#our perspective is skewed bc of our bias

[crackinwise]

The only thing that bugs me in Nimona is the treatment of women and the iffy way it frames women as the propagators of everything we see is wrong with their world. It's women who are oppressing others, being threats to safety and clinging to control instead of the men we're used to primarily doing that throughout history in our own reality.

Gloreth is the "hero" who turns on Nimona, and starts what will be their theocracy based on concocted fear and pure bloodlines.

Gloreth's MOTHER is the one who causes the turn by telling Gloreth that Nimona is a monster. Her father and the rest of the townsfolk are afraid, but the idea isn't put into Gloreth's head until her mother speaks.

The Director (did she even get a name?) is the main villain taking the Righteously Wrong role we're used to seeing in patriarchal religions known for persecuting anyone different with extreme prejudice. Her actions are out of selfish fear placed there by Gloreth's lies (or what leaders twisted after her death to keep control, bc it's been a thousand years, y'know).

The only Good woman is the Queen, and she gets murdered nearly right off the bat by another woman, The Director.

The argument is, of course, that it's just a glimpse of a flipped world where women are the societal creators and leaders and Most Important, in both bad and good ways. Except, narratively, that means women should be the focus. The movie makes Nimona herself the title character, yet most of the time she is truly the story's sidekick to Bal, our actual lead. Besides Nimona, only the men characters are championed & redeemed, even Todd.

And—correct me if I'm wrong—the women never directly interact/speak to each other outside of the brief flashback of Nimona & Gloreth's beginnings, and the brief scene where Nimona & the little girl she saves exchange three words total: The Queen & The Director never interact. The two leaders never speak to any of the women knights. Nimona only confronts The Director as Goldenloin, then completely ignores The Director when she becomes her girl form again.

Now, I'm not sure what these observations mean. I don't know the source material to compare if it's the same issue. Is it the creator working thru issues, is it studio changes, is it the men directors, or is it just coincidence due to run-of-the-mill, subconscious bias against women? It doesn't affect the overall story's message, but it does skew a perspective the slightest bit.

[socklines]

pls interact and tell me why yall don’t like Jack (as a character, not in the same way we don’t like any of the characters). i love him and the way his mind works and i can’t understand those who don’t.

[nikkoliferous]

Nikko, I just want to say, that latest check-fact post is both hilarious and awesome! Tbh I silently hope more Anti-Loki's would start their argument just so I can watch you murder them😂 That being said, stories, i.e myths, do seem to like villain-washing characters just bc they don't fit in the Society™. And people just follow the narrator to the end-comma without giving a damn. Now the first thing I do if I find a myth-based book is to check who is the villain and why they are the villain

Haha. I sort of feel like a cat playing with a dead mouse. Like, it's fun for a little while, but eventually you get bored because you're not really being stimulated in any way. But I did have a lot of fun doing the fact check format. Made me feel all official somehow. Lol

And yes! Hero characters are, by definition, defenders of the status quo. And consequently, villain characters are, by definition, challengers of it. Their behaviours are often either temporarily (as in the case of Loki) or chronically immoral, but it's always worth looking at why they are considered villains. Especially when their history is, more often than not, no more bloody than that of many characters who are allowed to claim the mantle of "hero". What would it take for Loki to be widely accepted as a hero? Simply not doing evil things? He hasn't filled the role of the "villain" in nearly a decade, and yet he is still considered by many people to be one. So surely, it's not that. Perhaps if he were to finally prostrate himself before our heroes, consent himself to being judged by—in his own words—people who are no more virtuous than he is. In other words, if he too were to become an agent of the status quo. Then he might be worthy. Then he might be redeemable. Loki's greatest crime, not only in Odin's eyes but in the eyes of many consumers of media, has always been non-conformity. Even when he was being a "good boy" for the one thousand years prior to the events of Thor (2011), it is clear he failed to conform on some level to Asgardian social norms. Even while struggling to measure up to Odin's impossible demands, he retained his spirit of individuality. His descent into "villainy" only amplified his persistent quest for independence, for agency, for his own identity. And that's just not okay. Humans need the world to be able to be broken down into neat categories like "good" and "bad". It is how they make sense of the world. It is how they protect themselves. It is an understandable impulse. And it should be resisted.

What is most troubling, I think, is that I suspect many of the people who think this way do not even realise it. Many of them believe they are objective. Many of them believe they do think critically. But their behaviour and their inability to recognise narrative spin says otherwise. Something my former pastor used to say often was, "The only true objectivity is subjectivity rendered conscious of itself." Meaning, there is no such thing as a truly objective person. We all have biases. We are all susceptible to spin and propaganda. The best that we can do is to be aware of what our specific biases are and be willing to challenge them by asking ourselves hard questions. My bias is that I identify with and empathise with Loki. Why do I connect with him? What is it in him that calls out to me so strongly? Why is it important to me that he be defended? Why does it matter that people see him the way I do? Am I being overly merciful to him? If I am, what's compelling me to do that? Am I not being merciful enough? If not, why? How has my perspective been skewed to this point? What does my perception of Loki say about my core values? Am I satisfied with what it says about my core values? And on and on.

