#especially when it comes to media and stories

[dontforgetukraine]

TIFF: And so it continues...5 to ZFF

Aaand "Russians at War" is going to be at the Zurich Flim Festival. Because of course.

The Russian Canadian director Anastasia Trofimova met a soldier on home leave in Moscow's subway, accompanying him to the front lines, where she spent over a year filming unauthorized footage in a battalion near the Ukrainian border. In her film, she gives voice to soldiers who have no understanding of the war's causes and soon find themselves mourning comrades who have become Putin's cannon fodder. This harrowing and unique war documentary captures images you would never see in the news media. 'Who are the Russian soldiers who are fighting against Ukraine? What do they think of Putin? The documentary has them speak their minds. A film that revealed more to me about this conflict than 100 newspaper articles.' – Christian Jungen Anastasia Trofimova Anastasia Trofimova was born in Moscow and is a Russian-Canadian filmmaker. She first studied communications and political science and then international relations. Trofimova is a renowned filmmaker who has made a name for herself through her work in conflict zones such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Russia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In her films, she addresses social inequality and injustice. She has been honoured with the Canada Screen Award and has participated as a jury member at the News and Documentary Emmy Awards five times. RUSSIANS AT WAR (2024) / CONGO, MY PRECIOUS (2017) / VICTIMS OF ISIS (2015) / HER WAR: WOMEN VS. ISIS (2015)

No mention of RT in the director's bio of course. Same shit, different film festival.

Also, if this propaganda film reveals more to you about the war than 100 news articles, that's not shining praise for the film, but rather an indictment of the sorry state of our collective media landscape in Ukraine and the West.

The West obviously has a problem of not reporting on Ukraine as often anymore. It's not "fashionable". A lot of the reporting I've come across is superficial and there is rarely a deep dive into the Ukrainian civilian aspect of the war. It seems there always has to be either a grotesque catastrophic event due to Russian aggression (like the Okhmatdyt children's cancer hospital), or an interesting enough topic in order for something to be considered (like the Mykola Hryshko national botanical garden being in danger of losing its tropical plants due to the war causing electricity cuts.) There is a dearth of human interest stories, which is the core of understanding this war and the effects it has on Ukrainians.

When there is such a story, it falls into the situation of the "box-ticking approach", as described by Dr. Olesya Khromeychuk:

It is not enough to simply ‘do Ukraine’ by reviewing one book on the war, especially if it’s by a Western journalist rather than a Ukraine-based author. It’s not enough to host one exhibition, particularly if it is by an artist or photographer who only spent a few weeks in the country. Quickly putting together a panel on Russia’s war in response to a major development at the front and adding a sole Ukrainian voice at the last minute doesn’t cut it either. This box-ticking approach is unhelpful and insulting.

Most if not all of the quotes I pull from human-interest stories are from Ukrainian journalism. If you've been following me for the short time I've had this blog up, you'll notice I read a lot. At this point I've given up on looking up Western based English media, because the core stories that define the war are just not there. If there is an interesting article from the West, I'll usually see it pop up on my Twitter feed (like the botanical garden story) and I'll take a look then because its been recommended and has what I'm looking for.

And finally, Western media can't let go of having some Russian expert talk about Ukraine, instead of actually talking to Ukrainians.

Kate from Kharkiv: Ukrainian media, both in Ukrainian and English, must improve their regional reporting. They are increasingly resembling local Kyiv media, which limits global awareness of events across Ukraine. Consequently, international media rarely cover these regions unless we die en mass. But not too often, because if often it is not news anymore.

Like Kate from Kharkiv points out, mass-casualty events are no longer "fashionable". She further indicates the lack of essential reporting in specific regions where conditions are different from Kyiv. One such example is the Russians turning Kherson into a "human safari". Initially, only Zarina Zabrisky was reporting on how Russian drones pilots were deliberately targeting civilians, and she shouldn't have to be the only one reporting on this. While there are some Western news outlets that have reported on this situation now, it's still not enough. Zarina Zabrisky is still diligently doing the bulk of the work in reporting on this. I can only imagine what other stories in other regions are going untold because there is little to no coverage.

