#other than being contrarians and hating the same stuff

[lilpomelito]

In a series of events that absolutely nobody could have predicted, Steve’s parents adore Eddie. Richard thinks he’s witty and sharp, a breath of fresh air for a man stuck in endless meetings with corporate egos. Linda laughed so hard the first time they invited him to dinner, she cried. Nobody is more surprised than Steve, who brought his alternative high school dropout boyfriend to his parents almost as an act of late teenage rebellion. But hilariously, Eddie’s fun personality and his disdain for everything mainstream makes him catnip for rich pretentious people. They bond over their hatred of the idiosyncrasy of middle class small town people in America, everyone is so closed minded and average, you know? No ambition, nothing! And this guy is a rockstar, Steve!, they say. You could use some of that ambition yourself! Have some goals in life!

It’s almost insulting. Like that’s his boyfriend. They can’t like him more than he does!! But Steve even caught his mom smoking pot with Eddie in the porch after dinner one time, which was insane to him since the last time they caught him doing exactly that Steve had been grounded for a week. You were 16 Steve, and a star athlete, we couldn’t have you smoking in the house, she argued. And Eddie, the treacherous man that he was, agreed with her. How would you feel if Dustin started smoking, huh?

In retrospective, Steve should have seen this coming. His parents hate Hawkins people as much as Eddie does, they do everything in their power to be away from town as much as it’s physically possible without actually moving away. They’ve had the “moving to another state” conversation several times already, and it’s been Steve who refused every time. The entire fight about Steve not getting into any college had been more about having to stay in Hawkins than anything else. But of course, his boyfriend who is literally everything this town hates in a person would be exactly what his parents like. No bond is stronger than the one between people who hate the same things.

[swanpyart]

I realize that the Stranger and the Razor routes are the weirdest routes that don’t follow the patterns that any of the others do. Stranger only has a Chapter 2, with the only expansion on her being if you get her first, which leads to seeing her in the end and Contrarian in the Cabin. Razor has 4 Chapters, the most out of all of them (except Nightmare, but she functionally has 3 chapters, we just skip a bunch). And the big similarity between the two route is that they both are completely incapable of crossover with any other route.

But thematically, it makes sense why they are kind of opposites; Contrarian and Cheated sprout from opposite mindsets. Contrarian wants to have fun and mess around for the sake of messing with the Narrator and testing the bounds of where you are. Cheated, on the other hand, almost takes things too seriously; he wants to beat the Razor at any cost, and gets more and more intense as things go on.

This is why Stranger presents only one chapter; there is barely a vessel to begin with. She is a coagulation of fragmented ideas and endless possibilities, and therefore has little framework to go off of. We never get any impression of who she is as a person, so she is unable to form from our ideas other than the unfamiliarity we get from her. Stranger is full of so much stuff that Shifty takes her earlier. Contrarian seems to treat her as superfluous to the Player as everything else (of course, he realizes his mistake in the same chapter) but she noticeably doesn’t give him the satisfaction of a real conversation, or a personality to work off of. This is why Contrarian hates the basement she creates; if everything’s happening, then nothing’s happening. He’s eternally bored with no person to work from.

Razor on the other hand, is basically set up as an unwinnable fight. Unlike Stranger, Razor’s personality is incredibly simple and straightforward, and she will remain that way the entire chapter (unless you get the Empty Cup, but it happens so close to the end and Shifty doesn’t really note any difference). In this vein, Cheated gets the opposite problem Contrarian gets; instead of being bored out of his mind, he’s given a game he cannot win or even hope to win, like Sisyphus pushing the rock. He’s given a challenge he’ll never feel the victory of, as he eventually just gives up.

[pawberri]

ok, so i just saw an anti-dni post talking about how having a dni list in bio is purposeless and annoying since it is like a 'holding a sign saying "do not kick me." ' now, i find that perspective objectionable (since obtaining a block list might be what is desired anyways and not all dni reasons have to be extremely polarizing, e.g., i dont think a minors dni will suddenly make a billion minors annoyed, making them interact w/ you immediatly) and i have a slight feeling that you disagree with that point of view too because uhhhhh.

so what i wanted to know was whether you share the same reasons to oppose that perspective, and, if not, then, what are they?

I have been getting really annoyed with the backlash to dnis... I think it's goofy when some person has a dni with a million things, but it feels reactionary to me to say "it makes no sense for you to put your boundaries and expect people to follow them." There's especially this vibe with people who post more extreme content getting mad at dnis. I think that's weird. Partially, people seem to take them as like... a sign of moral superiority or hatred... rather than just a little bit of clarity on boundaries. These people talk about "curating your online space" but have to make these posts ranting about people who do it in a way they dislike. I especially think it's dumb to say, "Just block me, why do I have to not interact with you?" because... I mean, you can't block someone you don't know exists. It's meant to be a preemptive expression of boundaries, so the other party has the chance to block you and / or just not interact.

I know that, in practice, some people have really silly, long dnis that are linked on some weird carrd that takes forever to read. I don't think it's fair to strawman the concept of expressing some of your boundaries online in a digestible format as being stupid because of that, though. Especially when a lot of the people with silly dnis are teenagers just trying to figure their life out. They'll grow out of it. It's fine.

I also think it's weird and victim blame-y to say people will naturally be harassed if they give any kind of indication of their boundaries. I sometimes get mean anons, but for the most part, my experience online is way better because I am upfront about things. I don't get too personal or say things I'm uncomfortable sharing, but I make my boundaries clear. Even when I was a teenager and getting harassed by redditors, I never had stuff I asked to be trigger tagged used against me like people fearmonger about. (I'm sure it can happen, but I think that for most people, it just results in their social circle tagging stuff for them.) Even if that did happen, I think it would cruel to say that it was my fault for daring to express a boundary. If you kick the guy who says "do not kick me", you're still being bully and a contrarian asshole. Even if I didn't express a boundary, people like that would likely harass me. If I don't express a boundary for the sake of avoiding harassment, I get in exchange an audience that will constantly be shocked and fight with me about my beliefs when they show. Then, that creates either an unpredictable level of harassment or the feeling of being harassed because I'm constantly in discourse with my followers. At best I feel miserable and hate interacting with my followers.

