#part of it is irrational and part of it is genuine criticism

[skitskatdacat63]

God, I have such a hatred for that stupid f1 movie, everything about it gets on my nerves so badly. I hate to be this ultra salty person but I feel like I could write a whole essay about how dumb it is and how much it annoys me 😭

[tozettastone]

AKATSUKI RANKED BY PARENTING SKILLS

First, an honourable mention goes to Orochimaru, who would win this ranking effortlessly but who is no longer part of the Akatsuki.

10. Zetsu is more or less disqualified because he reproduces by creating exact clones of himself. You are his clone, and you are the parent and the parented, the sibling, the self; sometimes all of the above all at once. Don't worry about it.

9. Hidan finds his kid fascinating and funny as fuck. Irrational tantrums about being handed an object they desperately wanted 3 minutes ago? He's laughing. Cute questions about the nature of society that Hidan has never once contemplated the answers to? So funny! Breaking their arm for the sixth time? Absolutely hilarious. The problem with Hidan is that being charmed and amused, and indeed feeling genuine affection, will in no way prevent him from exploring the outer limits of your capacity for suffering, and this only gets worse the more responsible for you he is. He loves you a lot and you will not survive to adulthood.

8. Sasori is adequate at servicing a child's basic needs for care and keeping. He is not a demonstrative parent but he is surprisingly receptive to a child's displays of affection and rarely turns them away. They remind him of his own relationship with his parents — his first foray into his craft, in which he preserved their bodies and made them embrace him as he imagined parents ought to. He understands the emotional component to development with his current, synthetic detachment. He is not very patient, and he's prone to just intervening in your brain chemistry when you frustrate him, which is not a great way to live. The other problem with Sasori as a parent, of course, is that at every moment he feels a sliver of affection for you, he contemplates whether it would be worth it to preserve that "you" forever. Eventually, the clockwork in his head will tick over, and you'll become the most beloved puppet in his collection.

7. Kakuzu swings between strict and angry at some times, and flatly indifferent at others; he's strict and angry when his emotions are engaged, which he hates, and combats with icy apathy. Sometimes he will be angry and indifferent about exactly the same topics on different days. This is a man who will hit a kid for not magically knowing something that he, their only parent, should have been the one to teach them about. He is at his best when he can be a mostly-benign acquaintance in his child's life. The single saving grace with Kakuzu is that you can just leave and he will take months to come after you, if he ever does. Don't expect a birthday card.

6. Itachi is utterly unprepared to be the carer for a child but approaches it with the same steady and dubiously-deserved self confidence with which he approaches everything. He is sometimes affectionate, but he is also relentlessly critical and he will use genjutsu torments as a "harmless" parenting tool, because they are obviously less damaging than corporeal punishment. (It has not occurred to him that a zero-violence approach to child rearing might be, theoretically, possible.) His expectations will only rise over time as he comes to like you better, and his treatment of you will become correspondingly harsher. Expect to jump at shadows until you're 39 and sobbing into your therapist's rug. On this list, you could do worse, but I can't help but feel that regularly obliterating a child's trust in the basic tenets of reality is courting a really severe mental illness.

5. Tobi will have a nervous breakdown about his fitness for interpersonal attachments, which he won't acknowledge as a nervous breakdown. He will then respond with complete mental and emotional detachment from his child, strap them to him in a sling and carry them through Akatsuki missions. Their crying will cause a stealth-based plan to fail, multiple times. Tobi will performatively panic every time they cry, and he will play with them any time they like — all the better if it annoys everyone around him. The problems start when you get older and can speak, which is about when it becomes steadily less convenient for him to treat you as a prop in his bizarre fantasy theatre. The more articulate you become, the less interested Tobi is. Where did his cute baby go? :( Expect a relatively physically safe but unstable childhood, oscillating between overwhelming, intense, nonsensical and occasionally cruel parental attention and complete absence. You will learn not to rely on other people for anything, and to tense up whenever someone says they love you.

4. Deidara has absolutely no desire to be responsible for ANY human being, including, often, himself. He resents every second of time your existence steals away from himself and his own projects, and although he intellectually understands that a child can't help needing stuff, he really does regard it as stealing from him. You're a gross, hooked little knife in his side, tugging him away from thoughts of himself and his art. He can't wait until you're old enough to leave on your own for long periods of time, and as he's a shinobi, he thinks "old enough," is, like, maybe five. Expect a short, disrupted childhood full of terse lessons in how not to get blown up today, followed by trying very, very hard to avoid daddy's attention. On the other hand, this is a parent who does not want to give you any attention, which, on this list, can only be an advantage. I can't believe this is number 4.

3. Nagato tries his best but childhood is where the trauma lives, and so every childhood milestone hits him with a rush of agonising memories like a lightning strike. You will become a proxy for him in his haphazard efforts to reparent himself, and he will be equally upset if you're exactly like him OR if you're totally different to him. You will never fully understand his relationship with himself and he will never understand that he's meant to be cultivating a relationship with you. Still, you could do worse.

2. Konan is a composed parent. She manages her own fears and anxieties with icy repression, and that's also her approach to the loving attachments of parenthood. Her child will be clean, educated, fed and sheltered appropriately at all times, but there has never once been an emotional need Konan has indulged. You will develop a deeply anxious attachment style and become a serial monogamist who is furious that nobody can live up to your expectations and terrified that the problem is you. (It is.)

1. Kisame does not wait until six months to give his baby water and he has a worryingly permissive approach to child safety in general. He puts up with pretty much any behavioural problem with steady I've-seen-it-all equanimity — except when his child is lying to his face, which is basically his single, glowing berserk button as an authority figure. He cares about his kid and will generally view them as a person and not as some kind of psychosocial manifestation of his own mental illness at least 50% of the time, which is why he wins the top spot on this cursed list. Kisame will tell you stories about how you must have eaten all your siblings in the womb to be born at all, and that means you're already the strongest possible kid he could have had. This is intended to be encouraging. Roll with it, dude. You could have got Hidan.

[sorcerersandskillusers]

Fyodor and the Devil: Analysis of Fyodor's motives and role in the narrative

Asagiri has stated that he based Fyodor not on Dostoyevsky the author but on a specific scene from one of his books The Brothers Karamazov where Ivan Karamazov confronts “the devil” in his room.

(It's a really good book, you should read it if you have time. Also. fun fact, Fyodor and the devil wear the same hat, “His soft fluffy white hat was out of keeping with the season.”)

Having read the book and gone over this scene, I realized that this could be used to find out a lot more about Fyodor as a character than we see in the story, including a potential glimpse at his real motivations.

A bit of context for the scene. Ivan Kramazov is a clever but deeply trouble man who has struggling with the concept of God and rationalising him with the cruelty of humanity, at one point while very sick, Ivan starts seeing a man in his room who claims to be “the devil”. Their conversation is a fascinating look at morality and why evil exists in the world, and if you look at it closely it reveals a lot about the role of a “villain” in a story.

This line from “the devil” is really interesting to me, and seems to explain a lot about Fyodor’s character, as well as align perfectly with how Asagiri has described Fyodor in interviews:

Before time was, by some decree which I could never make out, I

was predestined 'to deny' and yet I am genuinely good-hearted and not at all inclined to negation.

'No, you must go and deny, without denial there's no criticism and what would a journal be without a column of criticism?' 

Without criticism it would be nothing but one 'hosannah.' But nothing but hosannah is not enough for life, the hosannah must be tried in the crucible of doubt and so on, in the same style. But I don't meddle in that, I didn't  create it, I am not answerable for it. Well, they've chosen their scapegoat, they've made me write the column of criticism and so life was made possible.

Basically the devil is saying that he was created because without evil then good means nothing, if everything was perfect then nothing would happen or change, life couldn’t exist, so he was forced to be that evil even though he never wanted to be.

This is so similar to how Fyodor is described in the BSD exposition 2020:

Fyodor is the antagonist, he is the villain of the story, that is the role he plays. This explains why he chooses to commit so many atrocities in the name of  “following God's plan”. It even connects to his line in The Dead Apple, and his ability name. He is both crime and punishment, as “crime” or sin originates with the devil, but it's also the devil who punishes sinners.

