someone probably said this already but in spiderverse i think it's interesting how when pavitr was first introduced everyone thought something bad was gonna happen to him bc of how confident and optimistic he was. and then in the actual movie we see that something bad was supposed to happen to him (police chief dying!) but it doesn't! miles stops it! and miguel berates miles for this, says it's going to cause the universe to collapse or whatever.
there's this idea that tragedy is inherent to spidermans growth, and while it's true that some spiderpeople learn important lessons through loss, no one stops to ask, is it really necessary? yeah, maybe the chief was supposed to die. but why does spiderman have to be formed through tragedy? why do we (as heroes) have to let people die? pavitr didn't lose anyone, and he's still a good spiderman! maybe, if he doesn't suffer, he'll end up better off for it!
so while miguel is arguing for all this big picture stuff about saving the multiverse he's lost sight of what it really means to be a spiderman, he's not looking out for the real individual people. yeah it's just one person who would die, but that one person means something to someone. shrugging and saying "stuff just sucks sometimes, we can't do anything about it" is the opposite of what superheroes do. pretty obviously, miles arc is also a reflection of the struggles people face in real life, working within unequal systems, where it's easy to shrug and say "that's just the way it is" and not ask "but why does it need be this way? can't we do something about it?"
miguel is arguing that you can't have your cake and eat it too. presumably, miles and co. are going to find a way to get around that and change things for the better (and maybe that's why miles has that line about two cakes in the advisors office!)
9K notes
·
View notes
It's ADHD awareness month so l thought it'd be nice to explain why someone with ADHD might consciously make horrible decisions despite being aware of the consequences
So, let's image a situation. A person with ADHD is doing a mildly entertaining activity, let's say doomscrolling. This person also has a task to do. I made a graph where the brighter the color, the higher the satisfaction that the person gets from an activity
[ID: A graph showing a line that divides into two separate lines. The main line, and the bottom line, are a dull yellow. The top line starts off black, and turns bright green as it gets further away from the bifurcation. /End ID]
So here, doomscrolling isn't super gratifying but hey, it's better than nothing. The person has the choice to keep doomscrolling, even though it's honestly pretty boring, or they could do the task they need to do. When they're done with that task, they'll feel a lot better, so they should do that, right? Just do the task because there's literally no cons? Well. Look at this other graph:
[ID: The same graph as before, but cropped to only show the bifurcation itself. This way, the top line seems to be completely black. /End ID]
This is how a person with ADHD perceives the choice. They can logically know that they'll feel better if they do the task, but executive dysfunction makes it literally impossible to get any sort of motivation or satisfaction for gratification that doesn't currently exist. So the choice goes from 'feel meh or feel good later' to 'feel great in comparison or never feel good again'. And what's the obvious choice here?
366 notes
·
View notes
While I still don't think the show has done enough to show why the world despises and fears male channelers (since it really should've been embedded into the world building, so far we only know that the Aes Sedai hate and fear them) and it does kinda lessen the impact of the narrative that none of the EF5 had at least an initial gut reaction to Rand being able to channel. I do wonder how they're gonna handle that topic moving forward, cause it kinda has to be addressed now that Rand is actively channeling. I could see it being expanded more deeply as Rand's madness progresses/tie it into his arc.
the show has made it ABUNDANTLY clear that Male Channelers Are Considered Bad News By All. it IS embedded into the worldbuilding. was the king saying that logain's gone mad and trying to kill him not enough for you? was the people of tar valon jeering and throwing fruit at him not enough for you? was rand and mat saying "hey if i'm a male channeler please kill me" not enough for you? was rand's terror the second he realized selene saw him channel not enough for you? was selene's act of how a normal person would react to finding out her boyfriend can channel not enough for you? was his heartbroken yet unsurprised reaction to her rejection not enough for you? was the whole backstory of a male channeler causing the apocalypse not enough for you? do you think that show-onlys are completely incapable of putting all these pieces together along with aes sedai treatment of male channelers and coming to the conclusion that male channelers are probably not very popular with most people and it's going to be very tough for rand that he is one?