The other obstacle I've noticed is accessibility to news in Ukraine from a language perspective. There isn't enough English language coverage from Ukrainian media outlets. While I would love to be able to read Ukrainian confidently, I'm nowhere near there yet, and the West is collectively even further away. Google translate isn't a great substitute either for obvious reasons. The number of times I wanted to read/watch a news report, and there was no English supplement is a lot. It happens frequently with the English language Ukrainian news accounts I follow. They'll post a clip from a news report with no translated subtitles and say, "look at this!", but I can't extract the information they want to show because of this problem.

This is why I hold volunteer translators as some of the most valuable contributors in the information space, and I will always credit them.

It's a vicious cycle. If a large proportion of Ukrainian news media is inaccessible to Western media due to the language barrier, information has even less of a chance of being noticed and spreading. This is, in my opinion, the other side of the coin on issues in the information war.

[devastatinglygreen]

What do you think of the Twitter discourse on Penelope's dresses?

very proud of myself for knowing what you're referring to actually.

i think they're being very loud about trying to say the quiet part without saying it. the silhouettes are the same or similar. if people wanted to be honest, the only thing they really have in common is a body type and a smaller chest that accommodates a higher bustline.

they put penelope in those unflattering, boxy dresses for a reason for 2 seasons so to act like it's out of nowhere that they suddenly changed the silhouette of the dresses in s3 when the entirety of bridgerton is beyond historically inaccurate is wild. they lowered the bustline because penelope has a large chest. they kept her looking younger and childish until her season for a purpose. pretending that's how she was always going to/supposed to look is insane.

a leading woman in her character's main arc is always going to come into her own, that's basic storytelling. pretending that penelope was supposed to stand there in a yellow dress that makes it look like she's much rounder and flatter chested than she is feels like a weird way to say media literacy passed you by. unless, of course, you're saying something else. which we know most of them are.

colin's clothes changed as well? he grew into darker colors and more mature silhouettes. we know what they say about him. they do try and hide it under other critiques but they happily talk about his looks like he's not conventionally attractive in a way they hesitate to do with penelope.

what they really mean is, and i'm sure they'll disagree because it's not a good look, is that they think people they don't personally find desirable don't deserve community. especially romantically.

i'm not going to pretend i find all of the actors on the show attractive but you'd have to fight me to get me to name them because it's rude and offers nothing productive on the show, their stories, or the ships they're involved in.

but polin lives rent free in their heads even when we're getting insane leaks for another season so it is what it is i guess.

[lycanthropyreturned]

How labels impacted and continue to impact my alterhumanity/therianthropy.

The first thing one may notice in the alterhuman community is that here are a lot- and I mean a lot- of labels. Therian, Otherkin, Fictionkin, otherhearted, otherlink, just to name a few. These can be overwhelming at first, especially when someone is just learning.

In the modern therian community I have noticed that there's a backlash against those who are learning. If someone gets a term incorrect, or misunderstands something, they are shunned, and called fake. This just pushes that person away from the community and its inherent hostility. Especially with so many labels inside a community, I think people need to learn to be more lenient, and to point folks towards resources that can help them learn and understand. How else is one supposed to learn otherwise?

With this, people can find labels to be restricting, and that's valid. Others can find labels endearing and comforting, and that's also extremely valid. Each person has their own preference, and as long as they aren't hurting anyone, there's no harm inherently from it.

I have been comfortable with the term therian for almost ten years now. I have watched the community grow and change, and watched myself grow and change. And with growth and change comes shifts in identity. It is and entirely normal part of life.

When I saw the overall context and community of therianthropy change, it at first startled me. Sadly, nowadays, when someone says therian, it is far from the textbook definition that they think of. People will think of children doing quadrobics, or homemade masks and frankly- tiktok. It frustrates me that in the present this is how therianthropy is perceived. I myself do not fit the modern "frame" of therianthropy (masks, quadrobics, etc), and I don't want to.

Now if you express yourself this way it is entirely valid. However it is also true that this is how the public sees therianthropy due to social media algorithms. It's also true that not everyone aligns with this kind of self-expression with their therianthropy.

