#salted post

[the-goons-very-cool]

actually i should make it abundantly clear by "goons" we mean "cartoon villain's wacky sidekicks who call said villain 'da buoss' in an obnoxious boston accent" NOT THE REDDIT DEFINITION WE PROMISE

[crehador]

so when food is too salty we might say "打死卖盐的" basically meaning "did you beat the salt merchant to death" but one time in an attempt to be a little polite and a little funny to the chef (my mother) i said "……是不是又跟卖盐的有矛盾了" meaning "are you... having a dispute with the salt merchant again" and now it's a whole thing in my family

anyway point being there has been another altercation with the salt merchant

[the-goons-very-cool]

THE GOOOONNNNSSSSSS

Thinking about the guy who sent an ask with the link to a discord server and I joined it without hesitation and it was just 4 dudes hanging out

[bluejayscrying]

Jason decides not to go batshit insane on Tim and instead starts subtly and occasionally trying to kill him.

Tim, tired: I’m hungry…make me food? It tastes special when you make it…

Jason, who as been adding poison to his food for the past week: that’s because I make it with love <3

[coffeebanana]

do you ever think about. every single moment where marinette must feel guilty about keeping the truth from adrien. every time he says something about his father and she has to paste on a smile and convince herself she's doing the right thing. every time he comes close to losing his amoks because he doesn't realize how important they are. how it must have dawned on her at some point that gabriel CONTROLLED his son. and why is she protecting the monster that did that

how her love for adrien is somehow keeping her silent and alone. how she didn't even tell alya the truth

all the times she must come so CLOSE to telling him, but then talks herself out of it?

do you ever think about all those feelings making her want to explode?

[yippee-optimistically]

so ii16 huh

[inquisitor-apologist]

The first time we see Yoda, leader of the Council, in tcw, he’s explicitly affirming the individuality and importance of the clones. He then teaches them how to connect to the Force, the most sacred tenet of the religion he’s dedicated his life to.

The first time we see Plo Koon, a Jedi Master, in tcw, he clearly tells his clone troopers that they are not expendable to him, and then proceeds to do his absolute best to save as many clones as possible.

The first time we see Anakin in tcw he has his clones fly an unnecessary suicide mission because he wants the glory of killing Grievous. He doesn’t even stop when he hears them all dying—his Padawan, a 14-year-old, has to yell at him that no one else will survive what he’s doing before he changes his plan.

And people STILL say that Anakin is the Jedi who cared about the clones the most. Seriously?

[jsheios]

So Hilda season 3. (This post has nothing to do with hilda season 3)

[hinamie]

so just know, I'm healing / even though it don't feel like it

insp

[axellis]

tumblr gets to have this too

[the-goons-very-cool]

needed to share this here (loud warning)

[buggachat]

honestly just in general it's very exhausting to try to analyze media that is literally meant to be analyzed, only for the replies to be filled with people arguing not against your analysis, but against the premise that the media can be analyzed at all.

i don't even know what to say about it without starting to really betray my frustration, so i'll just settle with— just don't engage with analysis posts? I'm serious. if you're typing a response to a media analysis post, reread what you've written and ask yourself "is this comment/response against the very concept of analyzing the media at all?" and if the answer is yes then delete it all and go sit in the shame corner. throw your curtains away if you want to so bad and stop telling me that I'm not allowed to hum and haw at the fact mine are blue

[meatcatt]

Me and my besties played Gartic Phone Co-Op cookies and some whiteboard, here are the highlights part 1 :) Me and my pals: Orion: @meatcatt (hey thats me) Auto: @skyistheground Ounce: @/lynxmisnomer PeachTabby: @redvelvetscookieblog Animated gif's under cut

[corvidus-fr]

anyway i'm going to buck the trend here and say i specifically love these guys way more because of their teeny little arms and feet. ten out of ten design choice, very dainty and endearing

[wendytorr4nce]

the loneliness of being queer

to quote trixie mattel: gay people are so broken

[neroushalvaus]

Okay I am going to use the Somerton situation to talk about something that is very important to me. Following the discussion I have seen former Somerton fans being disappointed in themselves and questioning how they can ever trust another video essayist again. I have also seen some people being smug because to them Somerton was obviously unreliable from the start. As a person who also saw the "red flags" in Somerton, I would like to skip the smugness and talk a bit about what the red flags were to me.

Someone else has probably posted something similar and Hbomberguy's & Todd in the Shadows's videos touched a few of these points, but they didn't focus on them or how to spot these things. I think it is a good thing: I think it would have reinforced the idea that Somerton's fans were to blame for being lied to, and these youtubers didn't want to pin any blame on the fans. Also, some of the things I'm going to talk about were not by any means proof of him being unreliable, they were common tropes I personally associate with people who are bullshitting on internet. Think of it as something like spotting terfs: If you consider following a tumblr user and find out they have at some point posted "males will always be a danger to females no matter what they say", it is very possible that they are not a terf. Maybe they were having a bad day and were just wording their post badly – But you should probably search "trans" from their blog before following them, just to be sure.

So, the tropes in James Somerton's content that I consider red flags:

Lack of sources. This one may seem obvious and Hbomb talked about this in his video, but the lack of sources in his videos was outrageous. Video essays are called essays for a reason, they are not supposed to be just a guy talking about whatever comes to his mind, they should be well researched essays. Obviously video essays should contain one's own thoughts and interpretations and those do not need citations. But James Somerton didn't come out of the womb knowing everything about LGBT history, Disney and film theory, if he actually knew something about all this stuff, he should have learnt it from somewhere. There should be sources he could point to. It is very common that even when a video essayist doesn't tell you where they got all their information, they open their video by saying stuff like "when I prepared for this video I read the book Also sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche and this one thrilling blog post about lesbian cruising in 1960s Sweden". From what I've seen, James does not really do this. From watching his videos you could arrive to the conclusion that James Somerton does not read any books, he just knows everything. There are situations where people don't feel the need to add sources, like when the information is considered common knowledge or when the topic relates heavily to the essayist's actual academic field or profession. This is okay and very understandable, but can sometimes be dangerous, since if the video essayist markets himself as a marketing specialist, people are more likely to take his word for stuff that has to do with marketing, even without sources. It is understandable that in many situations an essayist may think "why should I cite a source? I know this thing!", but doing your research well is partly about checking if the information you are certain of is actually true. Also, as Hbomb pointed out, if you can cite a source, your audience can go learn more about the subject. It's not about anyone doubting you know your stuff, it's about learning. That's why well-respected video essayists usually cite their sources very clearly.

Lack of pictures and screenshots. This is about different kinds of sources again, many things on this list are kind of about sources. An example: When James Somerton made a video about JKR, he mentioned something about Rowling at one time saying that trans students in 30-50Feralhogs (or whatever the wizard school is called) could use magic to present as their gender. If this was any other video essayist, you'd expect a tweet to pop up, or something else confirming Rowling ever said this. Nothing pops up, obviously because Rowling didn't say this, but you can't see anything fishy in that because things rarely pop up in Somerton's videos. He doesn't show you court documents when speaking about a court case, he doesn't show you the comments apparently mad at him for implying the gay anime is gay when he is complaining about people being mad at him. There is a reason people show screenshots and tweets in video essays. When a good video essayist says JK Rowling has tweeted that all people who menstruate should be referred to as women, the video essayist shows the tweet so people know they are not making it up. If there were hoards of annoying bitc-- I mean, angry white women whining about gay sex in HuffPost articles or Somerton's youtube comments, he should have no trouble showing you those. Remember that you should not trust someone just because they show you pictures or screenshots. Pictures can be photoshopped, screenshots can be doctored. Many youtubers are aware that you listen to their videos while cleaning or while walking your dog and don't actually see the screen all the time, and some may take advantage of that by saying something like "and here she threatened to kill me" while showing a text message where someone said "die mad about it". A screenshot alone isn't much but you should demand to see the screenshot.

Passive voice. I am once again bitching about this. Somerton repeatedly says things like "it's been said that" or "it was common knowledge that" or "a legend says that" or "according to most interpretations". He doesn't say who says it, making it very hard to fact check and that seems to be his goal in some cases.

Relying heavily on anecdotes. Writing a dense, analytical video about film theory or history can be exhausting and you may want to pepper in little fun facts. However Somerton seemed to rely on these heavily; he can't just talk about how he has totally bought every lie told by The Pink Swastika, he also needs to tell a cute little anecdote about SS men forcing sexual favours out of men. He can't just tell a story about a court case, he needs to add in ridiculous stuff about the jury booing. This is what I mean by not all the things on this list being necessarily proof of someone being unreliable. Many people use anecdotes and little stories in their storytelling, it makes the videos flow better and it's hard to decide which anecdotes are valid and which are not. A source obviously makes an anecdote a bit more believable, but here are some things that instantly make me fact check an anecdote:

It's a bit too convenient, poetic or ironic. Sometimes real life is weirder than fiction but if an anecdote is "perfect" and has an amazing punchline and you could write twelve poems about it, there is a possibility it was invented by pop science books.

It assumes your political enemies are stupid. Dunking on conservatives, MRAs and transphobes is always fun and after you've seen a lot of this kind of content it's easy to believe anything about these people. You must resist the impulse to believe everything that may make your opponents look stupid.

The person telling the anecdote implies it is an example of a larger, systemic problem. You know what's worse than taking a random happenstance from human history or internet and basing an entire political theory on it? The said random happenstance being made up. You should in general be wary of people telling one story and explaining why it's an example of everything that's wrong in the world. We live in a huge world. You can always find a white woman who loves cute gays but hates the idea of Nick Heartstopper and Charlie Heartstopper getting nasty but that doesn't mean it's an indicator of a larger issue.

Simplifying complex issues. We all know that "only the boring gays survived the AIDS crisis, and that's why gays started to only care about marriage equality and military" is a horrible, insensitive thing to say, but you also have to think about it for like two seconds to realize that it can't be correct. It kind of reminds me of the "roe v wade caused the crime drop of 1990s" claim in Freakonomics. It sounds logical and simple, like a basic math calculation. Societal issues rarely are like that, though. You should never believe anyone who tells you about a huge societal shift and says it happened because of one thing and one thing only.

These were some of the things I noticed in Somerton's content that caused me to distrust him. I hope these were helpful to you and feel free to add your own "red flags" if you feel like it!