(I mean the title of the episode he is introduced in is literally “My Ill Deeds Are the Work of God” by committing evil acts he is fulfilling God's purpose for him.)

And if Fyodor is really based on “the devil” it's very likely he also either does or used to wish for release from this role that was assigned to him, but he knows that he cannot stray from his path or the story will cease to exist. My evidence for Fyodor wanting to be free of his mission is just one interaction, when he kills Karma.

Look at Fyodor's expression here, this is the only time in the entire series where we see him look truly sad. This isn't an act, there is no one there for him to trick, he simply says a quiet prayer for the life of a boy who's only purpose was to suffer and die.

This next part of “the devils” speech actually seems to fit very well for Dazai, it's interesting since he is the narrative foil to Fyodor and clearly is a very similar character.

We understand that comedy; I, for instance, simply ask for annihilation. No, live, I am told, for there'd be nothing without you.

If everything in the universe were sensible, nothing would happen. There would be no events without you, and there must be events. So against the grain I serve to produce events and do what's irrational because I am commanded to.

For all their indisputable intelligence,men take this farce as something serious, and that is their tragedy. They suffer, of course... but then they live, they live a real life, not a fantastic one, for suffering is life. Without suffering what would be the pleasure of it? It would be transformed into an endless church service; it would be holy, but tedious. But what about me? I suffer, but still, I don't live. I am x in an indeterminate equation. I am a sort of phantom in life who has lost all beginning and end, and who has even forgotten his own name. 

This ties perfectly into Dazai and Fyodor’s debate on the nature of God in the sky casino arc.

Dazai here points out that it's not perfection and harmony that make the world move, it's the irrational, it's the foolishness and stupidity of humans who charges into life making a million mistakes but always finding ways to fight on through it. Here Dazai and Fyodor represent the conflicting sides of “the devil” with Fyodor embodying his mission to drive the world and Dazai embodying his secret love for, and wish to join, humanity.

“I love men genuinely, I've been greatly calumniated! Here when I stay withyou from time to time, my life gains a kind of reality and that's what I like most of all. Yousee, like you, I suffer from the fantastic and so I love the realism of earth. Here, with you, everything is circumscribed, here all is formulated and geometrical, while we have nothing but indeterminate equations! I wander about here dreaming. I like dreaming. Besides, on earth I become superstitious. Please don't laugh, that's just what I like, to become superstitious. I adopt all your habits here: I've grown fond of going to the public baths, would you believe it?

And I go and steam myself with merchants and priests. What I dream of is becoming incarnate once for all and irrevocably in the form of some merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone, and of believing all she believes. My ideal is to go to church and offer a candle in simple-hearted faith, upon my word it is. Then there would be an end to my sufferings.”

“"Why not, if I sometimes put on fleshly form? I put on fleshly form and I take the consequences. Satan sum et nihil humanum a me alienum puto."*

* I am Satan, and deem nothing human alien to me.”

This piece from the devil feels like it could be a description of Dazai’s character, his wish above all else to find happiness and love as a human despite believing he is a demon. Both Dazai and Fyodor have strong ties to the Devil, both of them are often described as demonic or inhuman, with emphasis placed on the darkness of their souls and the isolation they feel due to their minds.

But the difference between them is how they dealt with it, Fyodor chose to embrace it and fully commit to his role in the story as the ultimate evil for the greater good, but Dazai has always shown a fasciation with humans and has spent his life trying to connect to them and find meaning in his existence.

Finally, let's look at what we can learn about Fyodor’s motivation. Fyodor is the villain, he is the final obstacle the protagonist has to overcome, he is the driving force behind so much of Atsushi’s life and the reason so much of the series has played out at all. He sent Shibusawa to torture Atsushi as a child, he was an informant to the guild who put the bounty on Atsushi making the mafia turn on him, he was involved in the guild invasion, and obviously he was the master mind behind cannibalism and Decay of Angles.

If he is aware of his position as the antagonist, then he also is probably aware Atsushi is the protagonist, he knew he was the “envy of all ability users” after all, so he knows Atsushi has some significance to the world as a whole.

Atsushi is also the “guide to the book” which is seemingly Fyodor’s end goal, so even though Fyodor doesn’t seem to be focused on Atsushi, he has been indirectly influencing his whole journey up to this point. This also explains why Fyodor is only moving actively now, because the protagonist has appeared and his role as the villain can finally be fulfilled and he, like “the devil” can finally get the “annihilation” he asked for. Hence, Fyodor’s true goal is to erase himself from the narrative.

There is actually quite a lot of evidence for this. The obvious part is that Fyodor wants to rid the world of ability users while he himself is an ability user, he cannot exist in his perfect world. 

Then there’s the fact that in the Dead Apple, Fyodor calls himself “crime” if Fyodor is “crime” or “sin” then a world free of sin would not contain him at all

Even when Fyodor talks about sin, he says how humans are easily manipulated into killing each other, while he constantly manipulates characters into killing each other, he is the cause of the sin he fights.

A really strong bit of evidence is this interview with Asagiri and Harukawa

Not only does Asagiri reiterate Fyodors role as the person who moves the story, Harukawa specifically mentions that Fyodor might be trying to create a world without ability users because he thought it was a “bad thing to do” aka the action a villain would take that would lead to a hero stopping them.

“Dos-san is the biggest villain in the story so far, but I have continued to draw him with spaced out eyes that are neither righteous nor evil for a long time. The only time I drew his eyes completely white was when he said he would create a world without skill users. It was because, in reality, we would decide what is evil or not by our own scales, but I wasn't sure if he himself was doing it because he thought that was a bad thing to do.”

This also connects to how Fyodor was able to understand Gogol when no one else could, Gogol is chooses to fight against the way the world is to prove to himself that he truly is free. Fyodor, who is bound to play a part in a narrative, would understand that feeling and that longing to be truly free.

To be clear, I don’t think that Fyodor is really a good person whose just been trapped in an awful position against his will, we see many times that Fyodor revels in his cruelty and enjoys killing and torturing others. Its the same with “the devil” in the book, although he hates the job he was given, he tells Ivan stories of the people he’s corrupted and seems very proud of himself for it.

My personal interpretation is that the sadistic zelot personality Fyodor displays is a mixture of a mask and a coping mechanism, kind of similar to Yosano developing a sadistic side to help her deal with the guilt of half killing people in order to heal them. I think it makes sense that after centuries of cruelty and manipulation a person would become detached and stop really caring about the lives he destroys.

This analysis is partially unfinshed but I wanted to post it now and see what other people think of it.

[twistyfish]

prompt~ rafayel fluff -> angst where he’s rude and apologizes after. requested by anon!

“Why did you paint my acne scars so clearly?”

“Because they’re on your face!”

While you were normally impressed by Rafayel’s attention to detail, today it was making you very self conscious. “Was there really a reason to include them, though? They’re temporary marks that aren’t a part of me. And you literally drew the individual pores on my nose- Raf, this is so unflattering.”

“Quit micromanaging me. Art isn’t supposed to judge itself, you know.”

You huffed at his response. “But art is supposed to be pretty. This is not pretty. It’s uncanny. It looks too much like me, I don’t like it.”

He chuckled. “You don’t like that the portrait I’m painting of you looks like you? You’re so interesting, cutie.”

“Stop, you know what I mean.”

He didn’t turn his head, but his gaze flitted to meet yours before returning to the canvas. “Just trust me. I know what I’m doing.”

You watched the brush flutter around the canvas like moth wings, leaving intricate strokes in its wake. As Rafayel became more engrossed in his process, you left him to work and went out with a few girls from your team.

You had a nice time catching up with them and getting coffee. Well, two of you got coffee and Tara got hot chocolate.

When you returned a few hours later, he was staring at the painting with a look of intense scrutiny. You walked up to him quietly.

A little too quietly, because when you put a hand on his shoulder, he tensed and his paintbrush created a small splotch on the canvas mid-stroke.

