#that's not to say i don't believe these posts CAN be satire; i'm just attempting to explain why i'm agnostic about it

[ranseur]

fyi at least half of the "stay at home girlfriend" posts are satire so it's much less of a Thing than it seems - the sincere tradwife-type content tends to be more focused on how They Personally Prefer to spend time with their children etc. (so focusing on the them Wanting the Traditional Life vs. Not wanting to work etc.), it's more insidious

interesting! let me know if there's some deep dive i can look into this topic more- based on what you're saying there's more to it than initial impressions imply mostly I'm curious that you've brought up disconnecting them philosophically from tradwives when, for sure, I had the impression that tradwives and sah-gfs were similar in their outspoken willingness to discard certain women's rights. though, I can see how they differ in other ways. if one group is more likely to isolate and homeschool their kids and feed them raw milk (if that's what you were implying when you said 'how They Personally Prefer), while the other group 'just' wants an unlimited credit card. cause i was wondering why it was that one group keeps calling themselves 'girlfriends' rather than 'wives'. i guess it would make sense if they're saying they don't care about making a family like trad wives tend to fwiw though, since I don't know much, i think what you're saying is fair: to be cautious of how these groups are different, and especially which ones are more likely to stem from a broader political motivation. though, concerning the post itself which was more just about the sah-gfs, i thought it brought up an important discussion about 'eroticizing gender inequality'. even if by comparison, sah-gfs may not be as large or insidious as tradwives, i think it's still something worth talking about.

but i could change my mind about anything i said above. definitely feel free to send me some links for further reading

[nothorses]

I noticed that you reposted something that is along the lines of proship

I agree with leaving media alone but I think its incredibly disgusting when people ship, for example siblings, because what it feels to me is that they have an incest fetish or something

I know just because someone writes about murder doesnt mean they support it, and I believe that. but usually when people write about murder it's in a negative context, obviously showing how it is so incomprehensible to outsiders about how someone could do that, or showing how we need to get these people help.

trying to apply this to, for example, incest, if someone ships an incestuous relationship then it seems like it would be in a good context, and it seems like they support it should it be in real life. that's how I view this all. (itd be different if they shipped siblings as a strange headcanon and talking about how it's bad... this reasoning I can understand the most to the point where I can let myself ignore it)

how am I supposed to learn to not care? especially when they are really outward about it?

okay.

I do not participate in shipping discourse because I do not participate in shipping. I'm not really In Fandom anymore like, generally. I don't... care.

Because of this I had literally no idea what you were referring to in this ask. I had to scroll. So far back. To get to this post, which also doesn't refer to shipping discourse.

I also have not talked about incest here, and the post in question doesn't talk about incest.

It's about murder. And gore. Which you say here is fine.

Literally why did you send me this ask.

And like... there's a fair chance this is just bait, and there's also enough of a chance that you're genuinely asking that, like, fuck it. I'm gonna get shit no matter what I do, so I may as well try to do a little good.

You use the words "feels" and "seems" a lot in this ask. And I'm really glad you did, actually, because I think it's honest; you're operating on your feelings and assumptions, and that's really important to keep in mind.

And your feelings on this are valid! It's normal to be uncomfortable with certain content, and it's normal to not want to see or engage in it. You don't need to feel any differently about those things. You don't have to consume incestuous content, you don't have to be okay with it, and you don't have to be around it.

But ask yourself: you assume that other people engaging in this content means they support it in real life, but what if they don't? What if you're wrong?

Maybe they're saying it's wrong in a way you're just not picking up on, or that you don't recognize. Maybe they aren't saying it's wrong; maybe it's in the context. Maybe it's in a genre trope in a genre you're not familiar with. Maybe it's irony or satire that you aren't picking up on. Maybe they aren't saying it at all, but that's still what they think, and they just chose not to put it in that content for... who knows what reason. Maybe they're literally just bad at writing.

What then?

Sometimes you're going to feel or assume that something is going on, and you're just gonna be wrong. And you could ask who's fault that is- did you fail to pick up on something you should have been able to, or did they fail to communicate it well enough?- but like, what are you going to do with that information?

Sometimes people are not very good at literary analysis, and sometimes people are not very good at writing, and that's just part of learning. Do we tell everyone not to attempt to talk about certain topics unless they're "good enough" to do it "right"? How do we know when someone's "good enough", and how do they get to that point without practice? Do we just ban those topics altogether? What topics do we ban- where's the line? How do we enforce it? How do we prevent that from being weaponized against marginalized people?