I think this partially comes from people who are afraid to express their boundaries for fear of backlash (ie they want to make extreme content but fear saying so will make their followers mad), but honestly I think being straight forward makes your audience more curated. The people I see who post extreme content and are clear about it seem to have an easier time than people who build an audience of a bunch of unsuspecting people and then slowly introduce untagged incest kink or something. Not saying it's a guaranteed anti-harassment tool, but I don't understand the impulse to warn for nothing and have no clear boundaries with your audience, then get mad you curated the audience you curated. I hope it doesn't come across as me victim-blaming in the opposite direction, I don't think anyone deserves harassment regardless of if I disagree with what they post online. I kind of just mean to illustrate a counter example to the idea of the dni-haver making themself a target or inherently Being A Harasser.

[ducktracy]

What are your opinions on Looney Tunes: Back in Action? I personally have a soft spot for the movie nostalgia or not, plus it was my introduction to the Looney Tunes so I'll always love it for that.

I'M DUE FOR A REWATCH! i'd like to give it a fair shake, because i think the last time i saw it was in 2021. i unfortunately am not the biggest fan :((((((((( my stance on the LT movies i think is "i prefer Space Jam [the original] over BiA while acknowledging that BiA is superior to Space Jam in every way".

BiA is not an exhaustive shoe commercial, so that helps immensely. it's clear that it was made by fans of the shorts and there are a lot of deep cut cameos that i really value and appreciate. i think part of my aversion stems from my contrarianism that i've been able to curb PRETTY well in the past few years, but being a child of the early '00s, i grew up surrounded by the Corporate Chuck Jones LT aesthetic and BiA is the pinnacle of that to me--i naturally have an aversion to that style and i've been good at overcoming it (i now love Joe Alaskey as Daffy, but it took me a long time for this to be the case), but BiA falls into so many of the trappings of that era that i really just don't like. stuff like acting like The Hunting Trilogy shorts are the only LT shorts ever made

i also have a hard time taking it seriously, and that is a problem because i felt that this film often tries to get you to take it seriously and i just can't. i said this last year and still stand by it in discussing its "Hollywood pathos":

I THINK PART OF IT ALSO IS LIKE. again. unrealistic contrarianism. sorry but if Daffy Duck were thrust in my lap and i had to go on a wacky road trip with him i would be ECASTATIC. i hate how he's treated as like "uhhhhhh only people who live in their mom's basement like you as a character lol because you suck and are mean and rude!!!!", and i know he's trying to prove otherwise etc but i'm just soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tired and averse to that narrative. Bugs is amazing Daffy sucks yahoo yippee. it feels like they missed the intent of the originals in that Daffy Does Not Actually Suck and is in some cases exhaustively more competent than Bugs, but he's just so quick to be foiled by his own impulses and vices.

most of my critiques against the movie are moreso in regards to my tastes rather than an indication of its objective quality. i do wish other characters got more screen-time, i think i would like it more... i'm not the biggest fan of the Bugs and Daffy cartoons because they enable a lot of my aforementioned gripes. i've slowly been able to turn around on them and even love shorts like Rabbit Seasoning! but their dynamic always runs into the same trappings and i get rubbed very raw by those trappings. what i want from Bugs and what i want from Daffy, i don't get out of either of them at all when they're paired together. and so i'm obviously not going to like an entire movie centered on that dynamic

i do want to give it another shake though because i may be able to appreciate it more now or, at the very least, be able to suspend my reservations more. but it's just not for me. which is a shame! because, kind of like TLTS, i've tried many times and seen it multiple times to try and understand and see what other people see in it but i just can't. the curse of being too protective of the duck

[sneckoil]

ok so i haven't watched housemd since i was a kid and just finished s1 and i am just. why is cameron written like that. genuinely her thing with house had me so completely lost this season. feels like a waste of a great actress but?? maybe I'm wrong?? she just feels so. empty as a character to me. regardless i would love to know what your opinion is on the character bc from what i remember it doesn't get better from here

I dont blame you ban-joey and I really appreciate your courage to send this off anon. We probably have the same experience. I watched house as a kid too (when I was 14, like 10 yrs ago) and hated her for being contrarian and inconsistent and in the way. But since then i’ve looked inward and found i was imposing double standards wrought by internalized misogyny. Anyway.

My opinions on cameron:

Number 1, if i were her i would shoot my shot with house too. excuse me. as if most of us on here are not just twenny… thirty somethings pining after old men. happily going on a monster truck date? getting a date in return for the old man to have me back on my team? Yeah. I respect the hustle. fuck that old man or whatever. marry him when he’s sick. phantom thread him

Number 2, liking Cameron is easy once you accept. That she is really really really not normal. I know this may be something you already know. But internalize it. She says something righteous but it doesnt mean that that is her defining trait. There is something so deeply wrong with her. I know you’re still on season 1 and Yes she Gets Worse but if you are working with the same lens as i am (that there’s something WRONG with her) then everything that happens makes sense. [spoilers] Of course youre only attracted to people when they’re sick and dying. Of course your reaction to being told youre boring is getting high on your patient’s drugs a few weeks away from your HIV test results. Of course you wanted to cheat on your dying husband with his best friend who comforted you while your husband was dying but you didn’t and you still haven’t after the fact he died. Of course you kept your dead husband’s sperm. Of course you wanted to kill a dictator but didnt, and then got pissed at your husband who Did kill him, a husband you actually felt nothing for and was hesitant to even let propose to you [/end spoilers] she’s so funny. If she were a guy they’d call her a messy bitch and love her for it. she has uncategorizable mental illnesses masking as a savior complex.

Number 3, you’re right about the emptiness on some level though. They wanted to write her out of the show and they did her so bad. And I’d say yeah she’s inconsistent as a character, but that goes for Everyone in this show. House isn’t consistent. Wilson isn’t consistent. None of them are consistent. Cameron is only as well-written as the writer who knows how to write her. I’ve suspected the only reason i hated her when I was 14 was she got in the way of hilson. But nowadays that stuff is so unserious to me. All i care about now is messy people being messy about other people

Number 4, she compels me. I like that she’s interesting. I don’t like most of her decisions, I disagree with her the most, but it’s interesting. She’s fun to Watch. She’s no Foreman (that guy is a case study in layers of character depth but that’s for another ramble) but that’s more than i can say for her than someone like, say, Chase LMAO

That being said if you dont like cameron then that’s fine 👍 we live in a society etc etc

I end with this (thank you jackie for putting this image on my feed)

[iameatingrocks]

you know I’m a very “fuck cringe culture” kind of person but at the same time I find myself participating in. whenever I realize I’m doing it I feel so bad but I know why I’m doing it now I think.