So that made me stop and think. While I don't identify with the modern version of therianthropy, I am still a therian. I still identify as nonhuman, on a non-physical level, involuntarily. That makes me a therian. But do I need to call myself that? No, no I don't. Plenty of people who would fall under the therianthropy term do not identify with the term itself. After all, it is just a word, and what is language to an animal except nonsense?

I decided to explore more labels for myself. I had always contained myself strictly to the label therian. I had not given thought or any exploration to anything else. This was in part due to the backlash I knew I would get online, and in part a personal boundary. I had to overcome both of those to get to where I am now.

Through this search I realized I didn't necessarily need a label for myself. Sure, I may find comfort in it, and sure it makes it easier for other people to understand, but did I really need a specific label for my identity? My identity that only I truly know and experience?

The answer was no- but there was a hang-back. I personally find comfort and joy in the term therian. I am a therian and that will not change. And of course there was still a social stigma to have some sort of "label" for myself so others would know.

So I returned to my roots. Lycanthropy. I am inherently canine. I have always been and will always be canine- most strongly wolf. Some folks will retaliate this that wolf is the most common theriotype/kintype, but that's another story for another day. I have been obsessed and entranced with wolves and their mythos- especially the werewolf.

I don't use the term werewolf for myself. I don't view myself as werewolfkin. I am not the changing creature from mythology. I am a wolf, trapped in a human's skin. I am but just one wolf. I am no monster from mythology, however intimidating I wish I was- I am just a dog. Just a wolf.

Lycanthropy is the more "professional" term for a werewolf. However, lycanthropy has another meaning too. It is a form of delusion where one believes so strongly that they are one hundred percent physically an animal. Medical lycanthropy.

But I know I am human. I know my privilege as a human and I know, even on those full-moon nights, I will remain this way. But that's a simple fix. Thankfully the human language is vast and has many conjunctives. So all I did was put a non in there. Non-medical lycanthropy. I know I am human physically, but the person here is wolf.

So yes, while I use labels for myself, they are most definitely not something required, and I have experimented with that. Only you know your true self, and that's what matters. As long as you know your true self, what else is there to do? There is no need to explain to others if not desired, so why?

Afterall, they are just words, and what are words but nonsense to the animal mind. So be kind to your fellow animal. Help them along with their journey of education into this new world. If their views and experiences differ from you, respect that.

[artist-issues]

you're fun to talk to about media so I've got something to ask.

what do you think of this trope where a lie or misconception becomes commonly accepted as truth by the characters in story? especially as a resolution.

example: in the finale of "Kubo and the two strings", the Moon King(main villain) loses his memory, so when he asks who he is, the townspeople lie to him and say he was a kind member of the community, rather than the dictator he really was.

I don't like it. I see a falsehood being widely accepted as a tragedy, and I'm just left imagining what happens if/when the characters find out the truth. I can't really take something as a happy ending when it's.. y'know, fake. I imagine you feel similarly.

but hey, I could have totally missed the point of the ending of KATTS, if you watched it, you might have seen something I didn't.

I haven’t seen Kubo in a really long time; I don’t think I was thinking critically about it the first time I watched it, so my opinion now is an afterthought. I’d have to see it again to be fair!

…But I do seem to remember that the villain is defeated with some importance placed on memory. And the identity of the monkey and that beetle warrior also have to do with the sacredness of memories. So, if that’s the case, then yeah, taking his memory away as a “good resolution” can kind of hamstring the whole theme of the movie. Unless you tilt your head and squint and go, “no, see, if all you have is bad memories, then it’s just as powerful to take those away—the point is, memories have power either way!” But even that feels a little half-baked, gymnastics-brainy.

Basically, I agree with you. A story that resolves with a character, or characters, accepting a lie as truth is always going to be a fumble of the whole story…unless it’s intended to be a tragedy, a cautionary tale. I can think of three where that’s super evident.

