#just say you don't have media literacy

[musicalgifs]

*reference to this video, not my actual opinion

[time-to-write-and-suffer]

I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."

I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.

Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.

Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.

[lazylittledragon]

As someone who read the second half of the Drizzt series as it came out (yes I'm that old lol), I just know you have thoughts about him/the books so PLEASE share! So glad there are so many younger DND players getting into it and keeping our lovely boy alive <3

YOU'RE SO RIGHT ANON I DO HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT HIM

i just!!!! love him!!! so much!!!! he's such a treasure

idk if this is me just overthinking things but the fact that he's THE dnd hero but he's also like. a petite little guy and his defining character trait is being KIND and he loves his friends and he's very physically affectionate (which feels kind of crazy to me that the early books came out so long ago and he was always like that??) and his best friend is his cat and he likes to have FUN and he treats swordfighting like dancing and he STILL sought the approval of his family even after years of abuse aND HE JUST LOVES EVERYONE SO MUCH

he's truly the fantasy protagonist of all time i love him i need to kiss him on the forehead

[makiswirl]

can i just say. and this is probably a niche hill to die on. that i am so gobsmacked every time someone vaguely hints at the idea that jotaro doesn't care meaningfully for the other crusaders, usually particularly kakyoin and joseph, when those two actually tend to be the ones he reacts to being hurt the hardest

like he cares for his loved ones!!!! that literally plays into his character motives in every single part he shows up in!!! stop lying to me!!!!!!!

[kg-day]

I genuinely want to know what show the people who say that Aang never respected Katara are watching. "Aang never let Katara feel anything other than what he wanted her to feel" "He idealized her" "He didn't care about her feelings" "He didn't support her the way she supported him". WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM??? That's a rhetorical question because I already know what episodes/moments they're using to make those assertions (The Southern Raiders and the kiss in Ember Island Players), and even then, THEY'RE WRONG.

Let's start with TSR. This episode gets so misinterpreted it's not even funny. First off, Aang was never even upset with Katara in this episode, he's just warning her against killing someone??? He never gets mad at her or berates her. He just talks to her with a level head??? He openly acknowledges that he knows and understands how much rage and pain Katara is in, and he never tells her that she shouldn't feel it, he just advises her not to act rashly because of it??? Where is the lack of respect? Where is he ignoring her feelings or getting upset with her for not acting the way he wants her to? He lets her take Appa and even tells her that he understands that this is a journey she needs to take and supports her doing so, he just doesn't want her to kill someone. Honestly Aang shows more respect for Katara by knowing who she is as a person and not enabling her in her revenge than Zuko who is only going on this trip with her so that she'll forgive him, not because he actually cares that she's upset over the death of her mother (and this is not Zuko slander before people take it as such, I love Zuko, but it's not even subtext that his motivations in this episode are selfish and not about Katara).

As for the kiss in EIP, yes, it was not okay. Yes, it was a mistake. Yes, he shouldn't have done it after Katara laid a clear boundary, but he recognizes that immediately. After Katara- rightfully- gets upset with him, he gets upset with himself. We also see that he never repeats that mistake again and is fully okay with letting Katara lead after that. Which is why it's Katara who initiates the final kiss on the balcony. And if you still don't think he learned anything from it, he starts to ask for her consent in the comics before kissing her, showing that he absolutely DID grow from that mistake. So, we're really going to let one moment where a 12-year-old boy made a mistake dictate the entire show and negate everything that came before it??? That's coocoo banana's behavior.

I also think that those assertions are completely baseless because when does Aang idealize Katara? When does he hate her rage? When does he not support her? Is it when he laughed with her after she stole from pirates? Or in that same episode where he constantly reaffirms her skills as a waterbender- first by saying that he's able to pick it up so easily because she's a great teacher and then later when he refers to her as a waterbender which makes her so fucking happy? Is it when he gets so upset that Pakku refuses to teach Katara how to waterbend that he tries to walk away from his own waterbending training? Is it when he goes behind Pakku's back to teach her anyway? Or when he stands by actively cheering her on when she's raging against the patriarchy and fights Pakku? Is it when he calls her Sifu Katara because she expressed that he referred to Toph that way but not her? Is it when he helped her commit ecoterrorism and told her she was a hero for helping the people in that Fire Nation village? Is it when he holds her after she breaks down because she learned how to bloodbend? Is it when he comforts her after Jet's death? Is it... you get the point, don't you?

Aang recognizing Katara as someone who is strong and capable is not him idealizing her. Him not enabling her committing murder is not him hating when she feels rage. Aang actively supports Katara's rage on multiple occasions, he just doesn't enable her when he knows she's acting out of character. If you don't ship Kataang, that's fine, but please don't make up baseless accusations to try and tear them down just because you're mad that a ship that had no basis in canon (potential is not evidence) wasn't canon.