It’s the fucking autism.

Whenever I engage in cringe culture it’s a form of masking. I’m replicating behaviors that have been inflicted on me about my similar interests.

so in the spirit of fuck cringe culture, here are some things that cringe culture hates that I absolutely love:

-having toys as an adult. I fucking love toys. lps are the cutest motherfuckers ever (except gen4-6, they are so flimsy and poorly made. Not cringe culture just literally poor execution. gen 1-3 & 7 my beloved)

-wonderwall. That song is so fucking good. I don’t care if it’s overdone on guitar. If I learn guitar again I’m learning wonderwall

-twilight. they are not perfect books by any means but my fucking god are they good. I love my shitty romance novels

-enjoying the current and past trends. I don’t need to be quirky or different or a contrarian, I can just enjoy shit.

-Justin Bieber. HIS EARLIER STUFF IS SO GOOD. I just listen to Maria a couple days ago and I stg it’s so so good. He made some absolute BANGERS. Other stuff is not my cup of tea tbh

-boy bands. *stares at trolls 3* you did this to me. THANK YOU TROLLS 3

-speaking of trolls 3, trolls franchise. that shit is SO good. broppy is so fucking cute and branch’s growth is so similar to mine that it hurts a bit. It’s such a good and underrated franchise.

-pop music. ITS NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE MAKE IT OUT TO BE. It’s fun, it’s catchy, and damnit I like a fun and catchy song

-horse girls. y’all are cool as fuck.

-being different than other people. yes I am not like other girls. and that’s good! Being different is being human, and it’s good to acknowledge your differences

-liking shopping or being pretty. I am hot and I am funny and goddamnit I like to get new clothes

-liking “cringy” artists. Oh nooooo I like this person’s music— oh they’re cringe? I am SOOOOO sorry girl. Womp womp suck it up

-talking about my autism or queerness often. It’s a part of me and I will not ignore it.

-using neopronouns. that shit is SO much fun and so gender affirming

-enjoying “cringy” media and/or fandoms. I need silly media to be able to enjoy life

-enjoying fucking romcoms? I guess? Angst is not epitome of art. It is the gentle mornings, the bright laughter it’s to chaos, its mystery, it’s the intrigue, it’s the pain, it’s the sorrow, and it is the recovery. The epitome of art is being human, and the epitome of being human is being art.

-being overdramatic, philosophical, or deep. I’m allowed to feel deeply and fully and if you can’t handle it then you have some work you need to do

-complimenting myself. I think I’m hot, and I’m funny, and I’m kind, and im smart, and I deserve good things

-more things I can’t think of

[valyrfia]

Tbh as a lesbian I agree with the anon that you take critiquing Charles a bit too far, I say this keeping in mind that I know vile stuff is usually said about women who date popular attractive men who a lotta ppl find attractive which I hate and how it's such a part of celebrity culture, that being said pushing this narrative is fun as a joke here and there but seems too objectifying to me, I mean what's the difference then between us and other straight girls who thirst over Charles in a downright weird way

I'm not sure what corners of the internet or real life you've been around with F1 stuff but I've seen and heard some absolutely insane extremely explicit stuff said about Charles, so I take mild offence at being accused to be in the same box as those people. I hope there's a wild difference between me saying "Alex is beautiful and I could show her a good time and prove why she will never need men again" and people compiling literal compilations of where they think they can see Charles' dick on the internet (not to be overly crude, but that's not even near the worst thing that's been shown to me by REAL LIFE PEOPLE, not even on the internet, internet gets much worse than that).

And again, I push the narrative tongue in cheek that Charles is punching but he'll never see that. People who might see it are the people tearing Alex down because they think she doesn't 'deserve it' while thirsting over Charles. If you want me to say publicly for the record that Charles is objectively a very good looking man I will say that, but it's frankly fun to be contrarian with it. Like I said to the other anon, if it pisses the right group of people off, I'm content with it. If I get homophobic anons in my askbox about it, I'm just going to double down with it because that's my nature. I'm also aware it's not everyone's cup of tea which is why I tag it so meticulously with a unique tag that someone could block/mute if they so wanted.

Also, as someone who was a little bit of a late bloomer lesbian, I like admitting and discussing being me being attracted to women on main, and not in a way that's sunshine and rainbows and cottagecore and picnics and cute lipgloss kisses that is so typically represented as 'lesbian attraction' online. I see reams and reams of posts from straight girls thirsting over men in the paddock and I still get a gut reaction of feeling like I'm missing something or something is fundamentally wrong with me because I cannot participate in those conversations. I have received lots of lovely anons thanking me for talking so openly about my attraction to women because it normalises something for them, so in a lot of ways I'm trying to be what I would want to be for my pre-coming out self.

[asherlockstudy]

I don't know why they would think people wouldn't watch their content on the R&L channel on purpose just to punish them... it doesn't make sense because, it's not like they changed anything in GMM in order to make the new videos, and we are still getting the same quality, so why would people want to punish them... It's a pretty odd thing to say about your fanbase, because a fan being indifferent about something is one thing, but punishment implies an intentional grievance. There are so many other reasons why the new things don't resonate as widely, and like you said, a huge part of their audience watches for the food content. Or because GMM has a reactive, spontaneous and immediate effect in its format that the scripted videos don't have. GMM videos are more like having someone's company because of their daily recurrence and familiar format, and this could be a source of comfort-viewing for people. Scripted videos don't have that immediate comfort-inducing effect. And the fact that they're on a separate channel might also be a reason. Even if it's just a button push, there might be people who don't want to engage with something away from the tried and true format of GMM. It's a pity for R&L because they often said they feel almost as guests in GMM nowadays, and their true creativity comes out in these sides projects, and it must be a bitter pill to swallow that what they deem as the lesser of their content, talent-wise, is more popular. I guess maybe more people like them as public personalities who do wacky stuff, than story tellers or movie makers? And maybe that was what they wanted to gauge about the audience with Wonderhole, and maybe the question they needed answered was to see if people would warm up to the idea of what they really want to create (and perhaps a future that involves slowly moving away from GMM and doing more stuff on the R&L channel). And if that was their intent with Wonderhole it's also a blow to those of us who though they were looking for an altogether different answer... ^^;

The punishment thing, this is the word I used by the way, Rhett just spoke about “contrarian” fans but also he implied that promoting a lot might get to people’s nerves and ultimately I think it’s the same thing.