1 ) A Streetcar Named Desire

In this movie the main character, Blanche, is lying about who she is, for the whole story. She even has this great symbolism thing with light—she hates bright light, on the surface because she’s vain and doesn’t want anyone to see signs that she’s aging. But under the surface, the character is really an immoral, lust-filled, broken person who knows she can be cruel and isn’t deserving of love. She doesn’t want anyone to know that side of her. She hides it all under vainglory and pride. So she pretends to her sister, Stella, that she’s upright and moral and has simply fallen on hard times. But her sister’s brute of an abusive husband, Stanley, who is always 100% his authentic, awful self, sees through Blanche when she comes to stay with them. In the end, Stanley rapes Blanche and then carelessly shrugs her accusations off.

The main point of this example is that Stella, the wife of the rapist Stanley, has been portrayed the whole movie as sometimes-leaving her abusive husband…but only as far as the apartment above their own, literally right above him, so that she can easily go back to him. And at the end of the movie, when Blanche is being taken to a mental institution because she’s broken-down after being found-out as a fraud, then raped, Stella lets them take her away. And then Stella goes up to the apartment above, where she always “pretends” to leave Stanley. It’s such a halfhearted, lazy way to end a movie that’s all about desire-versus-truth. Because what it implies is that Stella is leaving Stanley for now, like she might believe that he raped her sister…but she’ll eventually go back to him. And in the meantime, Blanche goes off to the mental hospital, with this iconic line “I have always depended upon the kindness of strangers.” By which she means, “strangers don’t know what a two-faced monster I really am, so I can con them into thinking I’m a morally-upright woman fallen on hard times, and they’ll take pity on me—so sure, I’ll go with you, strange doctor I’ve never met.”

The central point of the movie is “as long as nobody looks the truth in the face, everyone can go on getting what they desire.”

Of course, that’s true. But the other truth is that, if Stella accepted what her sister and her husband really are—her sister is broken and her husband is a monster—then she could choose to rise above “animal desire.” She could choose to take care of Blanche, and Blanche would see that “someone seeing who I really am” doesn’t always have to lead to ruin and damnation. Stella could then, also, choose to really leave Stanley, for good, and be at peace, while Stanley’s “desire” would be rewarded with ruin.

But instead the opposite is what happens. Blanche goes away believing, in her broken mind, that her womanly wiles and faking will protect her from further injury, even though they never have—Stanley ends the movie exactly where he began it, screaming for Stella to come back and knowing that she will—and Stella, too, ends the movie going away from Stanley…just for a little while, until animal desire convinces her to just pretend Stanley isn’t really a monster, Blanche must be crazy, except this time, when she goes back, she’ll be carrying a child into that abusive lie.

All characters wholeheartedly embracing hurtful lies so they can keep riding their desires. I hate that movie. You could see it as a cautionary tale. Most don’t. Most see it as a movie with “hot Marlon Brando” who “really loves Stella—all the characters ‘really love each other,’ they just don’t know how to express it healthily!” 🙄

I think the worst part is that the movie behaves as if it is true that every time Blanche reveals her own brokenness or is vulnerable, the world STOMPS on her for it, nobody loves her despite her brokenness. That’s the real mistake this movie makes. It has an opportunity to show unconditional love and it leaves the audience thinking Blanche was right, and there’s no such THING as “unconditional” love, instead.

Anyway.

2) X-Men Origins: The Wolverine

This one is less thematic. But it’s just dumb because the whole movie the main character, Logan, Wolverine, is being taught that “Giving in to Bloodlust Makes You an Animal—Compassion For Those Weaker Than Yourself Makes You Human.”

So in that context, the whole narrative is centered around the exploration of “Who is Logan/Wolverine?”

…Which makes it really stupid that the movie ends with him losing his memory. So…the movie asks “Who Are You?” and right after the character figures it out, he forgets and ends it with the answer: “I don’t know who I am.”

That’s just a waste. That’s silly. It allows you to take the character to real, hearty, coming-of-age, hero-forged-in-fire, a man-born-of-tragedy places…and then just shrug all that stuff off at the end. “Never mind. But it was a fun ride, wasn’t it?”

Especially because they built it all around the dichotomy between Logan and his brother, who’s little more than an animal—and Logan and his wife, who could be an animal, but chooses compassion instead, and reminds him of his choice, too. —and then she dies, and it’s implied that maybe his brother does too, but who cares, cuz he forgets. Who cares? Not Logan. So why should the audience?