“Oh! I’m sorr-“ you started, but he cut you off.

“Are you kidding me? I just finished painting that section.”

Your heart sank a little. You felt genuinely apologetic. “I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to startle you.”

“I don’t care what you meant to do. You ruined it. There’s a huge smudge over the nose.” His shoulders were tense, and he was holding himself more rigidly than he had been when you left.

“Raf, I think you should take a break.”

“Oh, so just because I’m upset that you interfered with my painting, I’m being irrational?”

“That’s not what I-“

“Don’t think I didn’t notice. The spot where you made me mess up is right on top of the part you didn’t like. If you’re that insecure, you shouldn’t have asked me to paint you.”

Your mouth opened slightly. “What?” You said harshly.

“You heard me. Why ask me to paint your face if you’re going to criticize me every step of the way?”

“Stop. I accidentally startled you and you made a mistake because of it. Are you seriously accusing me of sabotaging your painting because of that?”

“Maybe.”

You stared at him blankly. “I can’t believe you.”

“I can’t believe you either.”

You shook your head and picked up your bag, walking toward the exit. You weren’t going to argue with him like this.

Your mind spun. Why was he acting like this?

Fortunately, he seemed to come to his senses fast because you didn’t even make it halfway home before the phone rang. You accepted the call half heartedly.

“Hey,” his voice rang through the phone.

“Hi,” you said with a flat tone.

“I’m a dick.”

“Yeah, you are.”

“I’m really sorry. I shouldn’t have called you insecure and I shouldn’t have accused you of anything. I’m the one who messed up.”

“It’s not a huge deal, but yeah, you shouldn’t have.”

“No, it was unnecessary. And what I said about me not painting you? That was stupid. I love painting you. I would paint you all day if I could. I can’t capture your likeness perfectly, but trying to recreate that radiance makes me so, so happy.”

Your lips spread into a smile hearing that. “Really?”

“Really. I got too defensive over my art of you, but that wasn’t cool because I snapped at the real you. I’m sorry.”

“It’s okay, Raf. I forgive you.”

“Yay!”

[artful-aries]

Saying ‘I Love You’ For The First Time (Kaveh, Dottore, Kaeya)

Kaveh:

He is the type to say he loves you pretty early on. It won’t be too soon, but it will fall quickly and naturally from his mouth once your relationship reaches a comfortable point.

He just doesn’t see the need to hold back and worry over words. If he loves you now, why would he keep that fact to himself?

You’ll be doing something simple, like cooking him a nice meal, or simply reading a book by the window with the light illuminating you like a halo, and he will tell you he loves you without a second thought

If you’re flustered about it, Kaveh will be a little confused but laugh at the sight of your flushed cheeks

“What, is it that much of a surprise that I love someone as wonderful as you?”

After the first time he tells you he loves you, Kaveh will never stop saying it to you. You could simply breathe air in his presence and he’s going to tell you how he loves the sound you make when you inhale, how he likes to watch the rise and fall of your chest, how he wants nothing more than to feel your breath fan his skin

Despite how cheesy his words are, or how frequent he blurts them out, they never feel fake or annoying. He’s just got that certain charm that allows him to speak from the heart and not seem like a creep when he does it

Even though he manages to say he loves you with relative ease, he wouldn’t necessarily expect the same from you, at least not immediately. He understands the weight of the words, and only wants you to say them unless you truly mean them

Though if you keep him waiting a long time for him to hear you say you love him, he’s going to feel a little insecure about it. Is he not good enough for you to love? Kaveh would keep these insecurities bottled up, not wanting to pressure you to say you love him

When you do finally tell him you love him, it’s like the Archons themselves came all at once to bless him. Kaveh’s got the biggest, dumbest smile on his face once he registers what you’ve said. He can’t help but pick you up in his arms and press kisses over every inch of skin you’ll allow

Whether it’s the first time or the fiftieth time you’ve said you love him, his reaction is always the same. He’s genuinely touched that you feel the same way, even though it’s very obvious that you do

Dottore:

To get this man to admit his feelings in general is a feat on par with the Archons, let alone feelings of affection and love. Be prepared to say you love him long before he ever returns the favor

For the longest time, he sees himself as above such irrational feelings. Love is simply a mix of chemical reactions within the brain, one’s that can be studied, criticized, and altered should he desire to poke around in enough brains to delve into the subject

It’s not until you tell him that you love him as he works late at night in his laboratory that he begins to mull over the concept more

Dottore does enjoy spending time with you, he enjoys watching how you react to your environment, to the stresses of your life, to his mere presence when he enters a room. It’s all so fascinating to him, and he never wants to stop studying you. But does all of this qualify as the feeling of ‘love’?

You can take the Doctor out of the Akademiya, but you can’t take the Akademiya out of the Doctor. He is going to do extensive research on the idea of love, and how that affects the brain and other bodily functions. He even goes as far as asking some of the other Harbingers for data (Almost all of them vehemently refuse to be part of his experiments by any means)

Once he feels like a sufficient amount of data has been conducted, he concludes that what he feels towards you is close enough to hypothesize as love, although his experiences do not wholly match the data. Still, it is the only emotion that seems to best describe his complete and utter fascination with you

After all of this research and studying, actually saying the words to you almost seems lackluster.

Dottore waits for the next time you tell him you love him, and he casually says it back as though he has always responded this way

He pretends he doesn’t notice, but your look of utter disbelief has him absolutely captivated. Had he known saying he loved you would elicit such an entertaining reaction from you, he would have said the words sooner

He doesn’t exactly get more affectionate after he tells you he loves you, and he doesn’t seem to bat an eyelash when you tell him you love him; however, he does keep a log for how many times you tell him you love him over a set period of time, and he tries to match that frequency

It might come across as a little creepy, but in order to maintain this ‘love’, Dottore theorizes there should be an equal balance in this regard. If you fell out of love with him, observing you and your day to day life would become much harder

Kaeya:

This Casanova is not going to say he loves you very easily. Will he tell you he thinks you look like an angel? Of course. Will he flirt ceaselessly with you until you turn into a blushing mess around him? Without question. But saying he loves you? It’s a daunting task, even for the fearless Cavalry Captain

He’s got the burning desire to tell you he loves you at a decent point in the relationship, but when push comes to shove he always finds a way to chicken out of it

Part of him is terrified that you won’t feel the same, the other part of him is scared of what loving you truly means. Kaeya would be giving his heart to you with that confession, which gives you the power to break his heart, whether you intentionally do it or not

He takes the approach of completely avoiding the problem altogether, telling himself there is always tomorrow

It’s not until you say the words first that Kaeya realize he doesn’t have forever to sort out his feelings, that he has to get over his own fears and tell you what you deserve to know, or he might lose you forever

He will reciprocate saying he loves you right when you do it for the first time, so neither of you are left waiting on the other to respond.

Kaeya is quite frankly over the moon when you finally confess to him, but he will never tell you this. Even though he’s also admitting his love for you, he’s going to tease you relentlessly for confessing first

In reality, he’s only slightly upset that he didn’t get to confess to you first, but he will simply make up for it by never letting you go another day without him telling you he loves you at least once

If he’s in a flirty mood he can be a little dramatic about his love declarations, but more often than not he is soft and sincere when he says he loves you, making sure to whisper it in your ear so that only you can hear

[foxgnomesworld]

This thread and especially the linked dissertation annoyed me so much that I decided to actually post on Tumblr for the first time.

I wanted to give this a fair shot and read the thread. While it acknowledges certain critiques of astrology, it concludes that astrology skeptics are ignorant of developments in the field and need to do more research. So, I went to the linked dissertation to learn more. Link

The problem is that the dissertation is bad. Now, it's clearly an undergraduate essay that has likely never been edited by anyone other than the author. Perhaps it is not fair to expect more. However, since it was linked as a resource, I feel critique is warranted.

First off, if you're hoping the essay addresses any of what was mentioned in the thread, you're out of luck. Notably, there is no mention of how astrologers are addressing the many concerns of skeptics.