I love GMM with all my heart but I wouldn’t mind it being a few times per week if that made it possible to also get content in the Rhett and Link channel. Actually my favourite content has been the vlogs they did around the time of the pandemic but they HATED those and I really wonder why. I don’t see them doing much scripted content in the future either. It’s been way too long this type of content underperforms and eventually I fear they might give up.

In any case, I don’t see me getting what I want lol

As for the “question”, I was thinking about it lately. But then I remembered some other things and I was re-convinced it can’t ONLY be about the content. It’s definitely a lot that is at stake, no matter what is implied plot-wise in Wonderhole, the risks and initiatives regarding strictly their career definitely still apply regardless. They have a lot of questions apparently 😅

It’s not always about what may be going on between them, for example the Cloud and the upcoming Ben ones are 99% not linked to the One Story.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that Wonderhole is probably not going to be THE medium where any big announcement (as heralded in the first episode) will take place but maybe it will once more strongly imply it in the last two episodes.

By the way I am curious what the announcement next week is going to be. I know it won’t be THAT, but still curious.

[hopeymchope]

I almost always seem to have the minority opinion on media. And I'm really sick of it now.

I've been on a Fire Emblem kick again lately. But unfortunately, as much as I love all of the Fire Emblem games on 3DS? That's approximately how much I hate Fire Emblem: Three Houses on Switch. ....which is, of course, the most popular/successful game in the series to date.

Okay, look: In Fire Emblem, I really like the strategy-combat stuff and the storylines + support conversations. THAT'S the tasty meat. Anything else? Is irritating busywork to me. So if I spend between 2/3-3/4 of a supposed Fire Emblem game doing the other shit? You've crafted a great recipe to make me feel like I'm MOSTLY doing stuff I hate, and thusly I shall hate your game. And that's the START of the issue with Three Houses. (I must resist getting into the protagonist being a mute cipher OR how multiple side activities require blind luck or a guide to succeed OR bitching about the weak battle map design... oh shit oh SHIT I'M OUTING MYSELF, RUN FOR IT MARTY!)

By comparison, this year's Fire Emblem Engage feels like a step back in the right direction! I'm playing it a lot right now, and I'm mostly having a good time! Still more busywork than I want in these games, but it's at least back on the side of "more good than bad." So of course, if I look this game up and read any fan reviews or watch any videos... they're all about how disapppointing and sucky it is in comparison.

God. Of COURSE they are.

I really don't know why the advances they made with Fire Emblem Echoes haven't carried into the newer games. 3D dungeons you can explore for items and enemy encounters in a Persona-like fashion? Genius! Make it the template going forward! ..... What's that? Not even most fans bothered to buy or play that game??? So no one fucking cares about that feature?

.........fucking hell. Of COURSE they don't.

See, this is how it always goes for me. If I fall in love with a movie, I'll later learn it's either hated or ignored by its own fandom or by the masses at large. If I get emotionally invested in some weird game and its characters? There's a high probability that almost no one played it. And those who did? They didn't like it as much as me. If I think a game is really annoying and full of boring shit? Great reviews, huge fandom, etc.

I could make an utterly wild fucking list of things I like/love that other people hate. And the same is true in reverse. Sometimes, even when I agree with the hate on something, I don't agree with ANY of the reasons for WHY other people hate it!

Before you ask: It doesn't matter whether I know the "majority opinion" in advance of seeing/experiencing something, or I have no clue wht people think of something until I look it up later. I've gone to many midnight premieres of movies that weren't yet screened for critics, and I typically always wind up on the wrong side of the majority. I've played obscure games just because the premise sounded good, fallen in love with them, gone looking for a fandom... and found out that everybody thinks said game is utter shit.

So I'm not just being contrarian; this shit comes NATURALLY.

However, I should make some caveats about this weirdness clear:

Sometimes I feel like I'm on the wrong side of JUST the outspoken part of the audience... but there's evidence to support that my own stance maybe ISN'T so weird. For example: My family and I have always loved 2009's Avatar. We never were dressing up like the goddamn Na'vi or anything so fanatical, but we've rewatched it many times over the years. We regularly quote it to each other around the house. And the massive success of that movie (and its recent sequel) seems to back up that this admiration/enjoyment isn't THAT crazy or esoteric, RIGHT? It's just that the Internet is extremely outspoken about Avatar supposedly being lame and totally unmemorable. Remember how people in 2022 kept being like "You can't remember even three character names from that movie! Nobody quotes it!" and shit like that? I was one of the people going "I will list you NINE characters and spew DOZENS of quotes at you."

My "minority opinion" thing only stretches so far. It's not like I thought The Room was the best movie I'd ever seen or angrily felt Tears of the Kingdom was the worst game I ever played. That would be beyond "minority" and more "MADNESS." There's a limit to this weirdness; it has to be within a certain degree of reason, you know? Some things just aren't POSSIBLE to totally flip the script on. Birdemic will always be embarrassingly terrible, and I refuse to believe anyone would legitimately feel otherwise. OK?

This isn't completely universal, either. There are always exceptions where I actually wind up on the right side of the majority. They're just... rarer than the other thing, honestly.

It gets exhausting to always feel like I'm on the defensive or at worst, utterly alone in how I think among the larger community. I don't want this anymore.

But I don't get a say, clearly. I'm just going to keep doing this. I'm going to go see a movie on opening weekend and think "Wow, what an awful piece of shit" only to find that DECADES LATER, people still cite it as one of the best movies in its genre. I'm going to adore a modern revival of a classic comic book, then I'll go online and find that it's widely considered an abomination before god. This is who I am. It's just REALLY tiring to be here.