I get that they “needed” to do this so that the end of this movie sets up the beginning of the X-Men Movies, which already established that Logan can’t remember “his past.” But like…then don’t make the point of the movie “Who Am I?” just to end on “…Okay, So WHO AM I?”

It’s a fine movie up until that point.

They should’ve made the movie center around “Can’t Change What You’ve Done; But You Can Be Redeemed.” And then show his memory loss around a moment of self-sacrifice. So that it’s still tragic, but at least when he wakes up from the self-sacrificial act, he’s “a new man.” Then later, in the third X-Men movie, when Logan chooses that mutant kid over “learning the secrets of his past,” it all comes full circle, because his “self-sacrifice moment” can stay where the Old Logan died.

Anyway. You didn’t ask me to re-tell X-Men Origins: The Wolverine. But it’s the same basic premise—a movie ends with a character losing their memory, or believing a lie—whatever.

You know, actually, this one isn’t so much “believing a lie” as it is “going back to considering the lie (that he’s an animal) because all the work done to convince him of the truth has been stupidly erased”

3) The Dark Knight

Saved this for last because nobody would read all that if they saw me scratching up the beloved Christopher Nolan Masterpiece.

But The Dark Knight is a perfect example of what you’re actually talking about.

The movie is awesome until the end.

It’s not hard to guess what I’m going to say. Harvey Dent is supposed to be a shining example of a good guy, and the goodness, that Gotham is capable of. The Goodness that will ultimately defeat Evil. And Evil is represented as Chaos.

Bruce sees that and that’s why he’s willing to give everything to make Harvey succeed as the hero Gotham needs. Because if Gotham sees that evil can be conquered by doing things the right way, the orderly way, that will get Gotham out of it’s “Justice is Broken, Vengeance is The Only Form of Justice” cycle.

Then there’s the Joker. He doesn’t believe there’s any such thing as Good—it’s all just Chaos (which is evil.) And his big mission is to prove it. It’s ironic that he twists Harvey’s sense of “justice” around to this viewpoint—where Harvey uses “chance” as just another form of “retribution.”

Anyway. All of that’s interesting.

But the movie both perpetuates a lie and does so by having the characters end believing a lie.

The lie it perpetuates is “The Joker is right, there’s no such thing as Justice or Good—it’s all just chaos, but pretending it’s not can get you through the day.”

That’s the lie it perpetuates!

And how does it do that?

By having the “city of Gotham,” and Bruce himself, believe a lie.

They believe Harvey Dent really was a good guy who died a hero. Bruce believes Rachel died still waiting for him, which symbolized her supposed belief in the good of Bruce and capability of Bruce to let it all go.

And why was it important that they believe those lies? Because the supposed truth is too harsh—that there’s no Good, it’s all Chaos. And if they believe that supposed truth, they’ll all turn out like Harvey or Joker. If Bruce believes Rachel chose Harvey, he’ll supposedly give up on something important in himself.

Okay but the problem with that is you have characters believing a lie because of a truth—that isn’t the truth. It’s the same problem with Streetcar.

The people of Gotham, the worst people of Gotham, aren’t always going to choose evil. There is such a thing as justice and good. And Harvey turning into Two-Face doesn’t change that. The movie could’ve shown that. It started to, with the prisoners on the second boat choosing not to kill the civilians to save themselves.

But it chose not to make that the point of the movie. It chose to make “The Joker was Right, Good is a Comforting Lie, & the Closest You’ll Ever Get to Justice is Vengeance & Chaos” the point of the movie. By having Batman convince the whole city to believe the comforting lie, what you’re saying is, Bruce believes that the truth won’t set Gotham free, only wrap it in chains.

That’s the problem with these movies.

And that’s why I think Captain America: The Winter Soldier licks The Dark Knight hollow every time, and is all-in-all a better movie, hands down. In this continued essay—

[possamble]

I do think it's a really valuable exercise for anyone to build a habit where you like... When a dark-skinned character skeeves you out, just take a second to ask yourself where that's coming from. Is it canon character traits or conjecture? Would you react the same way if they were light-skinned?

