he's still not being developed and grown properly which is why I'm saying Tom definitely does not have creative power over Loki, which is why I'm saying that title they gave him is a lie. We all know how Tom feels about Loki. He completely understands him unlike anyone else, YET no one is letting him take over the character to give him ACTUAL character development.

I'm like 99% sure that if Tom took over, the show wouldn't be ragnarok 2.0, but he a Shakespearean story and if he had trouble writing it, he would rehire Kenneth and/or Guillermo.

in not going after anyone who likes the show, I'm just saying too many anti ragnarok people are pretending it's a much much better show than what it is. that's it

I'm still waiting for the show to end to give my final verdict about the quality. So far it's been average to good imo. Loki's characterization is definitely a mashup of TR and other movies and he acts ooc sometimes. This and the narrative framing are the huge drawbacks imo.

I've read some of the interviews since your latest ask and I have to agree. They seem worrisome and MW seems like another TW.

We can't be sure about how much Tom had creative power in this. All we know is that Loki lectures happened after the show was written and that Tom seems really excited and happy about this. So I don't think we have enough facts. But tbh I'll be surprised if the ooc parts is how Tom sees Loki.

I know you're not going after anyone. I said that generally, because I felt that might happen considering my experience in fandom and since then I've seen some posts that exactly did that.

[philosopherking1887]

I also forgot to mention that TW, a ~man of color~ wrote a movie where a white colonizer (ODIN) was PRAISED, UPLIFTED, & CELEBRATED BY THE NARRATIVE AND OUR PROTAGONIST. TW even made sure Thor got an eyepatch at the end as symbolic emulation. A man of color made THAT MOVIE, and they're stanning? Because he's brown?? By their own logic, TW suffers from internalized racism bc he wrote that shit, and anyone who likes the movie is racist/has internalized racism. Not my black ass. Fuck that movie.

I’m so sorry that it’s taken me so long to answer this… I had to get through a mountain of grading in a hurry because I have stupid grading anxiety so I procrastinate, which makes everything worse because I have to do it all at once instead of spreading it out.

I found the post where I talk about how benevolent racism is part of the reason people aren’t allowed to criticize Ragnarok or Taika Waititi. Even if there are genuine, serious problems with the work of a POC—not just the characterization mess or the complete unlikability of the main characters (I gotta majorly side-eye the people who find Ragnarok!Thor “relatable”), but the Social Justice-y problems that you would think they would take seriously (the stereotypically queer-coded villains; the implicit slut-shaming of Loki; the toxic masculinity all over the place; the one-line dismissal of Jane Foster, a brilliant female scientist, to be replaced by a woman who is considered more powerful and therefore “more Thor’s equal” because she can beat people up)—you’re not allowed to point them out, especially if you’re white, because all criticism of a POC constitutes racism.

Honestly, this kind of reminds me of the standard Leftist line that westerners are not allowed to condemn human rights abuses in non-western countries, especially formerly colonized countries, because (A) western countries aren’t perfect (duh) and (B) everything that’s wrong in formerly colonized countries is to be blamed on European colonialism. It seems to me that (B) is extraordinarily patronizing: it’s like they’re saying that victims of colonialism (always people of color) can’t be held responsible for anything because they can’t be expected to know better, almost as if they’re children whose wrongdoing is always to be blamed on the adults’ bad parenting.

I also found the post where I discussed how Loki’s story could (and should) have fit in with the (purported) anti-colonialism message. And there’s another post from someone else that’s been in my drafts folder for a while because I wanted to say something about it but I never seem to have time, which is very relevant. The OP is gushing about how Ragnarok is this groundbreaking, subversive critique of colonialism… but then someone with American indigenous heritage reblogs to add that Loki is also a victim of colonialism and makes the comparison with Native American/ First Nations children who were taken from their parents and adopted out to white parents or indoctrinated in abusive boarding schools. That essay was presented not as a criticism of Ragnarok—which the reblogger seemed to think had sufficiently dealt with Loki’s trauma in the “fictional retelling of his relationship with Odin” presented in Loki’s play about himself—but as a rebuttal to the claim in a “literary review” of Ragnarok (which falls all over itself to hail TR as “the coolest, slickest, funniest indictment of white supremacy that you’re likely to see for a long, long time”) that Loki has no relationship to Asgard’s imperialist past and is just “a character who doesn’t care as long as he gets his.”

Interestingly, the reviewer added a note in response to criticism of that characterization saying that he “personally really like[s] the character” and acknowledges “his complicated, and often tragic, backstory of otherness and biculturalism,” but insists that that “do[es] not make him NOT fundamentally power hungry.” Which… kind of wasn’t the point of the criticism? It was that in a rundown of how the various characters were related to the history of imperialism, all he said about Loki was that he “doesn’t care as long as he gets his.” Whether or not Loki can rightly be characterized as “fundamentally power-hungry” is a complicated question and depends on how sincere you think his “I never wanted the throne” protestation was and how much you think conquering Earth was his idea as opposed to Thanos’s.

But the fact that the reviewer had to be reminded of Loki’s connection with Asgardian imperialism—as a victim of it, not just as a beneficiary—points to a basic problem with Loki’s depiction in Ragnarok, which is obviously what was freshest in the writer’s mind (and I doubt he had rewatched the other movies recently): that despite its claims to provide a comprehensive critique of colonialism (and no, it wasn’t being subtle), it was so intent on ridiculing Loki and minimizing all of his problems that it had to downplay or dismiss any respect in which he could be considered a victim of colonialism. That would have made Loki sympathetic, which the movie wanted to avoid at all costs.

It is completely baffling to me that Thor turns to Odin’s Force ghost for strength and guidance and this is not problematized at all. If Ragnarok was trying to make anti-colonialism its theme, that scene seems like it should have been from a different movie. I wonder if that came from the aspect of the movie whose message was (in the words of an interview with Waititi, which I found screenshotted in this post, and which I presume is a paraphrase of something he said) that “a home is still a home, however you may feel about its inhabitants.” This message is presented in the context of TW’s insistence that Loki needs to “put away his childish fixations” and “put into perspective his petty family squabbles.” Let’s just think about that for a second: in a movie that is supposed to be an indictment of colonialism, a stolen child being lied to about his heritage and indoctrinated with racist beliefs about his own people is a ��petty family squabble” and his resentment about it is a “childish fixation.”