[t4tails]

Ok I am gonna be a contrarian about the "Batman Fanon Dilemma"™

I think you hit the nail on the head with comics making shit up all the time, but even more so than that, I think because comics as a medium rely so hard on shaking up the status quo while rarely truly upsetting it, you end up with someone doing a wildly out of character thing one week, but because its comics they need to more or less slot back in to the same dynamics they had before (generally)

So each character ends up with a history of crazy actions that can be used to argue for or against any archetype. Often because DC writers change VERY frequently and have their own biases (we shouldn't treat a character's actions as necessarily fundamental to their identity)

Some of the fandom, rather than having a comprehensive knowledge of each character in the batfam's extensive history, instead use a version of the character that represents a kind of historical average which skews towards their preferred canon.

I also think this explains why damian, cass, and duke (and I would argue stephanie) don't often get as much attention.

Those character are relatively new, so there just isn't as much non-comics media out there about them (though it certainly exists). But more than that, by the time those characters entered gotham there were already at least 3 robins so anyone writing something had to choose between simplifying a large cast of characters, discarding later additions, or ignoring earlier additions to the cast. Which I believe is the reason why you tend to either get simplified WFA type media or YJ style stuff that barely gets to tim before it's not worth watching.

But anyways in the spirit of hating: DC writers are immune to writing batman as anything other than an enormous fucking dick to his kids for the sake of shallow drama

nodding my head nodding my head. yeah comics as a medium are very much prone to simply picking and choosing what you as a fan want from a character, which can be fun but as you can see from prior asks ive gotten from this subject, can easily lend to fans woobifying or demonizing characters that dont deserve either - especially in regards to the racial biases of both the fans AND the writers, which im getting the sense is a factor in a lot of this. i dont think youre really being a contrarian here, just presenting another facet to the surprisingly complex issue of comic character flanderization

[loki-zen]

Yeah I can honestly say I have never seen anyone offer pushback in the way you're describing, at least not wrt white americans. Maybe a little bit when it comes to specific immigrant groups, but ime americans appealing to some kind of immigrant ancestry is treated as cringeworthy by everyone. I don't doubt you, though, my social networks are probably frozen in the shadow of the post 9/11 years.

yeah the Internet Is Wider and all that. (I hang out with contrarians)

and you're right to point out that white america was the Universally Mockable Thing back in the Bush era and i saw a lot of the same stuff I'm annoyed at being punted the other way back then. I mean you still see it now! but for me personally I see a lot of pushback against this and a lot of hate directed at the British (especially the English) both as the Ur-Colonist and due to the phenomenon wherein JK Rowling being loud on Twitter has convinced a bunch of people that Britain is notably transphobic (when if you look at the stats, it comes out comparable to the US*, slightly more people approving but within statistical error margins of 'the same'). *because the US is The Way It Is, this works out to being both significantly better than the worst US states to be trans in, and significantly worse than the best ones.

[funkymbtifiction]

done with tritypes

Something has been bugging me lately and growing into a greater concern the more I observe myself and others. It's centered on the Enneagram, a tool for self-knowledge that leads to self development.

You are supposed to do introspection to discover your motivations and unpack your behaviors. From there, you move toward growth as your type by identifying things you can change and tackling them. When that happens, amazing stuff unfolds in your life. You get to see yourself growing, maturing, and changing as you shift away from “automatic” behaviors to “I am choosing not to do these things that make my life hell.”

That was my journey, and I was growing a lot... until I learned about tritype. And now I see others locked in the same swirling toilet bowl that has claimed the last several years of my life. I am seeing people focusing on finding their tritype and becoming more confused about themselves in the process. Instead of working on self-development and erasing the problems caused by their type/wing, introspecting and learning to identify those behaviors as they are happening, and finding clarity by identifying their inner workings, they get caught up in a loop of “What’s my fixes? What’s my second fix? What if I am this instead of that? Is this one or this one my core??? HELP ME.”

Which… means there’s no inner growth happening. It has stalled out while they focus on a far less important facet of their personality.

I have gone down this rabbit hole. Spent hours thinking about myself in unproductive ways (as opposed to analyzing my reactions as a 6 and choosing to work on them), rethinking my fixes, and trying to see them at work… with no growth as a result.

Why???

When, all along, 6w7 made perfect sense to me from the start, and is all I needed to know to stop projecting my motivations onto other people, assuming people were mad at me without evidence, over-apologizing, and playing games with people due to my indecision. That type made sense. It gave me total clarity. I read my first 6 chapter and wanted to cry, because for the first time in my life, I knew someone else understood how I think and that I'm not crazy. Other people go through this! Other people are cautious! Other people also second-guess themselves! It brought me a flash of insight. A boom of self-awareness that caused ripples in my life. You mean the negative stories I tell myself aren't real?? I don't have to believe them?? Dazed by all this sudden clarity, I got to work on the tedious task of growth. Of realizing, "I am projecting right now. I don't have to do that." Or asking "Am I jerking this person around by being unsure about them? That's a lousy thing to do to someone I care about." Or "I am freaking out, but when has the worst actually happened to me? ... never. Calm down and stop your catastrophic thinking." Or "Why am I second-guessing my ability to write another book, when the 12 lined up on my shelf are evidence that I am more than capable of doing this?"

I am done. I am going back to my core, wing, and stacking. It's all I need. It explains me entirely. It gives me clarity and joy because I can see how much I have grown. I think that's vital, especially when you are deciding who to learn from in the Enneagram world. How has this teacher grown? How are they different? How has knowing their core type and wing helped them advance to a higher degree of self-awareness and self-growth? Do they have stories about how they used to be at a lower level, and what changed? If you interact with them over a long period of time, are they still stuck at the same place in their ego-development? Are they able to laugh when they catch themselves "doing" automatic responses and say, "Sorry, total __ moment! I really thought I had gotten past that!"?

Unfortunately, the thing I hate the most about myself has not gone away, and that's my argumentative, contrarian nature, a facet of 6 / Ne-dom. Being contrarian causes my loved ones pain. I hate that. If I had put as much energy into catching myself launching into 'brat' mode out of boredom and... not doing it, maybe I would be even further along in my journey than I am today.

I’m done answering tritype asks. I don't ask anyone to agree with me that it's unimportant, but I intend to view any of my identifications with other numbers by asking myself, “Could this be a deep aspect of my type/wing? Where is this coming from and what do I do with it?”

I want myself to grow.

[highdio]

Got an ask and follow-up re: whether Dio is an "archetypal villain" so doing it as one reply (fwiw I just did a reply re: Dio's nuance so keeping this to the 'archetype' part of the ask).