The essay itself is poorly argued. There are many claims made with little evidence, e.g. that the practice of astrology has changed profoundly since the 70s. Obviously it's online now (just like everything else), but that doesn't prove there have been fundamental shifts in the field.

The author's claims are not explained and lack underlying logic, as in this section of the essay:

How exactly does astrology validate a person and their experiences? What if the chart contradicts a person's own perceptions? If the goal is to understand the self, why use astrology at all?

An underlying tension in the essay is the unwillingness to engage with the question of whether astrology is "real." Do the planets actually have an impact on behavior? This is critical to address. After all, why should astrology be embraced if it is based on falsehoods and might make people more willing to believe in other pseudo-scientific ideas? Self-understanding and validation are valuable. However, there are ways of attaining them that do not rely on pseudoscience.

Instead, the author fails to understand criticism, or to engage with it in good faith, as you can see here:

1) Evaluating whether people "believe" in a field is entirely separate from the question of whether or not it is empirically valid.

2) Whether a skeptic believes in astrology or not is irrelevant. The question is how the practitioners conceptualize their own field. Surely, the people who position themselves as astrological experts should be able to communicate their thoughts on how the field functions, and why their practice can reveal truth!

This leads to the most troubling part of the essay. One of the claims in the thread is that astrologers have been addressing critiques about the dangers of astrology. Fake promises of good health were given as a specific example.

Yet in the essay, the author takes a very different stance. A critic who is concerned about the growing popularity of various pseudosciences and how this might affect scientific literacy is treated with scorn and mockery.

Read that highlighted section. Do the quotes provided say anything about "doom" and "irremediable societal downfall"? No, not at all. The author's defensiveness toward criticism of astrology is on full display. There is no genuine engagement with the topic: the danger of a population that doesn't value science or critical thinking.

Instead, the critic is mischaracterized, and the author gives incredibly weak defenses. She states that astrology never negatively affected society in the past (a claim she doesn't even try to defend). Worse, she writes that people make irrational decisions anyway, so what does it matter if they believe pseudoscience?

Finally, there is this: "Never mind […] that correlation does not equal causation."

This quote is damning. It is nonsense. It showcases the scientific illiteracy of the author. In the critique given, there are simply no mentions of correlations, or claims of causation. This cute line is meant to convince you that the author understands science, but it actually betrays her lack of statistical reasoning.

Such a phrase has an actual meaning and utility. It can be employed when a researcher tries to assert a causal connection between two pieces of data that mathematically correlate, yet lacks evidence to prove one trend drives another. In this context, though, it means nothing, because the reader has been shown no statistical claims.

Frankly, I am disappointed. I did not expect the essay would change my mind about astrology as a whole. However, I had hoped from the thread that it would shed some light on why people find it compelling, and how astrologers are addressing potential problems and criticisms. Neither is true. The essay gives the obvious answer about astrology's popularity: life sucks now, so people (often marginalized) turn to things that promise them truth.

However, that alone does not mean that the rise of astrology is positive or even neutral. Rather, to someone like me, this shows that it is indeed a field that targets the most vulnerable. It convinces them to dedicate their time and energy to a practice that relies on magical thinking and might lead them to believe further pseudoscience.

Finally, if you need proof that astrology is still used to judge and insult others, look no further than the quote tweets on the post:

The original critic of astrology is unfairly labeled as someone who just hates her astrological sign, and insinuated to be a "sensitive crybaby." All of her thoughtful commentary is dismissed by these strangers in favor of making assumptions about her character and motivations based solely on her sun sign.

The most damning evidence against astrology as a liberatory practice is to simply look at the attitudes and behaviors of people who believe in it.

[heinzpilsner]

Tadadada! Here's the epilogue to my 'Overanalyzing beach Maiko' series.

Firstly, let's list some main conclusion theses:

1) Mai became interested in Zuko's problems after he directly mentioned his scar and his relationship with Ozai for the first time, so her final change of attitude does make some sense.

2) The basis for Zuko's irrational jealousy was Mai's annoyed facial expression after he criticized Ruon-Jian.

3) The context of Zuko's jealousy rampage actually leaves a loophole for not-possessive interpretation (yay).

4) Despite how badly Zuko screwed up, Mai somehow managed to screw up even more (yep, still sounds contr-intuitive).

5) Mai actually expresses herself all the time and her "childhood trauma" is a big bullshit.

6) Apart from his inner crisis, Zuko has to fix many problematic attitudes and personality settings before he'll become a decent romantic partner for anyone.

7) So does Mai.

Something like this.

And now, a bit of old good boring and inaccurate psychology lecture mistake correction.

I think that I misinterpreted Zuko's side of "bring me food" scene, actually. You see, I saw it as conscious submission in order to avoid conflict with Mai, but...

It actually looks more like Zuko genuinely didn't realize that Mai's demand was not okay. He wasn't exactly eager to please her*, but he also didn't see her attitude towards him as problematic.

(*Not catching Mai's "I'm hungry" initial hint is kind of an indicator of Zuko's cool-off towards her. I mean, acts of service is his typical way of showing affection, which makes his sudden cluelesness pretty notable.)

Basically, Mai and Zuko in this scene demonstrate opposite facets of locus of control problem. Simply put, they both believe that Zuko is responsible for something he really isn't - in this case, satisfying Mai's hunger.

Later, though, it's Zuko who believes Mai owes him something - namely, to give him affection and meet his emotional needs. In his head, he gives responsibility for his emotional well-being to Mai and scolds her when she "ignores her duty" by not being "passionate" enough.

(But while Mai doesn't owe Zuko anything formally, she made a mistake of severely underestimating Zuko's contribution into relationship and his real value for her. This resulted in her coldness and lack of gratitude in response to his affection, which is quite a big relationship screw-up.)

Okaaay, and with that part out of the way, it's time for my final personal reflections.

In general, I have no doubts I made lots of other mistakes during my analysis. I tried my best, but to dissect relationship conflicts correctly, you need to have good feeling of personal boundaries and empathy of your own. And... Well. It's not exactly my forte.

I compensate for some things with theoretical knowledge, but my mind is a mess, so... Yep.

I feel like I have to go and read more psychological theory after this.

Also, I kinda tried to do an entertainment out of this, and roasting format doesn't exactly mix good with being objective. So, yep. It seems I got some kind of useless Frankenstein monster in the end, lol.

And finally... Perhaps I had to make it clear much earlier, but...

I have nothing against Maiko shippers or Mai fans. Ta-da!

I'm sure they have a lot against me now though, pffft.

I realize what I wasn't exactly restrained in my roasting, so it's natural for you to dislike me. But my goal wasn't to tell you what your preferences are inadequate or something. I mean, I myself ship much more toxic problematic shit (and have a weak spot for all sorts of flawed characters). It isn't supposed to be about being rational. You like it, I don't, it's ok.

Dunno, maybe someone needed to hear this.

That's all, I guess. If you were reading this series - thanks for your attention. Despite everything, it was a rather interesting experience for me, and I hope you found something useful for yourself too.

I wonder what I should analyse next >:D

I ignore all notifications, but maybe I'll make an exception soon. Ta-da! What a cliffhanger.

[salstini]

so i told le bf about feeling a lack of reciprocity in our relationship (thanks Liz for the expression heheh), I really tried to be as kind and neutral in my message despite my anger at the time, just stating what I feel and what i would like without criticizing him and like giving him options and stuff.

he hasn’t responded yet and i kinda feel like he’ll still take it the wrong way, get defensive and not listen to what i said at all, but we’ll wait and see… part of me wants to resort to the quickest resolution method aka “saying i’m the one who was wrong for everything, letting my guilt overwhelm me, cry from the pain and promise i’ll learn to control my emotions”

but this time I’m just gonna try sitting with the discomfort and not tell myself I’m wrong for asking for reciprocity. i’m not guilty of anything, I didn’t do anything bad, maybe I’m not perfect and maybe i am a needy and selfish and dysfunctional but it doesn’t make me a bad person. at least that’s what I’m trying to tell myself as i resist the urge to send him sthg like “im sorry… sorry that i’m the way i am” which is how most of our conflicts have been resolved i feel LMAO

maybe if this doesn’t go well then we’ll have to break up because i can’t continue processing his emotions for him … like every time i bring sthg up and feel genuinely sad or sthg, he’s often defensive and expresses anger instead of comforting me or trying to understand me… i dont necessarily want to depend solely on him for emotional support but being met with anger everytime i express dissatisfaction (even in the nicest way) is just not it for me

Who knows maybe I am the irrational one and he’s right and i’m asking for too much, but still there must be some ways we can discuss it and find solutions together right? if he can’t give me what i need, which i get is not sthg i should expect of anyone (as in like, can’t expect ppl to cover my needs at all times), at least can he give me some patience, forgiveness, understanding? i know it’s hard being with me but still 😭

[sagevalleymusings]

You already know what people missed in Barbie, but I'm going to deep dive it anyway because these negative reviews are hilarious

Reading one-star reviews to the 2023 movie Barbie are genuinely hilarious. 