This got way longer and ramblier (not sure that's a word? lol) than I intended, but TL;DR it's always a good idea to take the time to ask why a villain is a villain and a hero is a hero, even if you ultimately come away with the conclusion that they indeed are one. The value is in the question as much as it is in the answer.

[pop-punklouis]

styles purely because of the emotion it elicits within us, and to the extent we can relate to the source material, the themes and emotions explored. And that skews everyone's perspective and causes people to think bc one of their styles and the subject matter resonates more deeply with our own personal experiences, it is 'better'. Which is untrue. To truly and effectively analyse their abilities as lyricists, we can't let the subjectivity of our own inclinations colour our interpretations.

i accidentally answered your previous ask not knowing there was more to it, but i agree. yet, i think even speaking on this and putting opinions on their lyricism is also rooted in subjectivity. there’s no right or wrong answer, and we all connect with words in varying ways. i don’t think one can objectively judge anyone’s lyrical work. there’s too much unidentified bias and background in a person to have a neutral response yk?

[princeescaluswords]

You misunderstand me. Not saying you can't talk about fic. Asking what you hope to accomplish by having debates that can't honestly be called debates, bc your opinion is so skewed by your bias to Scott. If you don't listen to what ppl writing those fics are saying to you, and just assume you know what the meaning behind their fics are, what's the point? You're just reconfirming your own biased opinion.. to yourself? You won't stop racism by calling everyone you disagree with racist Scott haters.

I do listen to what those fiction and meta writers say to me.  And the summary of what they say about Teen Wolf and the relationships between characters consists of  Double Standards, White Prioritization, and Wholesale Editing of what actually happened in the production.  Then they repeat this bullshit in their stories.  

I’m not biased toward Scott.  Bias implies I am talking about something else and skewing it in a way that it favors him.   I am, without question, talking about how Scott is treated by the fandom.  If I didn’t think it wasn’t influenced by racism and decadence, I wouldn’t be talking about it.  

Look, I don’t believe that the majority of people get up in the morning, slap on their MAGA caps, and say “Boy, oh boy, I can’t wait to be racist today!”   Racism influences us because it is part of our culture.  In this specific expression, it comes about – I totally believe this – because NINETY years of television programming has influenced our culture into thinking that the Emotions and Perspective of White Characters are More Important than Anything Else.  Racism has worked into our culture at a fundamental level, and it’s not going to change until we grapple with it.  

When the large majority of the Teen Wolf fandom believe, for instance, that the Master Plan neck grab is the height of depravity, even though it was forced at clawpoint and only Scott’s plan negated what was going to happen, and yet turn around and argue (or more promptly forget) that Derek’s and Peter’s behavior at the beginning of Co-Captain was motivated by need and should be excused, I’m going to point it out.  When the large majority of the Teen Wolf fandom believe that Scott was a terrible person for not telling Stiles about a plan that didn’t involve him, but Stiles was totally justified in hiding Donovan from everyone and shifting the blame for it to Scott’s true alpha status, I’m going to point it out.

Why?  What’s the goal?   There’s a core group that are just so fixated on hating Scott for reasons that make no sense, that I’m never going to reach them – but they write story after story that portrays a minority lead character as the secret villain.  They publish gifset and meta and tell other people “It’s all right to employ that double standard in this instance,” do you think that it doesn’t influence people?   If there are two sides to an argument, and one side shuts up, who wins?

You know who wins.

[sometimesrosy]

i think bell is still one of the fav characters, except CLs are vocalizing their hatred towards him because they see him as a threat because of BC and they were just waiting for him to mess up. not to mention the writers didnt help clarify his point with the shit show that was 3A !

Maybe I have a different definition of ‘shit show.’  I didn’t like the balance of season 3A, and the pacing was off, but I think most of what people said was missing about Bellamy’s arc was actually there. It was probably camouflaged in the more glamorous stories though. So maybe that’s where it’s coming from.

It does seem like people either love or hate Bellamy, but I think, like you, the hate is based in shipwars. He never did anything worse than any other character on this show, and he did a LOT more to make up for his mistakes than any other character, even Clarke. 

But if a person is biased, then they don’t look at the positive side, they only look for whatever confirms their bias. They ignore the evidence that Bellamy is the hero or that Polis is slowly strangling Arkadia, or that the grounders are not to be trusted. 

I think one of the biggest problems in fandom last season was not actually the shipwar, it was that one side of the fandom dictated what everyone was allowed to talk about and only allowed one version of events… and it turns out that version was actually wrong.  The dominant interpretation became this negative view of Bellamy and even people who didn’t love L, incorporated it into their perspective, so our whole conversation was skewed to the bias of one pov. This is what happens when you silence people and try to censor them. True understanding becomes impossible.