“so, i seen some people say Dio is simply a archetypal villain, perhaps even flat. what would you say to someone that told you he was without nuance? i plenty believe he has, but sometimes i dont know exactly what to say”

“someone i asked about what was their favorite villain told me he was a archetypal villain. and i think two years ago i saw a meme pic about how Dio fans are obnoxious or something. i mostly got my liking from him by analyses, alongside the fact that i do think personally that he DID change as a character, not completely, but he had some development.”

I partly agree with that, although maybe there's not one single 'archetypal villain.’ The person you spoke with probably meant that Dio's is Evil with a capital 'E,' as opposed to a villain who does the bad things for understandable reasons, or who gets corrupted by events outside their control. Araki's vision for Dio (in Part 1 especially) is, morally speaking, black-and-white, with Dio's Evil defined by Araki as an innate trait rather than the effect of his circumstances.

fwiw David Mamet's got a good list of eight villain archetypes - the anti-villain, the beast, the bully, the machine, the mastermind, the evil incarnate, the henchman, and the fanatic - and I thought for the purpose of this reply it's helpful to defining Dio's specific brand of badness. Of those archetypes, two stand out as defining Dio's *specific* type: the Evil Incarnate and (technically not on the list but inspired by it) the Anti-Hero.

(fwiw you can read my convo here about why Dio isn't a bully type. I see him mistyped this way especially by people who want to expand Jonathan's role in the series. tl;dr, basically it comes down to the fact that Dio's charisma - his most important character trait btw - draws people toward him while a bully actively seeks out confrontation. The bully barges into a room, the charismatic character gets you to barge into a room. Dio is the latter.)

Evil Incarnate's almost self-explanatory - Dio's literally called that in the series (邪悪の化身) - although I can talk more about this if you want. By contrast, his anti-hero role's maybe less obvious ... but that designation offers us a way of reconciling some of the stuff listed under Mamet's 'Evil incarnate' that doesn't work with how Dio's written. Specifically, an Evil incarnate-type villain's primary role in the narrative is usually as an obstacle to the hero's journey, ie, as an antagonist. imo, Dio functions instead primarily as a parallel protagonist.

(I've written about this before but) Araki's said this a lot: Dio joins Jonathan as a dual protagonist in Phantom Blood, and Dio's own story follows a Hero's rising arc.

(Was surprised I didn't notice this until I hunted a gif for this reply: while the Part 1 OP features both main characters throughout, it's Dio alone who's given a special manga panel mini-montage during its bridge, emphasizing his hero-style arc.)

In a lot of ways Dio's more fleshed out than the actual hero since Araki had already worked out the specifics of his personality in a prior series (whereas Jonathan was vaguer to Araki, even as Part 1 was being published: "just as Jonathan was unsure how to live his life, I was unsure as to where to take his character.") Phantom Blood starts off with Dio's introduction, not Jonathan's. As Araki puts it,

The title of the series is Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure, but first and foremost, I actually wanted to draw Dio.

The hero's introduction is inserted within Dio's introduction, as a story-within-a-story recalled in a flashback by Dio's dad. We don't get to meet Jonathan on his own terms until the next chapter, and, because of this ordering, if you read Part 1 cold you could start off thinking it's Dio who's going to be the hero. Dio's story's a riff on your stereotypical rags-to-riches tale but with the obvious twist that he's written as unapologetically Evil. Like the rags-to-riches protag, Dio's faced with increasingly difficult setbacks and challenges throughout his story's progress, and, in spite of these, he keeps moving forward. Araki, again:

Dio moves in a rising direction, like Jonathan. Dio accepts and embraces his evil nature and follows his dark path without hesitation. In other words, both Dio and Jonathan are living life with everything they’ve got, and both always maintain a rising personal arc.

In other words, Dio has his own upward rising arc by design and it's independent of the hero's. ofc his interactions with the Joestars throughout the series are significant and their back-and-forths drive the larger story, but the trajectory of Dio's arc remains largely the same throughout all this.

If you see Dio as a protagonist then you also recognize that Jonathan's (and later Jotaro and company's) relentless pursuit (yes, they pursue him, because charisma is a gravitational force) provides the antagonistic force to Dio's arc. (And going back to the Araki quote, that "without hesitation part" is really important - Dio's willful embrace of his Evil nature and the intentionality of his actions throughout Part 1 again align him with a heroic type: it's a positive character trait, just in Dio's case it's executed wrongly.)

So call Dio an anti-hero or, if it makes you more comfortable, a Villain who thinks he's the Hero in the story. This isn't a unique situation (and probably as you're reading this you might be thinking, well all villains have their own story arc too)  but imo Araki writing Dio with this specific perspective and intent sets him apart from what we think of as the more generic model of a villain, whose role within the narrative is secondary to the hero's and whose arc is cleanly set up as in opposition to that hero.

Ofc, a villainous anti-hero is by nature appealing because we know we really shouldn't root for him. We should hate him ... but we still sort of love him, especially when, because of that rising story arc that Araki gave him, he keeps coming back after stupidly impossible odds. Usually when you get decapitated you lose but Dio's not like that, and there's something compelling about a character who repeatedly breaks the narrative flow by improv-ing his way through impossible situations.

tl;dr, basically if you're looking to characterize what 'type' of villain Dio is (and why he's attractive), Dio is Evil personified fused with the inconvenient fact of his also being more or less protagonist-identified. Araki wrote Dio with a hero in mind, and that fact keeps him interesting on his own terms and places him in the contrarian posture of a particularly reprehensible anti-hero.

[freepassbound]

What is it with DS9 Ultras?

I use the term “ultras” as a loan from football/soccer fandom - to refer both to the element of being a “super-fan”, obsessed with their interest, consuming everything they can about it, and thinking and talking about it constantly; and also to the darker element of that deep obsession extending to a hatred and/or contempt for those they see as rivals, usually expressed in running down & badmouthing their talent, their style, their results.

Seems like it transfers oddly well to online fandom (as I understand it). And though usually it’s either internal to a single show, or directed externally at a rival... in some of the larger “franchises”, you get one sector sniping at another.

