#kind of too rich for all that

[prettyrealm]

https://www.tumblr.com/prettyrealm/744778348096585728/httpswwwtumblrcomprettyrealm7447087809426227?source=share

Yup even in one of interviews she said "if fbi/police found my diary i'd be damned all my boyfriends will end up in jail" not to mention she once dated a men that is still in jail too

Oh wow I actually did know she was kind of crazy but wow…

[waitineedaname]

now that i've finished tgcf i can make memes about all three books! i was tempted to put binghe at the absolute center because he could easily go into any quadrant at different points in his life, and both lwj and hua cheng could swing jock, but i think the most important thing is that wei wuxian is all four at once. somehow.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

re: sympathetic ganondorf vs evil for evil’s sake ganondorf, i think this is misrepresenting and underselling what’s actually offputting to people

“i’m evil because i’m evil” or “i’m evil because demise is evil” and the associated lust for power simply for its own sake has always been lame and low effort. there’s a reason it’s “shit tier” on the classic “villain motive tiers” thing

“i’m evil but there’s enough nuance to make the player at least somewhat sympathetic to me even if i’m still ultimately a bad guy” is a good thing that people like? i’ve never personally interacted with a zelda player who thinks windwaker ganondorf ruined the character or anything - he’s generally regarded as the gold standard of villain writing both in and out of zelda. this is roughly “high tier” on the tier chart

“actually TWIST i’m not evil at all, it’s the good guys who were evil all along, i’ve done nothing wrong and i’m completely justified in my righteous quest against the status quo, you’re the real secret true villain for being complicit in preserving it” is technically regarded as “elder god tier” on the motive tier chart but i would personally label it as “oscar bait tier”. these things *can* be compelling in conversation with the existing landscape, but often it comes across as a deliberate effort to subvert the audience’s expectations for the sake of being unpredictable (or worse, for the sake of proving you’re the smartest one in the room). in separate works where this conversation/critique is the entire point (eg. Watchmen or The Boys), that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and the audience sets their expectations accordingly. in an established, long-running franchise, however, this almost always reads as dripping with contempt for the audience, like walking into a room and going “you morons like this shit? let me, a person much smarter than you, explain what it’s Actually about, because you’re an idiot if you’ve been a fan of this series before now”

on top of that, in the context of a series like zelda, this type of story feels myopic and disrespectful to the future of the series. “welp i burned down the 20+ years of lore behind this character so i could do a deconstruction, good luck using them in any capacity in the future, sounds like a you problem”

all this is to say, i think it’s a bit disingenuous/strawman-y to suggest that people put off by this want ganondorf to have 0 depth at all. there’s a lot of room for different kinds of depth, it’s just that the trend of the last decade has been for “depth” to mean “condescending deconstruction”

Hey!

Thanks for taking the time to write this ask, I think it warrants an interesting conversation. To me, there's like, a lot of things about what you're saying, and tbh I do see where you're coming from --in part.

First thing first... No yeah unfortunately some people Are hostile to even WW Ganondorf. It's been a rising trend in the fandom since TotK was released --people being very against the concept of any additional complexity to the character, either not getting it or considering anything he says pure manipulation that doesn't even warrant a conversation, literally making fun of people who were intrigued by this and wanting more out of this particular thread. This position not only absolutely exists within the fandom --less so on tumblr, I'll agree there-- but it's not even hard to stumble upon as a pretty regular opinion that gets tossed around. I had some interesting asks thrown my way, let's say. The idea that Ganondorf is a remotely interesting character that deserves more thought than what he gets is very much Extremely not the norm, and the very fact that you, as a fan, likes him as a guy is perceived as weird and missing the point by a lot of people. Like a lot a lot of people.