[fantasygerard2000]

What are Wish takes you heard that just makes you wanna

[wizardsix]

i guess i have to say it a million times since people insist on being dense: gale is just as much of a victim as the other companions. this isn't the trauma olympics. everyone has been through shit and deserves healing and redemption.

gale is not the self entitled, manipulative abuser people are painting him as. he's a lot of things, but nothing so heinous. he was groomed by a goddess who has a history of preying on wizards that threaten her power, and as a result, gale's ambition and faith was what drove him to discover the netherese orb. what he did was for mystra - in his mind, it was to prove his love by restoring her missing power - and by extension for the betterment of mortals. his actions were never malicious or selfish, in fact he puts himself so low on the priority list it's pretty much non existent. he was never going to use that power to usurp her, but mystra definitely saw it like that, which is why she didn't hesitate to present suicide as his only solution. he never crossed her personal boundaries in the way people are twisting it, he only wanted to cross the boundaries she put on wizards and their power.

people who insist he's all of these things and more clearly only spoke to him once or lack the reading comprehension to see past how much of an unreliable narrator he is. i can understand first impressions might put some people off, but you can say the same about the other companion introductions. i don't like comparing but since people insist on doing it; gale is one of the easiest companions to get along with just by being a good person, yet his honesty and selflessness makes people think he's secretly evil? while the companions with the capacity to be evil don't even try to hide it? how are people being so backwards about this? it's genuinely baffling and tiring to see people continuously spit out incorrect takes all too confidently.

no one is forcing anyone to like him, but it's unfair to completely mischaracterize him because you refuse to learn critical thinking. i promise using your brain is not as scary as it seems, or you can just. not talk about things you don't understand.

[flying-cat]

I'm stealing a tweet but what are your media literacy check characters

[oxymoronicdumbass]

if i have to sit through one more conversation in which i have to listen to someone chirp about the benefits of AI, i am going to stab someone

[priafey]

things the US needs to address:

the collective psychosis that leads people to make posts like these

[shoechoe]

Calling people who have weird/off conceptions of my fictional character of interest "lacking media literacy" feels so... Pretentious I guess, especially when half the fault of the character not being understood is on the source work itself lol. No this is just what I must bear

[daz4i]

i think that unless you're talking about stuff that's like purposely and maliciously created with the goal of endangering people (e.g. nazi propaganda or cult recruiting etc) you should probably retire the term "irredeemable media". like i don't think this cartoon meant for children or niche webcomic or barely known indie game are as dangerous as you think they are

[secret-71845th-thing]

Bro what fear I have to browse fandom/character tags for HOURS to get canonical characterisations in fan stuff besides fanart what are you even talking about

[victorfrankensteinsuggestions]

I wasn't going to make a post about it because I am a firm believer in simply not engaging with people who have rancid shit takes on the internet and just moving past it but it's been like the fourth tweet I've seen today clearly taking the Nosferatu (2024) film at face value and then blaming people who interpret it differently (see: not taking the themes and motifs depicted in the film as per our modern, non-fictional, dare I say even bordering on puritan standard of what constitutes "good" media and "good" representation) and I'm just sooo tired of it all.

The amount of people agreeing that it's a movie that depicts certain themes "wrongly" is sooo exhausting. It's gothic (technically romantic, actually). It's horror. It's not meant to be therapy speech healthy tropes and sunshine.

It has MANY different readings that you can take away from it. Not just the one "this is what This Movie means," because the themes and topics and motifs or whatever the fuck you want to call them are many, and some of them can coexist. And some may even be opposites! And that's ok because for one, it's fiction. And for another, the Vampire as a monster, as a concept, is a thing that has existed for CENTURIES and has come to mean many a thing. And at this point I'm just rambling with no point or purpose but. It just pisses me off how close-minded the general public is to any piece of media that is no longer clear cut and adamant about what it depicts and what that depiction entails.

When the gothic and the horror are PRECISELY the genres that are most detached from clear cut and easy to comprehend. And they are NOT supposed to be happy and healthy and rainbows! Because the romantic and the gothic are supposed to be about exploration! What it means to be human! What is a monster! There's so much to talk about I'm just... So I've come to the website with the mentally ill homosexuals and transgenders in search of community.

(And I did like the movie a lot, actually)

[icharchivist]

Go off queen

It's your blog and you should be able to talk about whatever you want after all

aww thank you 🥺 i appreciate it <33

i do really not like spreading negativity esp when it's on a topic i have strong feelings about, and let's say the D.A fandom especially tends to be. extreme about the way it reacts to people disagreeing with them.

And look. I'm not immune to it because sometimes i get caught up by the genuinely rancid vibe in the fandom as well, and i think those games are designed for us to have strong feelings to start with.

but it also means i don't want to go too deep into controversial thoughts because i genuinely don't want to get to a point where i'll see someone screenshot my posts to dunk on it and say i'm the reason media literacy is dead and why the fandom is so toxic (citing things i've actually seen on said blog, for instance though not directed at me but at takes i've seen taken out of context. except i knew the context so knew this was a bad faith argument.).

Like can't even dislike shits in peace in here.

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

"If you ship these characters together at all you've fundamentally misunderstood the plot of the story"

Bro I get this if like. It's a case where people genuinely are misunderstanding the story

But like bro you know shipping is inherently neutral and doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how someone interprets a piece of media, right?

You know that people who ship something don't always want the thing to be canon, right?

You know that people shipping something doesn't change canon

Right?