In Star Trek, for whatever reason, it seems like it’s only the DS9 ultras who direct fire outward. The VOY and ENT ultras are usually just defensive about their shows, and the TOS and TNG ultras are almost entirely internally focused... but at least a certain segment of DS9 ultras simply can’t seem to stop bragging about how their show is different - and also better - than the rest of the shows (in which they are, I imagine, greatly encouraged by Ira Stephen Behr, who was the showrunner of DS9 starting in the third season, and who never misses an opportunity to pump his own show, especially at the expense of the other Trek shows).

(This seems like a good spot to “not all DS9 fans”. In fact, I’d say a large majority of DS9 fans - just like other Trek fans who have a particular favorite series - are perfectly happy to enjoy their show and also appreciate the other shows for what they are... but they’re drowned out by the tiny minority that are ultras making way more noise.)

The latest thing that’s got them in an uproar, it seems, is the “Easter Egg” DS9 references in this season of Picard (after being insulted that they didn’t get any in the first season 🙄). So this morning a piece of utter nonsense scrolled through my dash, complaining that they hated these tossed-off references - but they also didn’t want any DS9 characters appearing because: it wouldn’t be fair to the characters to be used on a show that wasn’t theirs (kind of weird - seems like that should be the province of the actors - but OK), that it wouldn’t agree with the ideas Behr and several other writers tossed around in the What We Left Behind doc (which, again, was just for entertainment on the doc - and the ideas were, quite frankly, trash; among other things, as Keith DeCandido said, saying it’s been 20 years and Sisko still hasn’t come back to his second child was a great way to piss off Avery Brooks - if anyone wants “Season 8″ of DS9, there’s a few dozen great books they made continuing the series), and most ridiculously of all, claiming that DS9 was a critique of Picard (as a character) and TNG.

Now, I’m picking on that post because it’s what set me off, but I see this twaddle from DS9 ultras all the time. I don’t know if it’s a hipster mentality, an inferiority complex, or just basic contrarianism (interestingly enough, all terms totally applicable to Behr - maybe it’s like attracting like) that makes them lash out, but they just can’t seem to resist.

And it really is just so incredibly wrong. DS9 is different than TNG because... everyone involved thought it would be a bad idea to have two shows that were the same! So Michael Piller (who is actually the creator of DS9, not Behr) is brought in to develop the studio’s idea of a show set on a space station on the frontier (Rifleman to TOS/TNG’s Wagon Train, to continue Roddenberry’s original analogy - according to the DS9 Companion), and it’s Piller who comes up with almost all the stuff the ultras love: the “grittier” look, the conflict between Federation and non-Federation characters (and among non-Federation characters), the Bajoran culture and religion, the concept of more serialized storytelling - Behr just further develops these later.

(Behr’s major thematic contributions to the Star Trek universe as executive producer are... war - Klingons vs. Cardassians, Dominion vs. everyone - which is unique to Star Trek only because Roddenberry, an actual war veteran, wanted to show a future where humanity and its allies had evolved beyond that, and so had essentially forbidden it in TOS and TNG - good for powerful stories, of course, but hardly a unique idea; and two of the dumbest ideas to ever be foisted upon Trek - Section 31 and the Pah-Wraiths)

(For the record, I actually think Behr was usually a very good writer, and mostly a very good executive producer - but he’s just so snide toward the rest of Star Trek and so self-satisfied and superior about appreciating his own work that I simply can’t stand the man; really much the same way that I actually love DS9 - I think it was a great concept, mostly well-written & executed, and definitely had the best set of actors - but I can’t stand this ultras sliver of the fans that can’t seem to appreciate it without for some reason having to tear down other ST series)

[sasquapossum]

Ugh. I hate how guys my age (or older) always express themselves with absolute certainty even when there's no justification for it. Yes, I know I'm very guilty of it myself sometimes. It does become a habit. I've won enough debates and trivia contests to feel like I'm on solid ground when I say that I do often have some facts to back me up, and that *still* doesn't justify expressing myself with certainty on topics I don't really know.

What brought that on? Glad you asked.

Over the years, I've repeatedly seen references to a "North Lexington" stop on the old rail line that is now the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway. It's gone now, but it wasn't hard to find out that it was somewhere around the intersection between the bike path and a main road near me. Since I drive or run past that exact spot practically every day, I got a bit obsessed about finding out *exactly* where it was. In particular: east side or west side?

It didn't take me long to find some pictures, but they were mostly from railroad buffs more interested in the trains than the stations so they weren't very conclusive. (BTW that's a community I need to avoid. A lot of people clearly get obsessed with that stuff, and I can easily see myself getting sucked into that vortex.) I found some maps, but they were also a bit ambiguous and conflicting. I was pretty confident that "west" was the right answer, but I was done for the night so I posted what I had - including my doubts - to a residents' Facebook group for others to enjoy.

A lot of people really seemed to like it. One lady mentioned that as a child she had taken that train from that station to a zoo in the next town, which is *so* sweet. One guy, who I could see had graduated from the town high school the year after passenger service on that line ended, piped up and said the stop was on the east side. He wasn't being particularly combative or anything, but the fact that he just flatly made the claim without clarifying whether it was actual memory or his conclusion from the same data I was looking at really rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe he actually knew. Maybe he didn't. Maybe I'm just sensitized to guys a bit older than myself expressing utter certainty on issues around COVID or race/gender or economics, when it usually turns out that they know less than nothing. That nerve has just been rubbed raw, the last few years.

As it turns out, I found not one but two maps this morning that *clearly* show I was right. The stop is on the west side, at the other end of the parking lot for my daughter's karate dojo. I've probably stepped on that exact spot more than once as I've strolled around waiting for her very loquacious instructor to wrap things up. That's really cool, and it's also cool that I was right, but that's not even the point. It bugs me how many discussions that should be collaborative and/or evidence based instead end up being something else because one person just *has* to insert themselves with a "contrarian" view. The world will be a nicer place when people like me are all gone.