First and foremost, the male characters lacked any significant development. They were one-dimensional, bland, and existed primarily to either praise Barbie or act as obstacles for her to overcome. This reduction of male characters to supporting roles, devoid of any substance or complexity, was a disservice not only to the male characters themselves but also to the narrative as a whole.

Like, yes. That’s… that’s literally the point. You have correctly assessed the central criticism the movie is making about patriarchy. But you think it’s a bad thing because you haven’t realized it’s on purpose.

Mattel's CEO and corporate people started as a mockery of men having all the top positions in a company; as the movie goes, they're just there at the back of your mind, and it's an unpleasant experience because they did nothing after.

Like… yes! Mattel had to sign off on this movie. Their real-world attempts to control and influence the plot of Barbie would have been sitting as an unpleasant reminder in the back of the minds of the creators, even if they ultimately did nothing. The writers clearly responded to this pressure by just making it a part of the movie.

Overall, a movie that comes off strongly like the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters; during which year, it was reviewed as being "stunning and brave" with the same misandry-esque storytelling (that time, replacing an all-male cast mind you).

This one is just funny. The rest of the review didn’t even seem that negative, and then there’s this, “I hated Ghostbusters specifically because it had women in it” dig that’s just… so telling on yourself.

More analysis after the cut. Stick around if you want to learn something ;-) 

I want to take a break from laughing at people with no understanding of subtlety and nuance to actually look at the film. I watched Barbie last night, and I thought it was great. There were a lot of relatable moments, as someone who grew up playing with dolls. The basic setting is that there is a world parallel to ours called Barbieland, which is essentially a kind of alternate dream universe, where beings in the universe are tied to and influenced by objects in the Real World. In theory, Barbieland cannot change without influence from the Real World, but if it does, it can have echoing ramifications in the Real World. That’s a setting you could do some interesting things with, and it does necessarily require some degree of surrealism. 

Surrealism was a post World War I art movement in Europe which sought to combine dreams and reality into something Andre Breton called a super reality. The irrational juxtaposition can be nonsensical, but is often used to attempt to heighten the real by contrasting it with the unreal. It is extremely relevant that it came out of Europe post “The Great War” because it is by nature a way to grapple with feelings which feel too great to express through realism. Much like Goya, when painting the Penninsular War, painted a Colossus trampling the countryside with no real acknowledgement of the harm being caused, surrealism taps into one’s feelings, to evoke the sense that the real causes, instead of simply portraying the real with accuracy. 

And I pause to explain this because Barbieland is a land of dreams. It is literally the surreal. By opening our movie with an unambiguously surreal portrayal of Victorian girls playing with baby dolls in an empty wasteland, then transitioning to the imagined Barbieland, our writers are sending a pointed message: nothing that happens in this movie should be taken literally.

That aside, the film’s scenario is disjointed, didactic, and literal. The duration of the movie is a series of speeches with every woke cliché.

Barbieland cannot be divorced from its origins. Rather than having been created organically, it was made - by men. While looking into the character/real person of Ruth Handler, I discovered that the name “Mattel” was created by combining the names of businessman Harold Mattson and Ruth’s husband Elliot. Ruth’s contributions are written out of history every time someone says “Mattel.”

Barbieland is ostensibly a matriarchy. Barbies are dolls made for girls, so the dolls are mostly girls. With the wave of second wave feminism, there was a desire to market to a more empowered type of girl. What does that look like to the men trying to come up with it? You give the dolls jobs. President Barbie, Nobel Prize Barbie, Construction Worker Barbie. Barbieland has all the trappings of a patriarchy, just with women in the gender of power instead of men. That may sound like it is therefore a matriarchy in that case, but in fact that’s not how that works. There have been real matriarchies in the world, and they don’t function the way that Barbieland functions. That Barbieland is a playhouse run by men with Barbies acting out their roles and Kens acting out the roles of women in an idyllic fantasy for the men creating them with the intent of producing a profit under patriarchal capitalism matters when analyzing this movie.

It's a long ramble about how matriarchy is perfect and patriarchy is stupid. I agree with the latter, but the execution is just awful. 

Having said that, Barbieland isn’t exactly a one-to-one to our world - it’s more like a “good old days” subversion of our world, with a specific focus on tradwife nostalgia. It’s reminiscent of 1950s “return to the home” propaganda post World War 2 - shows like Leave it to Beaver or I Love Lucy which re-emphasized to a generation of women that had been forced to enter the workforce that what they should be striving for was a husband and a home. 

In Barbieland, Kens can’t have jobs - they just stand around looking pretty, especially on the beach. Barbies have all the jobs. Also everyone owns their own homes. The aesthetic of friendly, white-washed suburbia is deeply ingrained in how everyone knows and likes their neighbors, even while 1990s multiculturalism bleeds in.  

now if we were sticking to an actual representation of Barbie Land we would also have a BEACH barbie just like we have Crystal Barbie and Ken or Great Shape Barbie and Ken or even Animal Lovin Barbie and Ken! This perception that Ken doesn’t have a REAL job is just untrue, in fact there is many Ken Careers including DOCTOR KEN!

There’s a point in the movie that I find is deeply profound actually. The Kens have taken over the Barbie dreamhouses, which prompts the question, “where do the Kens sleep?” Not only does Barbie not know, but the question is never answered. DO they sleep anywhere? 

I’m reminded of a real world parallel. Before women were allowed to work, where did they live? That might seem like a stupid question, because of course they lived somewhere, but the fact of the matter is that if you were not allowed to generate income, you could not afford a home. Girls lived with their fathers until they were married at which point they moved in with their husbands, because of course they had husbands by that point. Women didn’t have their own homes. Kens don’t have houses. In that context, the fact that Barbie continues to reject Ken to have a sleepover with other Barbies who all have their own homes takes on a much darker tone. Kens in Barbieland, much like women were in parts of the history of the Real World, are so subjugated in society that they literally don’t have access to food or shelter without relying on the other gender.

They even point out “oh where do the Kens sleep at? I have NO idea!” basically is saying they don’t have Kens contribute at all the Barbieland and all they are is dumb dressed up side pieces for the Barbies.

But I don’t think this metaphor of “patriarchy but the genders are swapped” is the only metaphor at play. After all, at some point, Barbie and Ken enter the Real World, and discover that the playacting they have been doing is literally a lie. In the Real World, patriarchy is the rule of law. Barbie is uncomfortable. Her playacting is called fascist. Meanwhile Ken is given access to any space he wants, even while having to realize that his experience - the way he was raised - means that he’s still missing critical components necessary to enter Real World patriarchy. He decides to bring patriarchy to the play world.

In our metaphor, it seems to me that this component of the movie is a direct criticism of radical feminism. The whole movie essentially speed runs the last sixty years of feminism. This also means that the metaphor becomes strained, as we maintain the plot through lines while changing the meaning, but I think it still functions well throughout. 

As the movie progresses, we reach the Kens want power in society movement, and they go way too far with it, choosing to place themselves in power with women being subjugated instead. There were separatists in second wave feminism that called for this move specifically, who argued that men were too violent to assume any position of power, and genuinely argued that a matriarchy should be instituted instead. 