Maybe, at the end of it, you might be able to pinpoint a real personal reason why you're averse to the character. And that's fair! I just think we all benefit from being honest with ourselves. Sometimes a reflex happens so quietly, you don't notice unless someone points it out. It literally happens to everyone once in a while--lifelong conditioning doesn't go away just because you realized it's wrong to think those things consciously. Don't be so afraid of being wrong that you never examine yourself!

[fuckyeahchinesefashion]

chinese guzhuang fashion

[denkies]

Some of yall do not know the difference between "media that glorifies Bad Thing" and "media that portrays Bad Thing and the audience has to use critical thinking skills" and its actually concerning

[sisterdivinium]

Another thing (among many) that Warrior Nun gets absolutely right is its cast full of women and how they're treated throughout.

By gifting us with a diverse selection of female characters, each with their own backgrounds, looks, desires, virtues, flaws, we are treated to a wonderful mosaic of what women can be and effectively are. Proud, scared, selfish, hurt, strong, vulnerable, cunning, selfless, determined, evil, good... Each one of them can be individually and duly explored without making it look like a comment on some ideal sort of "Woman", without slipping into stereotype and the usual dullness that many other narratives reserve for their female characters.

By having (many) more than only a single interesting, well-rounded woman, by allowing each of them to be complex and human rather than just a prop for some man or eye candy for a male audience, the world of WN seems to us a lot more like something we can recognise, something truthful, unlike many other stories we've seen before — and that is one hell of a breath of fresh air.

[walker-lister]

I just have to remind myself sometimes that no matter what anyone else says, the way a piece of media makes me feel and the positive impact it has had on my queer identity is valid, and that tearing myself apart thinking I have to defend it or questioning my own place within queer communities is not at all important when compared to the almost tangible sense of 'rightness' that piece of media helped me to feel about myself.

[seventh-district]

so uh. that 2.2 Special Program, huh

[redysetdare]

Hey you! yeah you stop! don't type another word! listen - listen I know what you're trying to do. you think you're being helpful by going on someones post and telling them to look at a specific media that has the basic similarity to what their post is asking for. But I'm going to tell you a secret, okay? They probably already know it. People have probably already told them about it. they probably have checked it out. because when you have such limited options it's kind of impossible not to hear about these things...and guess what...guess what - they might not of even liked it. Because if someone is asking for representation they likely want it in a story that they'll enjoy. yeah, not everyone wants to read YA drama/romance books just for the representation, crazy i know. Yeah some of us actually want well written stories about things we actually care about. some of us want characters to be like us while they fight dragons or something.

so stop typing that message about how OP should totally check out X media. maybe, if you really wanna recommend something, maybe just ASK OP is they are looking for suggestions and what kind of stories they like so you know if that's even what they're looking for. trust me, they'll appreciate your input a lot more if you just ask.

[staravya]

me @ me: do not yuck someone elses yum. do not yuck someone elses yum do not yuck someone elses yum. do n

[emblazons]

That's a nice point about Matt Duffers, lol. But I sometimes feel like the show could not manage to deliver the message on the show. Most of the audience thinks Will was truly being childish and in the wrong for playing DnD in S3... and they still think that way after years. And of course, the audience is 'dumb' sometimes and they do not get the messages of the show and its narrative, but... it is also the case that the show could have done... better, so to say.

Honestly I think you make a fair point, though I personally don't agree with the idea that they "could have done it better" just because a lot of people don't understand what they were doing? Sure, I agree that there were maybe simpler or more straightfoward methods to get to where we are now, and I don't necessarily agree with all the Duffer's decisions, but...I certainly don't think they've done anything poorly…on top of the fact that the show isn’t even done.

I have talked about it here several times before, but: Stranger Things was and always has been a show for a specific audience (which The Duffers have repeatedly said, even walking into S5) rather than the behemoth household name moneymaker a lot of people see it as today, and a lot of the muddled interpretations of the show come from that expansion beyond its original bounds more than anything else. I think that, especially with the introduction of S4 when they “started showing their hand,” their direction for the story was clear to the audience it was meant to be—and while it is perhaps its a bit "pretentious" in a way to say so, the fact that ST is lost on people who it wasn’t designed for doesn't mean the Duffers did a weak job—it just means they aren’t the audience the show was written for.