[gascon-en-exil]

I suppose you can call me "villain Dimitri anon" now, but I actively dislike Azure Moon for the narrative perks that you and other fans insist it has, but I can't see. What back and forth does Dimitri have with his retainers that aren't confined to supports? There's just Gilbert, Rodrigue, and Byleth ignoring the one-eyed elephant in the room.(1/2)

What support network does Dimitri have? A bunch of badly abused subjects at the end of their rope who don't have the guts to abandon him or give him a wake up call. Dimitri's redemption in the rain makes zero sense as the scene progresses, and outside of some lip service in a support, he's so cured of any trauma that not even getting the truth about Duscur fazes him. What's worse, this redemption is the main idea of the route. (2/3 now)

The back and forth is in reference to how the army in AM feels directionless and disagrees on whether they should liberate the Kingdom or rescue Rhea first. This gets references both in story cutscenes and in the exploration of dialogue of numerous characters, heavily reinforced by many of these same characters remarking on how off-putting Dimitri’s behavior is. This stands in contrast to CF never questioning Edelgard’s actions even as they’re far more systemically terrible with the work of Hubert and the Agarthans behind the scenes; even VW offers a number of scenes and exploration content of characters questioning and critiquing Claude’s actions. Felix’s mini-arc outside his support line with Dimitri is the clearest example, because he’s the loudest voice of opposition and because if you trigger their supports some of the dialogue changes to reflect that, while Rodrigue plays a predictable but workable role as the doomed mentor figure whose death forces Dimitri to confront how his obsession with revenge is hurting the people he loves.  This is all unfortunately somewhat undermined by Byleth’s presence and the need for self-insert romance, with them supplanting Dimitri’s established support network and worst of all leading to Dedue being killed off by default and then never re-integrated properly into the story lest his intimacy with Dimitri pose an obstacle to the expected lord/Avatar romance (that can’t even be pushed in the same way that Edeleth can in all routes, incidentally, because Dimitri can’t S rank m!Byleth). This is a genuine problem in AM, but curiously it’s one that I see brought up almost exclusively by fans of Dimitri and his route rather than those who hate AM and/or rail against Dimidue as an allegedly racist pairing.

None of the other Blue Lions gets a single meaningful word in in the main story cutscenes. You can get some character development for Ingrid, Sylvain, and Felix in monastery dialogue and DImitri's supports and that's it. Not to mention, gameplay-wise, dealing with Dimitri is just no fun, and there's no choice to get fed up and leave. With all of Crimson Flower's problems, at least you had to actively choose to go on that route. (3/4 now)

I wouldn’t say that’s all that different from how the other routes handle their chorus of minor characters, especially CF which again minimizes any sort of friction the Eagles might have with Edelgard even when she’s outright lying to them. There’s a reason that SS is sometimes cited as a better characterization showcase for the Eagles other than Edelgard and Hubert, particularly for Ferdinand who actually gets to be the contrarian #3 on that route. Gameplay is more subjective, although I’d rank being unable to instruct Dimitri or have him engage in monastery activities for four calendar months is more than offset by CF being exactly that many months shorter than AM or VW. Also, in terms of building characters Gilbert is far, far less of a pain in the ass than Jeritza, and I say that as someone who’s painstakingly gotten every character in the game to all ranks at S+ and all classes mastered over many NG+ runs. Having to pick CF is also an inconvenience that screws with the flow of Chapter 11 since you need to waste a battle weekend going to Edelgard’s coronation lest you miss out on instruction weeks or later weekends doing it at the start of the month. It’s kind of a moot point to argue about this anyway as the Deer have it the best when it comes to unit development, with neither of these restrictions as well as the longest route and no Part 2 exclusive to worry over.

Crimson Flower had a "big picture" war story, Verdant Wind had good character balance and exposed the truth about the player character. Azure Moon was just all DImitri. Not to mention, my own political philosophy and real-world history interests make me biased against Dimiri and his stance. (And no, I'm no fan of dictators, just not of a fan of Fearghus-style feudalism) (4/5)

I do like redemption stories. But I've seen them done better elsewhere. Dimitri's character is interesting, but his route isn't. All routes on Three Houses have problems that I nitpick about, but as thing stand, I can support Claude and Edelgard in achieving their ideals, i cannot in good conscience support Dimitri as king. Nurse him back to sanity, maybe, but put him in charge of other people's lives? No. (end)

Eh, SS is the route you’re looking for if you want the full story of Byleth’s origins and their connection to Rhea; VW’s endgame exposition dump is more about the true origin of Crests and Relics and general worldbuilding which is why I’d call it the big picture route over CF which kicks one of its major antagonists to an offscreen postgame. I also question why you single out the quasi-feudalism of Faerghus when that’s the established standard for all of FE and for most of the fantasy genre overall. Fire Emblem is notoriously reactionary when it comes to its politics, such that Dimitri’s solo ending suggesting the beginning of a participatory government might be the single most concrete move toward democracy of any lord in the series. Even as tiny a step as that is it’s more than can be said for Edelgard not delivering on her rhetoric of abolishing the nobility and...whatever she plans for the church (since she vacillates on whether she’s fine with the Seiros faith but only takes issue with the church or whether she thinks humanity has no need for gods, and the only CF ending that re-establishes the church has it run by the state which is some prime dystopian stuff). Claude similarly suffers in that his plans remain ongoing at the end of VW and lack any concrete shape beyond opening the borders and forcing people of different nations and cultures to interact and get along - a well-intended idea, but not one that will lead to serious change without a lot of work and oversight. 

Dimitri lacks such grandiose ambitions, and once he’s moved beyond his need for revenge his goals center around alleviating the suffering of the Kingdom and of his loved ones, but on a meta level that’s kind of all he needs to do. One of the reasons that AM’s story structure is more coherent and well-paced than that of the other routes is that it’s extremely well-trod ground for IS: “blue lord takes back invaded homeland from red emperor with the Power of Friendship” is the standard FE plot going back all the way to Marth, and Dimitri’s biggest deviation from that model is the somewhat realistic depiction of his struggles with mental illness. That’s probably why many longtime veterans of the series favor AM, because we know it’s the type of narrative IS excels at and we’re not expecting anything more politically revolutionary. Hell, the proto-democratic ending was as unexpected to me as Dimitri’s strong queer notes...which is why I prefer him over the other two incidentally, not because of his politics which are just fantasy boilerplate of a good king being restored to his throne, and there was much rejoicing, etc. There are gender-based readings of AM that I and others have made, not to mention people who enjoy the homoromantic push and pull of Dedue and Felix on Dimitri and how those relationships develop against one another, and I think it’s telling that those unconventional analyses of Three Houses’s most typical lord and most typical route are still more plausible than all the additional motivation and setup you’d have to throw in to make Dimitri a proper villain, or even just an antagonist for the length of more than one chapter.