So I'll just... I guess I haven't clarified my position in a while, so I will reclarify my position on our favorite evil dude: I do like him perfectly fine as a villain, I do not want him to be "redeemed" by the narrative, I think he works fantastically as an ongoing threat, I think they could make him even scarier and more offputting and that would be super fun and thrilling... and I also think he already is complex. Like, inherently. Everything Nintendo has been putting into him since his first appearance is complicated --even their attempts at flattening him back in TotK do not fully work because they can't scrub him of the extremely loaded ideas they injected into him from the get-go. Nobody forced Nintendo to do a Mega Orientalism when inventing him, nobody made them write the NPCs to have this super weird antagonistic relationship to the gerudos in OoT, nobody made them have all this lore of the one man born every hundred years, raised by twin witches --and then nobody made them press on that tension point in Wind Waker explicitely, and then, in a more subtle fashion, in TP too. Nobody forced their hand when it came to having the strange "round ear" situation, suggesting (confirmed even, in additional canon) gerudos are born unblessed. The fact of the matter is: everything to make the relationship between Hyrule and the gerudos complicated has been there since 1998. There's no need for a Switcharoo to prove that anyone is smarter than the audience: everything messy has always been baked within the worldbuilding itself. It's in the cartridges already!!

Perspective on it is what could change, though --because, except in Wind Waker, we never get even a hint of a sense that we should think, as an audience, that Hyrule's super weird relationship to the gerudos is maybe questionable. Worth thinking about at least. Which, given the optics, is wild to me that to bring this particular can of worms up is still very largely considered crazy talk within the fandom (that, or the Sheikah situation across the series, also insane in many ways). And yes, it would perhaps lead to themes that are a bit heavier than what Zelda has been overtly dealing with (though, again, Majora's Mask exists --and I do find a lot of unpacked ideas in the Wild Era, like the very unquestionned gerudo bridal pipeline, very uhhh unfortunate already if I'm being honest --even moreso because it is unquestioned). But Zelda, when well handled narratively, can do wonderful things with evocative subtext, open doors never fully crossed, a lynchian pressure on what should feel offputting. We don't even need a sad monologue about it. It doesn't even need to be handled explicitely. But I think the pressure point is just better when understood and incorporated in some form, instead of being denied so hard the world itself start to feel incomplete and unlived.

I do want to say... I get what you mean with the whole "oscar bait" thing. There has been, historically and in recent years, a tendency to be driven by an external, almost panicked sense of morality rather than by the internal drive of a story, its internal thematic logic. I also do think it can feel very corporate, very "Disney looking back at its own movies and scrubbing off everything Buzzfeed deemed problematic in 2014 while making everything glossy and lifeless and awful" and it's not that great!!! and tbh I can't say I would trust Nintendo to handle any appreciation for the fact that the story of an eternal golden kingdom cheering on beating the evil outsiders who want to corrupt everything good and pure and blonde about that perfect inherently good place, is like, extremely not neutral. It absolutely is a delicate thread to weave, and I agree that putting a definitive end to Hyrule is probably not the smartest IP move to do. But, Hyrule doesn't have to be condemned as Bad, it can be merely complicated. And ongoing, regardless. To keep on with the Disney parallel: The Lion King would feel weird if we started to peel off the internal politics of the hyenas, it's just not the right place for it, when everything about this story revolves around the Righteousness of the Divine Right to Rule. But if the Lion King was an ongoing series that had been looping on itself for a while... wouldn't it make sense to figure out how to achieve majesty by studying other angles too, eventually? Is it that strange to suggest the exercise is like, possible? That it can be handled with artistry and soul?

I feel like... Yes, to acknowledge Ganondorf's humanity --not even to coddle it, just to acknowledge it-- implies taking in everything that makes him who he is, and that might rattle some foundational ideas about why this ancestral fight is even happening in the first place. I also do not think it means that he must be Good now. He can still punch a child and cackle maniacally, he can still be unredeemable --he can still destroy himself and others out of the most unconstructive spite ever, and we can still see the purpose in defeating him while basking in the "yea....." left in his wake (Wind Waker did that!!! Wind Waker did that and then we had more Zelda games!! crazy how that happened). This is hardly undoable. It does take some narrative skill, and some commitment to taking a bit of a risk, but Ganondorf is genuinely unmanageable as a character if you insist on your refusal to acknowledge his foundations --and I think it's partially why TotK's story is such a mess. He sells a TON, but you can't have him breathe slightly too loud without risking the entire world falling apart. They did try in TotK, so very hard, and to me they still failed--as insane as he behaves, Hyrule still doesn't come out of this looking good or particularly justified, because the very central core of Ganondorf's character is to be subjugated, and then rebelling in a destructive and brutally selfish, uncompromising manner that ends up robbing him of humanity --and the discomfort of that premise will therefore always haunt the conversation. Nintendo dug themselves into that mess. I feel like a lot of the Ganondorf fans I know merely... point at that. At the mess. And I feel like the longer the games avoid this mess, the more coats of spinach green they slather ontop of his skin, and the more nonsensical characterization they pile up, and the more Ganondorf will become a parody of who he once was, and what made him compelling to begin with.