I can see why someone experiencing power for the first time might believe this was the solution. Ken isn’t concerned about equality, not really. But he is concerned about the way his gender has been treated in this world, and he wants to bring other Kens out of their status as second class citizens. 

But Kendom isn’t better. Wanting to subjugate and oppress the people who were subjugating and oppressing you is an understandable reaction, and it’s the wrong one. The goal is equality, not retribution. 

Was Barbie's Director aiming at an anti men revenge film?  The film subjugated men; demeaning and objectifying them and labelling them as dumb and superfluous. They are so worth more than that and young men today struggle to find their place in a society trying to demonise them.

But by the end of the movie, the Kens haven’t gained equality. And in an extremely barbed line directed straight at the audience, our narrator says, “maybe one day they will be as represented on the Supreme Court as women are in the Real World.”

I do think it bears noting, though, that right now, in 2023, four out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are women, which is just about fifty percent. We are achieving equality, we really are. The point isn’t that women have not achieved equality. The point is that that happened extremely slowly. There are four women on the Supreme Court today. Those four represent nearly 70% of the TOTAL number of women who have ever served on the Supreme Court. The first woman served on the Supreme Court 192 years into its existence.

I think there’s some relevant context here, then, that Barbieland, the imagined space created when playing with Barbies, has existed since 1959. Barbieland isn’t starting from nothing, since it is importing Real World values, but it has only existed for 64 years. If Barbieland operated on the same time scale that the United States did (which we know it doesn’t but let’s pretend) then men would see someone represented on the Barbieland Supreme Court in the Real World year of 2151.

In conclusion, "Barbie" is an unforgettable journey into a realm where men are vilified, female empowerment lacks subtlety, and any semblance of realism takes a backseat. 

There’s a lot more that I could say. There’s a lot more feelings I had about this movie. But I want to keep this to responding to the unintentionally hilarious critiques of this movie. It’s endlessly amusing to me that the primary critique of this movie seems over and over again to be “the movie accurately portrayed what it was trying to portray.”

The disconnect is one that I’ve seen in an increasing amount. Barbieland’s idyllic, “matriarchy is perfect” version is extremely bad. In the end, even the Barbies don’t want to return to that version of their world. Confronted with the degree to which they’d been subjugating their Kens up to this point, they now see at least in part how harmful that version was not only to the Kens, but to the Barbies too. 

But viewers can’t seem to understand that just because something is being portrayed on screen does not mean it is being condoned. 

Such an incredible steaming pile of liberal garbage that it almost seemed satirical. The supposed intention of the film was to empower women, but instead did nothing but tear down men. 

There’s one last thing I want to say before I sign off on this fun romp through Barbie’s one-star reviews, and it’s something I didn’t see very much critique of. 

Barbie is transgender. 

Barbie wanting to be human: A theme that starts with Barbie‘s interaction with an old lady and her observing other people. That motive disappears completely until the end, Barbie has no motivation to become human throughout the movie.

I think this is a metaphor that people just completely missed on. The only real critiques I saw on this part of the movie was that Barbie wanting to be human seemed like it came out of nowhere. And in some ways I’d agree that it was not as obvious as the rest of the movie was. But if you read that plot point through the lens of metaphor, it’s much more obvious.

Margot Robbie has gone on record saying that Barbie and Ken are sexless, and that therefore, they don’t really have sex drives. In a very literal way, Barbie’s existence highlights the difference between being socialized as a woman and being born as a female. But in Barbieland, there are no ‘women’ in any sense of the term. Barbie is not a human. She hasn’t been socialized the way human women have. Her gender literally isn’t ‘woman.’ It’s Barbie. And Barbies don’t have genitals. Midge was an embarrassment for Mattel in the Real World, and she’s also taboo in Barbieland, because she’s non-gender conforming to what that means for Barbies specifically. 

With that in mind, is it really true that this comes out of nowhere? I would argue no. In fact, I would argue it is the central conflict of the movie, because there is a specific gendered aspect of Stereotypical Barbie that she is not conforming to outside of Gloria’s influence. 

She doesn’t want to date Ken. They are dating, nominally, because that’s what Barbies and Kens do. But she won’t kiss him, and she won’t let him sleep over. And it’s made clear in the beginning scenes that this strain on their interactions existed before Gloria started imagining “Irrepressible Thoughts of Death Barbie.”

Barbie doesn’t want things to change. Perhaps that’s because she can only imagine a world where things change for the worse. Where she does let Ken sleep over. And there’s something deeply troubling to Barbie about that scenario. It simply isn’t part of the version of herself this Barbie wants to be. 

Barbies playact the real world. And an extremely common and expected aspect of the playacting is the relationships they have to Kens. And regardless of the fact that all Barbies and Kens are asexual because they literally don’t have sex drives, it does seem to be the case that there’s still a gendered aspect to Barbies and Kens that they both be heteroromantic. Ken certainly has feelings for Barbie. All of the Kens are seen exhibiting jealousy. None of the other Barbies are seen as unhappy in their interactions with Kens the way that Stereotypical Barbie is. 

She’s different. She can’t playact a relationship the way everyone else can. She needs it to be… real. So she becomes real. Ken does not come along, this was never about Ken.

But that process of becoming real, of becoming human… it does mean that her gender changes. It means her sex changes. Barbieland being surreal means that this can happen instantaneously, but I do think it’s intentional on the part of the writers that the very last page of feminism - after second wave feminism, after radical activism, after reactionary conservatism pushes radical activism to the fringes, after speedrunning the last 60 years of feminism, the very last form Barbie takes is queering the narrative. Barbie has a vagina now. And she’s very proud of it. And that’s feminist too actually. 

So yeah Barbie is transgender and Greta Gerwig said trans rights, and it’s extra funny that no one noticed because they were too busy being mad that the rest of the movie was effective storytelling actually.

[tuiyla]

btw, do you already dislike Xander? I'm kinda hoping you're going to start writing rants about how much he sucks lmao, but tbf his worst moments are yet to come. I also hope you'll end up hating another male character that most people love, much to my chagrin.

Alright! No more letting this ask sit. Anon, I hope you're around and doing well because we're finally gonna talk about Xander Harris.

I wanted to answer this at different points during my Buffy journey and now, towards the end of season 5, I have to say that... Xander's fine. I totally get where your hope comes from, my notorious Finn posts and all and though I'll get into aspects of Xander I dislike in a moment, I'm afraid I can't be the manhater you need on this occasion. From what I've seen though he's not that well-loved? In my limited experience anyway. So the Finn Hudson effect doesn't apply in that sense, either.

Where I would be frustrated with Xander in similar ways I am about Finn's ch is that sometimes he is framed in an annoying way. He never gets even just called out for lying to Buffy at the end of season 2 or acting like a major asshole in 3x02. All the Scoobies are coming at Buffy there, sure, but none with such vehemence and in such a self-righteous way. Self-righteous hypocrites really piss me off. Had I answered this at the start of season 3 I probably would have been much harsher on Xander than I'm gonna be now. His Angel hatred was so irrational and not worthy of an "I told you so" upon Angelus' turn and it's irritating how entitled he is to Buffy's decisions. Not to mention, I don't care if him sulking about Buffy's rejection is realistic teen boy behaviour, it's tedious and embarrassing. She made it clear that she was not interested and Xander was such an ass about it. His crush on Buffy was a pain to get through and frankly, I don't think Xander deserved either of the girls he's been with since. Cordelia most definitely not and I think Anya deserves better, too, because she's genuinely devoted whereas it really feels like Xander's with her just because it's convenient for him.

His latest really, really annoying moment was his Riley speech to Buffy but honestly I'm just so glad Riley's gone so I'm gonna swiftly move past that. Whatever, Xander tried helping Buffy and luckily she was too late to act on his advice. What stupid advice, anyway, as if Riley was one in a million. Hon, he was literally the 999,999 in a million.

And I said I wouldn't go hard on the guy, huh? Lmao well that was pretty much the list of my grievances. In general? Xander's... fine. He's not gonna be my favourite Scooby in any scenario, no way, but I think since mid-season 3 he's been a lot more tolerable and even enjoyable on occasion. He does feel sort of useless at times but that's acknowledged and a part of his journey so I appreciate that. I don't fully buy into him being the Heart of the group as that position is something that I hold precious, see Katara in ATLA. And no way Xander can even touch what someone like Katara represents within her group dynamic. But I also see that being the Heart is mostly about courage here, loyalty, and as much as he makes mistakes I gotta give Xander that.

Even in that interpretation I struggle with the guy because a) he does have these icky sexist moments that are just not funny and they're meant to be and b) he's not... that full of heart. I just think pettiness gets in the way too often and, compared to someone like Willow's flaws his are more annoying and in general, more. He's not quite the Nice Guy syndrome because he is general a genuinely good friend to Buffy and the others but I wish he wasn't such a teen boy. Or, if he was, cause ya know they unfortunately do exist, that he was framed just a little more critically. I get that that's too much to ask of Whedon's late 90s feminism but it would make Xander an easier character to vibe with. I mean, I'm guessing there must be a reason I had zero idea about his existence prior to watching the show but had a vague idea of most other Scoobies. I knew so many things about Willow and was aware of chs like Oz, Cordy and Tara, but I was half-expecting Xander to only last a season or two. Because surely, if he was there for the whole show I would have heard people talk about him already.

So, yeah, it might not sound like it because I more so talked about the negatives than positives but I don't hate Xander by any means. He's not frustrating enough to be loathed or ranted about but he's also not nearly engaging enough to be on the level of the other Scoobies. He has his moments, though, and more often than not I find myself enjoying Xander-centric episodes. Soooo... is that anything? I hope I don't disappoint but now that I'm at the end of season 5 maybe you can share more about your Xander thoughts, I'd be happy to listen.

[kramlabs]

Valuable Intellectual Traits

Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.

Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

Intellectual Autonomy: Having rational control of one's beliefs, values, and inferences, The ideal of critical thinking is to learn to think for oneself, to gain command over one's thought processes. It entails a commitment to analyzing and evaluating beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence, to question when it is rational to question, to believe when it is rational to believe, and to conform when it is rational to conform.

Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

Confidence In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

Valuable Intellectual Virtues (September 2014). Foundation For Critical Thinking, Online at website: www.criticalthinking.org)

[distort-opia]

Every single week for years and years now I have to see another - Batman sucks why doesn't he just kill the Joker- hit post and I am exhausted. It is a tiring take. Really boring. With no new and fresh concepts, no deep dives, barely read comics where all of this is addressed. What continues to be the worst of it for me is a) treating Bruce like he is a fully mentally stable individual devoid of irrational, extreme, trauma induced behaviours and reasoning b) thinking Batman is supposed to be presented as an actual 100% good guy superhero and writers are somehow being stupid and not realising how this lowers his heroism. It always boils down to the very act of seeing Batman kill the psychotic murderer and then zero clue what happens around it, and where the character is then taken. What could be very interesting and impactful arc is reduced to the most basic level moral dilemma and flattened out characters. No psychological sides to it at all, just black and white ethics discussions and vibes.

Myeah, I know what you mean. I occasionally see those kinds of posts as well, even with my rather curated fandom experience. The most grating are indeed the ones that reflect a shallow comprehension of Batman -- why he doesn't kill, what kind of character he is, and what sort of world he lives in. There is a lack of understanding regarding why Batman operates the way he does, and a reductive puritanical approach that morally flattens the characters into versions of themselves devoid of nuance... But on the part of many people making these kinds of posts, I don't think there's any genuine interest in reading more comics, or delving into the complexities of this dilemma. They aren't interested in engaging with the source material on its own terms, or taking context into account.

Aggressive statements calling Batman's no-killing rule stupid, and saying that Batman should kill Joker, were more frequently "Edgy Redditor" takes back in the day; often coming from male fans who wanted Batman to basically become the Punisher. But on Tumblr, their popularity in recent years is rather owed to the rise of purity culture, and especially this kind of... performative moral stance-taking that keeps popping up in fandoms. It's easy to know next-to-nothing about Joker as a character, but still hate on him and churn out Post #20568 about how Batman should kill him. After all, he's abusive and toxic and he killed people, so he surely deserves to die. "I, a pure and deeply moral individual, hate the Joker and don't understand why Batman won't just kill him! Watch me righteously and publically denounce this sinner Problematic Character, and whoever does not follow in my stead must be a sinner Problematic person just like he is!" And then the people who wish to come across as righteous and denouncing this Horrible Bad Character too will provide these posts with attention, and round and round it goes. For this kind of fan, it doesn't really matter where killing Joker leaves Bruce psychologically, or if it makes sense for him to do it narratively. It's not about the characters at all, it's a moral statement -- that conflates real-world rules and morals with the ones of a fictional comic-book world, but that's another much bigger issue.

Also, I did mention it elsewhere, but I'll reiterate that the people who simply dislike Joker for different reasons and mind their own business are obviously excluded from this. People with critical thinking skills, who tag their anti posts and don't harass or spew hate towards other fans who enjoy Joker as a character, are following basic fandom etiquette -- the best thing we can do to keep fandom a peaceful and pleasant experience. No one owes anyone an explanation for why they like one thing and dislike another. We're all playing in a fictional sandbox, and I've seen great meta discussion on Batman's no-killing rule on here, with some insightful and interesting opinions; but this kind of fun debate can only happen if fans don't jump to bite each other's heads off when someone veers away from the dogma Accepted Popular Fandom Opinion.

Anyway, yeah, I do commiserate, Anon. Hope it helped to vent a bit! My advice is to do your best to curate your own little corner of fandom; minimize contact with the people that exhaust you as much as you can.

[abla-soso]

One thing that annoys me the most about how alot of the Fandom talks about enji is that it's so clear there isn't anything he could do that would make them happy. He freezes during the war, but I know that if he didn't he'd be criticized for going after dabi and choosing to be a Hero instead of a dad. Like idk what they want him to do because even him admitting he messed up and was a bad person is read as him feeling sorry for himself. No matter what he does he's always seen as only caring about himself and being terrible. Heck even shoto gets criticized for telling dabi it was bad for him to kill random people not involved with their family, I feel anything enji says to him will be seen as bad. So I'm so nervous for the next chapters.

This is part of the reason why I left the official fandom. The way most of the fandom insists on viewing Enji's character through their own irrational bias and how they interpret his actions and mindset through the worst bad-faith arguments ever was so fucking annoying.

This shit was so inescapable to the point that I still see it from time to time, even when I'm no longer part of the official fandom.

Just today I had the misfortune of seeing this bullshit:

Like... how can you even begin to reason with someone who managed to miss the point of Enji's character THIS much?

When they deliberately delete any and all scenes of Enji being genuinely remorseful for his shitty actions (which 80% of his scenes post-redemption arc). you know there is no point in correcting their bullshit. Because their bullshit is not based on simple ignorance or misunderstanding. It's a result of the deliberate and irrationally biased reading of Enji's character, and it shits all over Hori's carefully nuanced writing.

It's best to completely disregard and ignore these takes if you still wanna be part of this fandom, or else your fandom experience will be too frustrating.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003)

Although I recognize the appeal of 2001’s Jeepers Creepers, I can’t call it a good movie. I watched the second one anyway and was surprised by how enjoyable it was. Jeepers Creepers 2 is the rare sequel that's better than the original.

Set shortly after the events of the first film, young Billy Taggart (Shaun Fleming) is abducted by The Creeper (Jonathan Breck), prompting his older brother, Jack Jr. (Luke Edwards) and father, Jack Sr. (Ray Wise), to go after it. Meanwhile, a school bus carrying a high school basketball team breaks down. After Minxie (Nicki Aycox), has a vision of some of the Creeper’s past victims, she warns the others the blown tire was a deliberate attack by the creature.

While this film does not have the same big shocking reveal as the first - that scene where we realize The Creeper isn’t human - it makes the wise decision to jettison some of the clumsier aspects of the story. The song Jeepers Creepers is nowhere to be heard. The easily-recognizable vehicle with the custom license plate The Creeper drives is nowhere to be seen. Neither is this idea that the monster takes his victims for anything other than food - for the most part. It does use shuriken made out of bone and human skin, but those are practical weapons; the man-eater isn't turning people into arts and crafts projects for no reason. The psychic element of the story is still there and still little more than a way for writer/director Victor Salva (whom I still have mixed feelings about) to clumsily explain things to the audience, but it’s kept to a minimum. I'm also less critical of it now, since it's building upon the predecessor's mythology.

Though this film's budget is nearly double that of its predecessor, the money feels like it’s been more wisely spent. Most of the picture is set in or around the bus that breaks down. The adults are quickly picked off, leaving the teens inside to figure out what to do next. Do they stay inside, where it’s safe? Seems like a good plan, until they realize The Creeper is strong enough to smash through the vehicle’s metal frame with its bare hands. Maybe they can appease it, then? The creature seems to have its eyes set on certain people. Scotty (Eric Nenninger), a real piece of work who has a chip on his shoulder that he really needs to deal with, thinks they should sacrifice the few for the benefit of the many… but is he just using this scenario as a way to get rid of people he’s holding an irrational grudge against? Probably not. He seems genuinely frightened. More likely, the terror in the air is bringing out the worst in him - and others.

You won't really like anyone on the bus, but you’ll be intrigued by what’s happening. Outside of the monster business, I mean. The team won their game. They’re champions… but more than a few of them are not happy. There’s a lot of tension, enough that it makes you think something would’ve gone wrong on this trip one way or another. How is it all going to play out? At the very least, you’re looking forward to some of these brats getting their comeuppance.

A good chunk of Jeepers Creepers 2 concerns the basketball team, the coaches, the cheerleaders and the monster terrorizing them but there’s the Taggart family story on the side too. They’re the fun part of the movie. The father-son duo is coming in with a plan and is determined to take the monster down. Without them, this movie would’ve been little more than what we’d seen before. Their inclusion means we get something new, notably a way for the Creeper to show off some of its unnatural abilities. You see how big of an uphill battle this conflict is, which makes you even more excited to see the protagonists triumph.

Aside from a cameo by Justin Long as Darry Jenner, Jeepers Creepers 2 stands mostly on its own, which is good news. If you didn’t care for the first but thought the ideas within were promising, I say give this one a watch anyway. It may be from the same team of people, but it’s a better movie. If you like the original fine, definitely check it out. Jeepers Creepers 2 ends on a strong note and gives me hope for what's next. (November 12, 2023)

[bisluthq]

I love what that one anon said about having irrational feelings about a celebrity due to the parasocial relationship but recognizing it’s weird and being self aware enough not to share them. As a more embarrassing example of that which I wouldn’t admit publicly is that a part of me wants Taylor to always be the greatest and have no one come close to competing with her commercially or critically or by any other metric . This manifested itself in a part of me feeling weird about the Olivia comparisons and threatened on Taylor’s behalf for her success. I know this is a totally bizarre not socially acceptable and embarrassing feeling to have and I would never admit it outside of an anon setting. And I can admit that I think Olivia is an extremely talented musician who makes great music and I see why she is the one most closely compared to Taylor because she in my opinion does have that intangible it factor in her songwriting that makes her comparable to Taylor in that specific way. But it makes me uncomfortable because of the intensity of the parasocial relationship with Taylor and a tiny part of me secretly hopes for her to flop sometimes. But I know that is crazy and an unattractive intrusive thought for me to have especially because Olivia seems like a very genuine person who isn’t going out of her way to do anything wrong. And I would definitely never send any hate her way and outwardly only support her and even would go see a show of hers if I got tickets. But that is just some tiny ugly impulse primarily driven by the parasocial relationship with Taylor. That’s why it is so easy for me to recognize when swifties are being haters of Olivia and calling her a flop for the sole reason for being threatened on Taylor’s behalf because I recognize that ugliness within myself I am just self aware enough to never act on it and see it for my being pathetic in this specific way.

self-awareness is fucking awesome! And keep kicking the weird intrusive ugly thoughts out xx 😘😘

[broodwolf221]

since idk how many blorbos i'm gonna do this for yet, i'm gonna start by just linking to the question post -> here <- and when i'm done i'll link all the posts to that :')

so for now... halcor brosca:

your Warden/Hawke/Inquisitor's opinion on Orlais?

indifferent, kinda? he never understood orzammar's high society, he sure doesn't understand orlais'.

are they skilled in The Grand Game?

lmao. hell no.

opinion on blood magic?

initially very wary, then more or less ambivalent. all magic is freaky, but he gets close with morrigan and realizes that she has control over her magic, so his opinion shifts substantially. he's also naturally inclined to question authority/conventional wisdom, so that is an aspect of this

attitude towards Andrastianism?

indifferent. it's a faith. he doesn't get it. some of its practitioners are assholes, some are nice, all of them are people.

attitude towards the Chantry?

early on: indifferent. as time progresses, though, he becomes more wary about it. he's... not Big on controlling sociocultural mechanisms in general.

attitude towards the Qun?

at first, very, very ignorant, with only fanciful stories to give any context. after meeting sten and hearing a bit more about the culture itself, his opinion becomes more grounded and more critical. overall, he's not a fan.

if they had to choose one person most important to them, who would that be?

rica and morrigan are pretty well tied, actually.

who do they hate the most, and do they have an arch-nemesis?

um… hm. he’s not really one for hate? the way he is, being casteless and all, he grew up expecting to get the short end of the stick, and he grew accustomed to that. I think he was very angry for a while growing up, but then that anger began to poison him and he worked - hard! for a long time! - on letting it go. now it’s like… are you going to be angry at the cliff because you fell down it? that’s kinda how he views things now. because of that, people being genuine, trustworthy, and kind freaks him out a bit. he keeps waiting for the betrayal. the point where keeping him in their good graces costs more than it’s worth. it’s part of why he gravitates towards morrigan - her anger and condemnation are open, obvious, transparent. so when it stops being directed at him, he actually trusts that.

that all said… probably leske. because that was a betrayal, a real betrayal, one that cut deep.

what is their love language? 

hm. don’t rly buy into love languages, but he’s pretty open with his feelings. less “i love you” and more “i think you’re glorious” all starry-eyed

are they good horse riders?

ehhhh… it takes a bit to get used to, but he gets there in the end!

what are their religious beliefs, if any?

none. if he prays - usually before a battle and out of desperation - it’s to the stone, although sometimes he casts a wider net “the maker, andraste, elven gods if you’re listening, whoever the qunari worship-” kinda thing

attitude towards Mabari?

okay so they are Big Dogs and he’s not used to dogs and they freaked him out at first!!!! but then he saved that mabari and now he loves them.

their thoughts on the Grey Warden order?

little opinion on it prior to joining; after joining, very “wtf, this is it?” because it should NOT have been just him and alistair for so long

who are they closest to from their family?

rica! 100%

preferred weapon of choice?

two daggers

do they get sentimental about their weapons or armour?

nope, although he appreciates having nice gear and he maintains it very well.

what were they like as a child?

angrier, bitter. tried hard to reach his mother. 

do they have any irrational fears?

falling into the sky is still sorta-kinda there. he prefers forests or mountainous areas; flat areas freak him out

are they afraid of death?

no

where would they like to be buried?

doesn’t think about it. probably doesn’t want to be buried at all though. burned, maybe.

what is their biggest regret?

not being able to help rica more. he feels like he abandoned her to run off with the grey wardens.

have they ever been to Tevinter?

nope

do they have, or want to have, children?

kieran is his son, although he hadn’t ever thought about having children before. he ends up wishing he could be a father to him, but of course morrigan goes her own way and he does not pursue her; he respects her choice, even if he disagrees with it. he thinks about kieran often, though

what languages can they speak?

common

what did they plan for their life to look like before the events of the game happened?

nothing good. surviving until he was killed.

do they get a happy ending?

not… really? he finds happiness, but it’s always fleeting. still, it matters.