Anon, you asked me how you can "not care" about these things existing. And I think that's a valid question; you feel there is injustice, and you want to stop it. That can be a very noble impulse, and it can be harnessed for a lot of good.

But it can also be really, really toxic- not just to the people you hurt because you act on assumptions and impulses that are incorrect, but to yourself. You can't control everything. You can't control how other people feel, whether or how they engage in certain topics, or what they do or say. You just can't. And trying, or wanting to try, or thinking you should try- it's going to drive you nuts.

So here's how not to care:

Remind yourself that you might be wrong. Take a moment to think about all the things you don't know for certain, and the things you would need to know to be absolutely, 100% sure that you're right.

Consider how important this is to you. How close is this person to you? How important is this issue? What would it feel like to let this go- would it continue to impact you? Do you have other options? (removing yourself from the situation, blocking tags/posts/people, etc.)

Consider what you can do, and what you should do. Think about the tools at your disposal, the power you have in this situation, and how likely this person is to listen to you. Think about whether those tools are ethical. Again, what if you're wrong? Is there any reason you might regret your actions?

If you still feel like it's worth addressing, start by asking questions. Make sure you really know what's going on, and if (and when) the situation changes with new information, walk through this process again. Repeat back what you believe is happening until they confirm that you're right, decide again whether this is worth it, and then proceed.

Sometimes it's more effective to just vent to someone else, or to make a post about the issue generally without confronting that person- especially considering your assumptions might be wrong! Maybe it's worth it to talk about what you thought was happening, but you don't know that what you thought was happening is what was actually happening. You can still talk about it, just, y'know, without making it an attack on someone else.

And again, I don't give a shit about fandom discourse. This is important to me because these are themes that crop up in regular-ass media all the time, and disagreements that crop up in regular-ass relationships with friends and family and loved ones. I think it's important that people have the skills to navigate disagreements, unintentional harm, and perceived slights in healthy, productive ways.

You can't live your whole life demanding that everyone agree with you on everything, or blaming other people for everything you misinterpret or assume incorrectly. You cannot assume that everything that hurts you was designed to hurt you. You can recognize that these are assumptions and feelings, and that's great! And I hope you're being honest when you say that you want to learn to let things go.

[genericpuff]

the last few episodes of persephone moping around have felt like less of a self-reflective moment for her to grow and change and more rachel griping about criticism and surrounding herself with yes men

this isn't gonna be in any way a formal essay like my usual sort, more of a slam post honestly, so fair warning that i'm gonna be a little salty here

EPISODE 263 SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

but seriously, it's been a pity party of greek proportions because this constant "woe is me" shit with persephone that's constantly met with "no queeen you're amazing and perfect" has been going on for DAYS (real time and comic time)

literally every episode since the comic returned has had some segment of either persephone or hades (or both) being upsetti spaghetti over their current situation because oh nooo persephone made the deal with erebus and had to sacrifice something. even though they both knew that was gonna happen and yet she did it anyways. so she just continues to lock herself away in her mansion and spout adorkable quips while her husband, mother, and colleagues deal with the mess she caused.

and of course there's the constant inclusion of apollo spitting straight facts about persephone being a terrible queen and person, but of course because it's apollo saying it, it's not meant to be taken as gospel, essentially clapping back at the words of the critics who call out persephone for being a shitty and toxic protagonist by putting those words into the mouth of a literal rapist.

and yeah episode 263 had a lot of the same shit, to the point that you could literally swap out the names of the characters and the words they were speaking and it applies exactly to rachel and the corner she put herself in u.u it's been a thing for a while now that apollo has just felt like a mouthpiece for LO criticism but as mentioned by users within the subreddit during the discussion of this newest episode, it's never felt more apparent than now.

so yeah enjoy this satirical text edit of a sequence from the newest FP episode, which I honestly can't tell is meant to satirize the critical community or Rachel's reactions to the critical community because the weird reality this comic and its community exist in has just become that wack that it's hard to believe it's not directly from The Onion sometimes LMAO

-and as much as i find myself empathizing with the pressure that rachel is surely under right now - no one should have to be subject to the screeching howls of the peanut gallery - i can't help but be reminded of the memes and tweets she's put out that basically outright say "persephone is supposed to be celebrated for being a shitty person, if you can't handle her at her worst you don't deserve her at her best 💅"-

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Rachel Smythe (@usedbandaid)

-and how often she's ruined her own day looking for critical groups or people with the "wrong opinions" that were minding their own business, or how much she's stifled her own community's attempts to discuss the story openly by having her mods ban anyone with even so much as a question regarding persephone's integrity.

so yeah, as much as i can empathize with her from one creator to another that being under this amount of pressure and scrutiny must be immensely frustrating and exhausting, beyond that one similarity i just can't empathize or relate to this mindset of almost learned helplessness that's taken a firm grip over her writing. this is the story she wants to tell and by all means no one is entitled to make her stop, but if she's gonna keep using her greek myth "retelling" comic that's trying to be "feminist" as a mouthpiece for her own griping over criticisms that are largely on-point and justified - to the point of putting the words of her critics into the mouth of her token villain like she's playing some single player barbie doll "act out that fight that sounded cooler in your head" game - then she's gonna keep getting called out, full stop. i figured she didn't have any nose left to rip off in spite of her face but apparently not.

look, i get it, there are some opinions and behaviors within the critical community that even i'm not on board with. there are people who absolutely take shit too far on both sides of the fandom, and i think both sides need to do more to hold themselves accountable for how they interact with each other, the comic, and rachel herself. i make it a point to keep my shit in my own house, i'm not entitled to rachel's attention and frankly it's the last thing i want because i have a lot of fun here and i don't want that to be potentially ruined or dampened! but if you come into my house and complain about the decorating, then i legitimately don't know what to tell you. i used to love LO and i'm so sad for my past self knowing fully well they're not gonna be able to wholeheartedly enjoy this comic forever due to how manipulative and shitty the storytelling has become. a story that i once connected to as an AFAB who was a victim of assault and abuse and generational trauma.

if persephone being the true main villain in her own story was ever meant to be the point of Lore Olympus, then it's taken way, way too long to get to that point, and rachel herself definitely doesn't seem to be of the mindset that that's what she's become with all of her blasé meme'ing on a plot arc that she's still expecting us to take seriously. persephone was never a very complex character to begin with - being an easy self-insert for the audience and rachel to project themselves onto and relate to - but at least in the beginning she felt like she had so much legitimate potential, she was naive but put her best foot forward and clearly wanted to make a life for herself, made by herself.

now she's just mean. jaded and mean. dependent on the constant validation of others to the point of being manipulative. an absolute shell of a person who can only grow a spine when she's punching down on people weaker than her, completely incapable of standing up to the people who are a legitimate threat to her. it's not empowering, it's not subversive, it's just another pick me story about women pitting themselves against other women and never taking accountability for their own behavior, mistakes, and deliberate actions meant to hurt others, often teetering on the line of straight up narcissism all for the sake of a "boss babe" moment.

anyways, if you want an actual well-written and GOOD scene of an empathetic female protagonist struggling to find their footing in adulthood being called the fuck out for their learned helplessness behavior, go read Tamberlane, it tackles this topic much better through its main character who keeps using her brokenness as an excuse to never do better, it slaps and it's so real.

[whatcannotbesaid-shallbewept]

"This is The Sound Of Something Being Born" (But What?)

Like anyone else who's listened to it, I just can't stop thinking about Warriors.

It's a dense work, and while the genderswap is probably my favourite thing about it, there's two other things about the story that I'm obsessed with. "This is the sound of something being born", and the song Same Train Home.

I've done my post on the genderswap so consider this Part 2 of my "favourite things about The Warriors" meta series.

But while the Genderswap is important to Warriors it's not the main thesis of the story.

While "This is the sound of something born" definitely is the thesis. It's in the first song, and the finale line of the last song. It's the mic-drop moment that ends the album. So what's being born exactly? And what do I have to add to this thesis?

It's important to pay attention to who says that line. Firstly, it's the guest rappers on Survive The Night. Then it's Cleon in Finale.

Cleon is definitely the heart (or soul?) of the story - she's the one who believes in Cyrus, the Warrior who has the highest emotional stakes in that dream being destroyed.

But Cyrus' dream isn't what Cleon is talking about in the finale. So... what?

Eisa Davis has already said what's actually being born in the final song... it's Hip-hop.

She calls the album "a love letter to the origins of the Hip-Hop". You can look at the plot through a lense of the Cyrus truce "enabling the the cultural conditions that created hip-hop". Like the real gang truces did in the 70s.

That's why the guest rappers are the first ones to say "this is the sound of something being born".

I basically agree with @thewhizzyhead that Luther killing Cyrus made peace between the gangs impossible. That dream is firmly dead.

The Gramercy Riffs even admit this themselves. In the end, they break the peace. In their words "Fuck the truce, and do what's right."

By the finale, the album admits that peace isn't a sustainable goal anymore. Hell, it's not even worth it. Guys like Luther need to be stopped, and peace isn't working.

And this is where I go a little bit feral because... thats what RENT says!! And like Lin Manuel Miranda, I fucking love RENT.

One of the final lines of act one of RENT is - "The opposite of war isn't peace, its creation".

Which is almost exactly the same as Warriors' final thesis. Destruction, peace, creation.

Luther wants blind destruction, Cyrus and The Riffs want peace but fail, and in the end Cleon declares - "This is the sound of something being born"

Now that's always been a great line from RENT, but not really one that the story focuses on.

Jonathan Larson was a very political writer, only really writing charged satire before RENT. But I wouldn't really call RENT politically charged . (Partly due to his editors asking him to change things)

A lot of people have praised the ending of Warriors for being hopeful - and it very much is hopeful.

But it shouldn't be? Right?

If you look objectively at the situation - Cyrus is dead, Fox and Ajax are gone, Luther destroyed any chance of peace, and you know. They're still a gang dealing with things like poverty and police violence.

Over the course of Warriors nothing actually changes for the better. In fact, things are probably worse.

The situation is hopeless - but for some reason, the characters aren't. And the narrative rewards them for this.

You see, RENT ends in the exact same way. Things get worse - some of them die, relationships get ruined, most of them don't achieve their dreams. They still all have death sentences over their head, they're still poor. Everything's the same.

But one single thing changes.

Mimi, after a indirect suicide attempt, survives. And afterwards, she wants to live.

That's the triumphant moment the show ends on. RENT is a very optimistic show, and this is how it justifies all that optimism. With just one small, insignificant thing, like hope.

The same happens with Cleon. Things get worse, but Cleon still has hope.

This is what the line "The opposite of war isn't peace, its creation" actually means. It's another example of RENT's optimism.

It's blind optimism that doesn't really make logical sense - but it ends up being proven right anyway. In a very metatextual way.

Some of the characters in RENT probably don't even survive much longer after the final song - but Mark managed to record a lot of their lives in his documentary.

The film that plays in the final moments of the play, is also subtextually - the musical RENT. Something was lost, but something was created too. RENT didn't just create itself, but half a hundred other culturally relevant musicals. Some of which you may already know - In The Heights, Hamilton, Warriors.

Watching the musical RENT over and over, you get a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. A story loops back in on itself. It's the same with Warriors.

Eventually the birth Hip-hop happened, and then Warriors. It's own self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the sound of something being born.

[choppedpizzaobject]

The blog @baronkelvinisgod is indeed rage bait even though they are trying to ignore me calling it out. Proof so no one falls for it either this time or if the person comes back in the future under a new blog. Don't bother engaging with them.

I am commenting on all their posts because they confessed to me before on their old blog where they did the same ragebait stuff.

Message to them, once again:

Why are you back when you already admitted to me months ago on your old blog that this was indeed a fake trolling attempt? If your stated purpose was indeed to troll antis (using the exact sort of deeply inappropriate language that sort of proves their point, like seriously I am not an anti but the stuff you were posting is inexcusable and makes all proshippers look bad so I question your true intention because you are making the OPPOSITE of your point, don't you know that when satire goes too far it becomes the very thing it is parodying?) then why say you're done since you proved your point and then come back to prove it again? Seems more like you are motivated by amusement and attention. Did you think I would forget or something? Pepperidge Farm remembers 😂

And don't try to say that wasn't you because you're even posting the same custom-made memes from back then and I have proof. I let it go the first time because I believed you were done, but at this point it's just stupid. If you think you can just keep coming back and block this blog so I can't see your posts, this is obviously a throwaway and I have many more under multiple VPNs. Seriously, I gave you the benefit of the doubt before but I'm not letting this happen again. I'm watching. Just let it go.

[slickbackdani]

Okay, I’ve been keeping this in long enough: fuck CinemaSins and fuck what they've done to film criticism.

Now, this is a trend I've seen far too often: whenever CinemaSins gets criticized for the warped, intellectually dishonest method of criticism they've popularized, some of their well-meaning and non-toxic fans will defend them with "but CinemaSins are clearly satire and only a complete idiot would take them at their word!" And good for them for understanding that!

The problem, however, is that a not-insignificant number of CS fans are complete idiots and do take them at their word! Take, for example, this comment on a video criticizing what CS does:

Dude… like… how the fuck did you miss the numerous time the CS guys admitted that their videos aren't meant to be taken seriously? All the times they admitted to actually liking some of the stuff they bash? All the times they admitted that most of the time they're just nitpicking or getting stuff wrong on purpose to be funny? Fucking hell, they started their "Everything Wrong With CinemaSins" video by admitting to not being real reviewers and that most of their "sins" are things no one else would care enough about to notice!

Then again, I can't say I'm all that surprised that many CS fans don't see their videos as satirical when the CS crew themselves no longer seem to. As many have pointed out, the guys behind CinemaSins only ever pull out the "it's satire" defense when others criticize them for getting things wrong or generally acting like opinionated douchebags. The rest of the time, they do absolutely nothing to deter their more rabid fans from treating them as a serious authority on how to think about movies.

I'm sure at the beginning that the CinemaSins guys were telling the truth when they claimed to be satirical; again, they admitted to genuinely liking The Amazing Spider-Man, the first movie they ripped to shreds on their channel! Unfortunately, as time went on, the same thing happened to them as all online personalities who play characters in review shows: the writers started putting so much of themselves into the script and using the once-satirical main character as a mouthpiece for their honest opinions that it's now impossible to tell where the character ends and the creators begin.

I'm not entirely unconvinced that CS' more toxic fans aren't at least partly to blame for the channel's shift from "genuine satire" to "satire-except-when-it's-not." To explain what I mean, I'll break down the timeline into three clear points.

CinemaSins debuts and makes videos that satirize overly nitpicky movie review shows.

They gain a huge following of young, impressionable people who are unfamiliar with both the movies being riffed and proper film theory as a whole. Because of that, they fail to recognize the satire and take CS' reviews at face value

After a few years of CS fans parroting the show's criticisms, copying their review techniques in earnest, and loudly praising CS in online echo chambers as the unsung heroes exposing the dark truth about Big Bad Hollywood, the guys behind CS start to believe their own hype and restructure the show to incorporate honest attempts at critical analysis without getting rid of the hyperbolic "accentuate the negative" format that made them famous.

That may sound like a stretch, but it's the only explanation I can think of for how these people went from honestly enjoying the movies they nitpicked to posting out-of-character videos in which they rant at length about how we as a society are all stupid and evil and destroying ourselves as evidenced by… [checks notes] a Winnie the Pooh movie being made.

Yes. That really happened.

Unfortunately, the crew behind CS don't seem to realize this problem and, instead, keep doubling down by trying to have it both ways. They want to be seen as satire so they can dodge criticism for their behavior (ignoring, of course, that satire can still be criticized for not being funny), but they still want to be treated like serious reviewers because of what I assume to be ego. Yeah, as much as CS Stans like the one I showed earlier like to play the "you're just jealous" card in response to all criticism, the CS writers carry themselves with a sense of both self-assuredness of their own creative accomplishments and a genuine hatred for those of others; that in mind, I can't help but feel the show's continuing existence is less motivated by a desire to entertain and more as a way for the creators to prove themselves smarter than both the original filmmakers and other people in general.

The problem here is that… no. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that your videos are meant to satirize bad movie critics and then complain that Hollywood isn't taking your criticisms seriously. I said before that CS' videos are a double-edged sword for them, and I stand by that.

On the one hand, these videos fail as serious movie criticism because the writers make no distinction between genuine flaws, minor nitpicks, things that they dislike because of personal biases, things that only look like flaws because they've been taken out of context, and things they just made up so they'll have something to complain about.

On the other hand, the videos also fail as satire because, much like the Babylon Bee, they only have one joke ("General observation made in a judgmental tone of voice!" DING.)

When you try for both, you'll succeed at neither.

And, as much as the CS guys nihilistically rant in their cars about art and culture being doomed because nobody is listening to their criticisms, the opposite is true: while cinema is general is still as good as it's always been (there really aren't more bad films now than there were in the "good old days"; it's just that the bad old movies were forgotten because only the good ones were worth remembering,) the major problem with mainstream entertainment these days is one that only exists because people are listening to CS and people like them.

Allow me to share my hypothesis: CinemaSins and others like them are responsible for the overuse of snarky, ironic meta-jokes in modern media.

This is a serious charge, and here is my explanation for it: review shows like CS, Honest Trailers, Your Movie Sucks, I Hate Everything, etc. popularized a style of reviewing that hinged on making the reviewed material look as bad as possible: labeling everything that's been done before a "cliche," overemphasizing minor nitpicks the average filmgoer (and, let's face it, most real critics) would be unlikely to notice, being unable to suspend disbelief and acting like fiction has to be "realistic" to he good, and criticizing the characters as "stupid" because, instead of being perfectly logical and rational at all times, they instead act like real, flawed, imperfect people who either don't know the same things the audience does or otherwise have no reason to act like they're characters in a movie because they don't know they are.

This is a very warped, dishonest, and unprofessional way of thinking about fiction — especially if you, for instance, tell deliberate lies about what you're reviewing — but it proved entertaining for huge amounts of people who watched these videos and came away thinking this is the proper way to review movies. Like most entitled fanboy controversies, this fever-pitch of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-populist pessimism became vocal enough to be noticed by the people actually working in film and TV, who then felt the need to "course-correct" out of fear of losing their audiences.

This, I believe, is why so many movies and shows these days have characters grind the story to a halt to point out the story archetypes and narrative tropes as they happen while discussing how real people would behave in the fictional scenarios they're caught up in. It's all a panicked effort to make these stories — as one MCU writer put it — "as Honest Trailer-proof as possible."

The problems with this are twofold: first, since these writers are trying to fix what wasn't broken, stories and dialogue that rely so heavily on meta-commentary come across as cynical and lifeless; the characters start feeling like lifeless mouthpieces instead of actual people who happen to be fictional, and the creators come across as lacking confidence and, in the words of Crow T. Robot, "afraid to feel anything real." The other problem is that, if this is an attempt to preempt snarky critics by beating them to the punch, then any attempt to shut them up was an effort in futility because, as Max Gillardi once said, "You should never underestimate a bully's ability to find material to work with." When snarky CinemaSins-type reviewers come across self-deprecating meta humor in whatever they're reviewing, they just make a quick joke about "hey, stop doing my job for me" before going back to nitpicking as usual.

But hey, that's just a theory. Maybe I'm wrong and something else is responsible for modern media's over-reliance on snarky meta-humor. Even if I am wrong about that, however, it's still impossible to deny that CinemaSins has had a negative impact on how people think about fiction, and I'm not just talking about how they misrepresent specific movies so people who haven't seen them before will think they're worse than they actually are.

I'm referring to how many people think that mindless negativity and looking for things to complain about is the best, smartest way to talk about fiction. Even if this mindset didn't become a common justification for harassment and hate campaigns against the creators and fans of whatever is being bashed because "they deserve it for making/liking something bad" — and it has led to that; CinemaSins sucked at crawling so Lily Orchard could suck at walking — it's just a shallow, insincere way to review things; it's mindless anti-conformity as a substitute for good critical thinking skills, anti-intellectualism disguised as no-nonsense telling-it-like-it-is. It misses the point of fiction and art as a whole. Vinnie Mancuso of Collider referred to this as "the I-must-be-smarter-than-the-movie criticism that's ruining the way we talk about movies." As he put it in this article:

It's almost designed to miss the point. It's the film-as-riddle mindset that first formed alongside the birth of the internet, but really crystalized into something insidious somewhere between the mid-point of Lost and the exact moment Inception cut to black. [It's] the idea [that] films and television shows are something to be solved instead of felt; that stories are static objects made of ones-and-zeroes and to remove the flawed piece of data sends the whole thing crumbling. (Thus making you The Internet's Smartest Boi that day.) But movies are, in Roger Ebert's words, "machines that generate empathy"; whether it's a quiet character study or a globe-trotting adventure, the joy comes from living another life for a few hours.

In summation, if you use CinemaSins as a role model for how to think about fiction, then in the words of Patton Oswalt, YOU'RE GONNA MISS EVERYTHING COOL AND DIE ANGRY.

[xoxo-ren-xoxo]

Just a small thing that you can definitely ignore if you want and I know this might be bad to say or even selfish but I just.. miss the old Schlatt? not the one who's now doing this content and making hurtful jokes just for money. because every day I'm losing more and more hope that off camera, he's a genuine person?

Or I just want him to improve and become better? I don't know, I know I might be selfish for being like that and I do recognise that parasocial relationships do exist and he is merely a stranger to me but I just want him to become better and to be better. curse me and my heart where I just want the best for everyone, even if I don't know them. c': I think I miss the old Schlatt - because I feel like even this persona he has is not doing him any good?

This might be a thought but you know when you look at someone and you can just see or feel that their mindset is affecting them - especially when it's affecting them negatively? I noticed that with him. Again, I know I'm a mere stranger and I don't know anything about him but even with strangers you can notice this? When he was on a break from that sort of content while he was moving, on the update "I'm Back" video he had a better energy? But when he started to embrace that persona again, his energy is just becoming worse and worse. the only times his energy was better again was when he had the moments with Jambo?

I don't know. I'm just going on a ramble at this point but I just wish he became better?

This is the exact reason I still watch the guy! I completely get where you're coming from, and it can be hard to have these sorts of conversations without speculating about what goes on 'behind the scenes' (something we know Schlatt is uncomfortable with and is possibly one of the reasons he puts on such a contrary persona).

I agree that his content has taken a downturn lately. But I don't think it's the fault of the persona, I think it's the fault of him misusing the persona. Of course he can do whatever he wants, I don't really care cause if he decides he wants to keep being a bastard then that's his problem and I'll stop watching cause that content isn't for me. However, I have some ideas about why the more recent videos have been 'worse':

His heart isn't in it. Jackbox games are fun and all but they aren't the kind of content Schlatt likes to make. In my opinion. His old channel had videoessays, but he's said before that they don't make enough money for him to keep doing that. I think he likes the little slice of life videos more because they're easy and because they're fun. I think the Wii videos were great, well-structured and good examples of well-done satire, but I feel he got a bit bored of it so he tried jackbox, which just isn't the same.

The satire doesn't work with jackbox videos. In the Wii videos it's just him and the game and some props. He plays his character and clearly makes fun of the kind of person he's portraying, or he just makes fun of himself, which is cool too lol. For example in the Wii fishing video, he plays the character of a misogynistic guy who loves fishing and hates his wife. Then proceeds to be terrible at the game and get angry to the point of making himself look like a fool. That's why we laugh! We laugh at the dumbass he's portraying. And obviously this is the same for most of the bits he does. The classic one being the gay Catholic patriot. The unexpected clash of traits makes it funny. With the jackbox vids you don't really get that. It's him and some friends. And yeah, they make fun of themselves and each other, but it has the unwanted side effect of being easy to turn into something that starts to make fun of other people, such as minorities or victims of tragedy, which isn't okay.

Mans is just trying to get a rise out of people. We all know this. The last video was purposefully offensive to try to scare the dream stans away. Which was dumb, and he shouldn't have done it, but I get why he did it. With everything that's happened recently, I'm sure Schlatt doesn't want to be associated with that sort of fanbase. Unfortunately, he went the wrong way about scaring them off.

Moving, the entire thing with lunch club and cmc, getting a cat, and Connor moving in, all while making near-weekly videos, two podcasts, and being on streams. That's a lot to think about, which is probably another reason for the lazier content and falling back on 'easy' jokes that often turn out offensive.

What I'm saying is that I feel he's in a rut. He hit a dead end, tried to fix things, then fell off and made a shitty video as an attempt for controversy. If I'm right, then I feel that he's gonna take a bit of a break (he's already taken a pretty long break if you look at how long it's been since the last video on his main channel) and come back when he's actually ready to do some better content.

The video was bad, and I get why people don't feel comfortable watching him anymore. I've made my peace with it and I'm hoping for some better content soon. But not too soon!

Lots of his friends have spoken about the whole thing, and the general consensus is that yeah, it was bad. I think Connor talked about him and Schlatt seeing a kid watching The Video and Schlatt having this 'oh shit' moment? I might be wrong, if anyone has a link to the clip or stream where Connor talks about this lmk. But regardless, I think mans is taking a break and sorting himself out. There are also rumours he might stream soon but idk idk.

I feel that off-camera he's a completely different person. Minx said she sees it that way, Ty also said he's very respectful and chill off-camera. So I don't think he's a bad person (I don't think he's racist or anti-Semetic, he fucked up but I highly doubt he believes that shit irl and I think claiming that he does is just performative and kinda weird. I understand microagressions are also very bad and can be used by racists/be racist but on their own they do not make you a racist especially if it's poor taste jokes that went too far etc).

You're right though, he definitely wanted to make money. That didn't really work out for him though (if you look at the stats on The Video, it performed terribly) so I doubt it's a mistake he would make again.

For now, if you want to see better content that (I think) reflects Schlatt in a better light (aka he's still doing a bit but he's much more chill and less of a bastard about it) I recommend the chuckle sandwich podcast and sleep deprived podcast. He's on OTK streams a lot too but that sorta thing isn't really for me.

Also stan connoreatspants bringing us Jambo content all the time. 🙌

Idk if that was helpful, but it's more a gesture of solidarity since I agree with and feel everything you're saying. Of course, this is all speculation, please don't spread this as fact because I don't know Schlatt any better than you do. He's just a comfort CC and guy I think is kinda neat when he's not doing dumb shit.

Sorry for the long post. Also, you can disregard the shit I said about racism if you want cause I'm not qualified to talk about it really. There are good points for calling someone a racist for jokes like the ones in the video, but I feel like the rest of the factors should be looked at too since this is a complicated situation. Again, just my opinion, please no hate. If you have a complaint DM me or send an ask. I'm open to hearing other povs.

Have a nice day !

[molsno]

you know, I was just going to turn off reblogs after seeing this and leave it alone, and I did do that for a while, but this has pissed me off for days and I can't rest until I say my piece. I don't care that this person will never see what I say here. I need to say it anyway.

this is such incredibly disrespectful behavior. how are you going to reblog my post with your stupid ass addition and announce to the world that you're blocking me at the same time? if my opinion bothers you that much, you had no obligation to reblog my post. you could have simply made your own. but that's not my main problem here.

my main problem is the entitlement that he displays. I wrote my post with a specific audience in mind: transfems who are tired of being called masculine terms by tme people. in my attempt to satirize the people who do this, I ended up unintentionally writing a post that some tme trans people related to on a surface level. I had no qualms with this, and I alluded to that in the tags of my first reblog. if people that aren't transfem could relate to this post, fine. however, I didn't want my original intent behind the post to be lost, which is why I added the context of it.

the user above clearly related to this post. this is quite understandable, given that he's a trans man who has undoubtedly been on the receiving end of this kind of misgendering. but the fact that I put up any kind of boundaries - the fact that I declared my desire to keep this post centered around the experiences of trans women, most notably - angered him enough to publicly disavow and block me.

he felt entitled to this post and decided to speak over me so that he could use it to make the same point I was trying to make, but without centering trans women in the discussion. this is no different from any cis man who feels the need to insert himself into every conversation by talking over women and repeating their same talking points, but with less nuance. not coincidentally, he posts quite a bit about transandrophobia! this is just another example of how transandrophobia is a reactionary movement formed by trans men who are fed up with not being the center of attention around trans issues, one which is blatantly antifeminist at its core.

and, yknow, since I'm still angry about this, let me just say, I've been misgendered with terms like "dude" and "bro" by tme trans people plenty of times - more than cis people, if you can believe that! but I've never once met a transfem person who called transmascs terms like "girl" or "sis" without permission. I wonder why that is! maybe it's because the former happens to us so often that it makes us less likely to do it to others. or perhaps it's because we're fully aware that feminine terms are never, ever considered to be gender neutral, while masculine terms largely are, due to society's conception of Male being the "default" gender, which we are so often reminded of. just some thoughts! :)

hey girl! huh? oh, no no no, I'm not misgendering you, I use girl in a gender neutral way. I call everybody girl! anybody can be a girl, it doesn't really mean woman, ya know? hey look I don't know why you're being so difficult about this, I said it's gender neutral. I'm not transphobic! I'm trans myself and my trans guy friend doesn't have a problem with it when I call him girl. ok look I'm done arguing with you I'm just going to block you.