And to top it all off, as if he wasn't contentious and complicated enough to handle already, they leaned into the internet turning him into a sex symbol for some fucking reason??? Yeah I genuinely have no idea how Nintendo will manage this dude moving forward, because to me, he is, at best, an endless source of (very lucrative) headaches, and at worst a ticking time bomb. I'm not sure how long they can get away with that TotKification strategy, is what I mean.

(Also: I tried to not overdwell on all the incredibly complicated conversation re: race and orientalism, but it's borderline impossible to have this conversation without acknowledging that I have never seen a major pop culture villain receive more pushback against "woobification" than him, and I don't think it's a complete coincidence let's say :) )

[starbuck]

no gardener knows all two secrets:

how to leave alone what’s doing fine

how to mulch what’s dying on the vine

[sciderman]

I swear I have read your big post regarding Peter Parker's neurodivergence and why it is best to avoid labelling him, but he definitely has a weird brain

Can't find it and feel kinda sad about it cuz I deeply related to it

i know exactly which post you're talking about and i can't find it either! i've raked through my archive, and it's just - nowhere to be seen. i think tumblr eated it (it happens.)

really, tumblr's search functionality is so so useless, i don't know what to tell you. there are plenty of keywords i can search to find it that post, but the search functionality actually just does not work!

undiagnosed audhd-addled peter parker, my darling, my light, my life, my everything.

i think peter parker's such an interesting creature to write, because a lot of people will point to a certain behaviour about him and say "this is an autistic thing, right?" but a lot of those behaviours are actually, in my head, tied to certain traumas in peter's life too.

people say "oh, the food thing, peter's a picky eater because he's autistic" and yes, absolutely. but also it's tied to his trauma with his parents.

peter gets overstimulated, and yes, it's an autism thing, but also he was bitten by a radioactive spider and his senses are dialled to 11.

it's a similar case i've found for myself, too – where a lot of friends i have kind of diagnose me because i have autistic traits, but actually - i'm hesitant to claim the label or pursue diagnosis because, actually, i know where these certain behaviours come from, and they come from certain traumas. there are events i can pinpoint in my life and say "yep. that's where this behaviour comes from."

so - i think there's a lot of overlap between trauma and autistic traits. the brain is very complex! i think the reason for that overlap is maybe as simple as the fact that people with autism and people with trauma are both doing the same thing - developing behaviours to protect themselves or soothe themselves. so - i think it's nice to be able to see a character like peter parker, who may or may not be autistic, but recognise behaviours in him and see yourself in him.

people who go undiagnosed for whatever reason - people who are really good at masking - so good, in fact, that they have no idea they might be on the spectrum - everyone and anyone at all can look at peter parker and recognise themselves. because i think we discredit the thought that every single brain does the same thing! develops certain behaviours in order to survive. every brain has that same software - we've just all been faced with different hardships that we need to overcome, and that's were all the differences come in.

autism is a spectrum, i guess - everyone falls into it to some degree. and i think events in your life probably push you along on it. but i don't know, i didn't study brain science. probably what i'm saying is very stupid and uninformed. of course there's brain chemistry involved. but i know people in my life living with autism and certain events in their life have exacerbated certain behaviours or made coping with it a lot more difficult. so maybe trauma is a catalyst.

[teh-nos]

who can solve my plot/character problem in the sylki con artists au so that i can continue writing it

[real-odark]

gatsby designs. does this make any sense.