With smaller shows (and even movies) that have more niche audiences and smaller viewerships (aka: people who know what to look for in the show), you don't see the same kind/level of criticism or audience dissonance ST gets—just like the audience for Clueless (1995) can appreciate things about it that people outside of its viewership might think was overwhelmingly foolish, same as the viewership for Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is going to catch and appreciate things about it that are going to fly right over the heads of a fair number of people who watch it...despite both of those films being phenomenal examples of work for their specific audiences/genres.

There are people who don't like Jane Austen who know she's a master at what she did even if they don't understand it, and people who hate Stephen King books still know he's good at what he does (unless they're being critical for its own sake). To me, its much the same with The Duffers & Stranger Things—it makes sense to almost all of the nerdy, deeply steeped in movies and TV humans who watch the show, and most of us have realized they are on their way to making a clear point about how embracing your nerdiness is positive...even if most of the general audience hasn't gathered that yet.

Also, given the show isn't even finished yet, its jumping the gun a bit to say "you haven't delivered" on something that isn't yet complete? You can’t get 4/5 of the way through a book, see the lead up for the story, and then shut it before the dénouement…only to then say the author doesn’t know what they’re doing lmao.

Like. If The Duffers fuck this up I will be right there demanding justice for Will Byers, same as you. But I’m not gonna call Matt Duffer a liar or incompetent writer before his proverbial essay’s even finished just because someone who wasn’t the intended audience for ST doesn’t understand or see the deeper themes of the show ☠️ if it’s pretentious to say that then…I guess they have to mark me down LMAO.

Anyway. I hope that makes sense? And that you know I am not coming for you, but more the idea that the duffers are fucking up somehow because some people don’t understand them. But still, thanks for the ask!

[thedreadvampy]

imo anti-intellectualism doesn't just mean reacting against academic language or "having enough of experts" it also means crucially reacting hostilely to attempts to learn or to make ideas and knowledge accessible.

what I mean is if somebody explains something in simple language and your response is to call them stupid for doing so, or, more commonly, to mock people for needing a common language explanation, you're not fucking helping.

part of tackling anti-intellectualism and wilful ignorance is making learning and understanding accessible and rewarding. widening the conceptual gap between Academia and The Regular Man just encourages the idea that academic thought is elitist, irrelevant or untrustworthy. the counter to anti-intellectualism is academic accessibility.

(that doesn't mean 'everything should be understandable to everyone' or 'nobody should be using technical language or highly complex ideas' bc things like technical language and specialist conversations and academic communication exist for a reason and help move things along with specificity and depth.

and yeah some people still just have no interest in learning and will get mad about not being invited to a conversation they have no interest in.

but. the minute you start sneering at people for not having heard of an idea or not yet having figured out how to understand it, or talking shit about attempts to make knowledge more broadly accessible and comprehensible, you are not on the side of knowledge. that's all bb thanks 😘)

[wayward-wren]

Classic Who explores ideas, New Who explores morals

classic who is like 'i see this trend, lets explore what might happen if that trend continues and let the audience figure out what it's talking about and come to their own conclusions.'

new who is like 'this trend is BAD and i'm going to PREACH A SPEECH about why it's going to RUIN EVERYTHING' and it's so much more exhausting

[cbk1000]

Chapters: 1/? Fandom: Merlin (TV) Rating: Mature Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Merlin/Arthur Pendragon (Merlin), Gwaine/Morgana (Merlin), Gwen/Lancelot (Merlin) Characters: Merlin (Merlin), Arthur Pendragon (Merlin), Morgana (Merlin), Gwen (Merlin), Gwaine (Merlin), Lancelot (Merlin) Additional Tags: Idiots in Love, Uther's A+ Parenting, Social Media Fic, texting fic, if you've read my other work, and you're looking at the word count of this, wondering how in the hell it's 0, that's because this is a fic composed entirely of fake social media posts, because i've read a few of these sorts of fics, and thought it looked like fun, Jealous Arthur Pendragon (Merlin), Sexting Summary:

In which Arthur is gay and besotted, Merlin is bisexual and oblivious, and they have to get their shit together through WhatsApp.