literally what else should they have done that would make sense within the very small world and very early story of the first 2 seasons/3 books that they didn't already do? shown emond's fielders sitting around the dinner table talking about how much they hate and fear male channelers when none of them has ever met one and thus it's not relevant to their lives? wasted time doing a whole sidequest for rand in s2 where his abilities are discovered by some Average Citizens and they react badly? shit all over show!mat's characterization and given him a negative reaction to rand in s2 that would not make sense for his current show headspace, just for the sake of furthering rand's randpain? i'm sick of the rand stans who act like rand is the only character who matters and mat's characterization should be sacrificed just so we can go "oh poor rand uwu even his own best friend is mean to him". portraying mat in 2x06 as the sort of person who bullies and kicks his best friend while he's down would've been beneficial because......? what is so wrong with the show making the ef5 feel like mutually loyal friends instead of "rand is the best and most loyal friend in the world but the rest are little shits who abandon him as soon as the going gets tough"? seeing as in the books, mat continues to be an extremely loyal friend to rand throughout the series but most readers are too stupid to see through his unreliable narration and realize he doesn't mean it when he says that rand channeling is like him eating babies, i'm not surprised the show decided to simplify things in order to convey the true heart of mat's character (loyal and caring friend to rand) in a more obvious manner.
and i guarantee you that no show-only is going "oh, it's only aes sedai who have a problem with male channelers, everyone else thinks they're cool". that's not happening. show-onlys are not stupid, and they understand that male channelers are considered bad news by all; or maybe they haven't thought much yet about how male channelers are viewed by the average public, but in future seasons once we see rand getting shit from the average public, they are not going to be surprised or confused or go "but i thought it was only aes sedai who had a problem with them and everyone else thinks they're cool?", they're going to go "oh, well we've seen how much aes sedai hate them, so it makes sense that everyone else does too". stop. think for 2 seconds about "have i actually seen a large number* of show-onlys misunderstanding X and/or do i think it's plausible that a large number of show-onlys would be likely to misunderstand X, or do show-onlys have enough context clues to figure out X for themselves or to be unsurprised when X is expanded on and made more explicit in future seasons and i'm working myself up into a state over a non-issue?"
*there are always going to be a handful of people incapable of critical thinking who willfully misunderstand what the show is showing us, just like there are readers like that with the books, hence unless a LARGE number of general-population show-onlys are misunderstanding X, as opposed to just 20 idiots on twitter, i do not consider it a failure by the show in portraying X.
57 notes
·
View notes
Laios would learn that first names are intimate and take that to heart. He'd call him Chil and feel giddy about it (that's my friend!). Chilchuck would chastize Laios for saying it too much or "just don't call me that in front of the other half foots" and it'd only make "Can you pass me a spoon, Chil?" all the more intimate.
98 notes
·
View notes
i need the murder time trio to drink eachother's blood after causing an injury. that's so romantic in both my eyes and theirs. i need them to bite eachother and claw at eachother and injure eachother and hurt. and then when they try to patch eachother up make the injury hurt more before finally wrapping it up with a bandaid and a kiss or a lingering glance or DARE I SAY a hug (because imo a hug is much more vulnerable than a kiss). peak of romantism i dare say
i need them to use violence against eachother as a way to keep them grounded or to just let out anger towards eachother i need dust to gouge out horror's eye and then give horror his own to replace it. i need horror to squeeze killer's soul until he can feel the pain but in exchange killer gets to use a knife inside his head i want killer and dust to fight everyday and soon their bones will be littered with scars of the other's attacks I NEED THEM TO HURT EACHOTHER!!!!!!
they share pain and release anger and frustration and all that stuff onto eachother but dw dw this is how they love. but they do genuinely dislike eachother (because no matter how much they love one another they STILL can never manage to get over their differences and that's what makes them PEAK) but they also care for the other two and in their fucked up minds this is a good relationship. not because its not toxic because it definitely fucking is but because everyone is satisfied
i love murder time trio poly
41 notes
·
View notes