[eliounora]

So then what would you consider to be true middle class? And what are some tell tale signs someone is middle class? besides nice teeth and Patagonia jackets and an apple watch they only wear when they work out

hi! I think it depends on area/country, for example here in my native finland middle class can look quite different from the american middle class. like if you think of wealthier people here "nice teeth" doesn't really come to mind, because on the regular most people have to various degrees imperfect public healthcare teeth hahaha!

nevertheless from what I've read the middle class still hard or even impossible to define truly, and there's also many methods to define class. that is sort of what I wanted to say with my post -- you can't really take two random things, two cars, and deduce class from that alone. but for example it could be considered that I am embodying my class when I start to speak about the sociologist pierre bourdieu and his ideas of cultural capital: I am showing (in my habitus) that I have high education, which is my personal cultural capital, and in having that personal capital I have power over those who have no idea who bourdieu is. however, I've obviously needed a family background and financial means to acquire my education, so I've also had economic capital.

in my understanding, to go to college in the US your parents often need to have the means to save money for your tuition (lest you drown in debt), so naturally the children of those who can't save up don't go to college as often. in a nordic welfare state setting where tuition itself is free, more people can go to college, but socio-enomic standing is still inherited. my parents do not have higher education and for sure do not know who pierre bourdieu is, but they do have money, so I would say with economic capital alone you do reach power in other forms of capital as well.

I think you are in the right by mentioning a patagonia jacket and an apple watch. those are luxury items. whether the patagonia jacket is new or thrifted, the wearer has most likely needed the knowledge of patagonia as a nice outdoor wear brand, and what it symbolises. in those terms, I consider myself middle class (not in my personal assets necessarily, but again, in connection to my parents) partly because I have a fjällräven jacket, and although thrifted (still a price that someone poor could not pay without saving for it) it still carries a cultural meaning, and that's why I wanted to get it. it's hip right now!

to summarise and actually answer your question, what then is the difference between the upper middle class and the true middle class -- I think that can be impossible to say. does true middle class only have one car and upper middle class has two? someone might have a whole junkyard of cars, but that is not really a middle class thing to have -- but then, someone could drive a single porsche, and you know they have money.

[iphigeniacomplex]

philosophy comp

[ID:

8 screenshots taken from Quora questions. They read as follows:

1: "Atheists, imagine you're a famous baseball player and are about to hit the winning strike. Accidentally, the thrower tosses a Christian baby at you. Would you still hit the baby out of the stadium and win millions, or sacrifice the Christian baby?"

2: "Atheists, imagine you're in a soccer game. Just before the game starts, you realize that instead of bringing soccer balls you accidentally brought a Christian baby. Would you forfeit the match, or would you kick the Christian baby across the field?"

3: "Atheists, imagine you and a Christian baby are in a room that is full of falling knives and there's only one metal umbrella. Will you use it or give it to the Christian baby?"

4: "Atheists, imagine a Christian baby puts a spell on you which causes you to lose faith in atheism, and the only way to reverse it is by throwing that baby off of a cliff. Would you kill the baby, or accept your new life as a Christian?"

5: "Atheists, imagine you're going skydiving with a Christian baby. Suddenly the baby tells you he won't open his parachute until you renounce atheism. Would you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour, or would you let the baby die?"

6: "Atheists, if you and a Christian baby were teleported into a medieval fighting ring where the winner has to die, would you let the Christian baby beat you up so that it dies, or sacrifice yourself and beat up the Christian baby?"

7: "Atheists, imagine you found a locked up Christian baby at an atheist congregation being used for research purposes. Would you intervene and lose your status as a high-ranking member?"

8: "Atheists, imagine you're pregnant, and you go to the hospital for an ultrasound. Suddenly you find out that your baby has the Christian gene, and that you're pregnant with a Christian baby. Would you have an abortion?"

]

[theskymother]

animal jam is a lot more fun when you're rich

[dimiclaudeblaigan]

i love this alliance general and am glad someone is thinking positive about future friendships in this damn game

look at this cute general look at him wanting to be friends with all these people he spent all these good times with

[sysig]

I know you, a little to the left (Patreon)

[thingsmethinks]

Talking to [leftist/socialist/progressive/whatever] white people as a brown girl is always an experience

[clumsycapitolunicorn]

it's been nearly 6 months since the ted lasso finale and im still pretty much: