#unexamined lives

[auressea]

Also- Shoutout to the awesome Jem t-shrit.

Watch this to learn how to put down toxic masculinity and internalized misogyny. As with “the kids these days are terrible” beginning circa prehistory (thanks Plato) this points to “men aren’t masculine anymore” and tracks it backward.

I keep saying nothing ever changes to those who know history.

[possamble]

it’s no secret that there isn’t a TON to go off of when observing falin’s characterization (esp since she’s more of a tool for the narrative, and the personality that we do get from her is from other characters’ perspectives). but i’m very curious to know your thoughts on the “even if it means hurting someone else, i want you and my brother to live, marcille” part. imo, it’s probably the closest we’ve gotten to seeing her as flawed and deeper and more complex than we are initially led to believe.

plus i trust your analyses on these characters :)

ambrosiagourmet already did an analysis on that panel which was my basis for formulating falin's characterization when i was first getting into dungeon meshi and i honestly don't think it can be topped/ i really have nothing more to add to this:

"Going back the The Panel, I don't think its a coincidence that the only time we see Falin (well, non-chimera Falin) willing to do something that could hurt someone is when any potential pain will be far away from her. If she got someone hurt or killed by teleporting the party to the surface? Not only would it be far out of her sight, but she'd be dead before she had to deal with any consequences of that action."

"So many people that Falin loves have hurt her. There are understandable hurts, like Laios leaving the village, or Marcille not understanding the food. And there are bigger, far less justifiable hurts - like her parents neglecting her throughout her childhood, and sending her away to be alone at the magic academy. It doesn't seem like Falin has ever confronted any of it directly."

[droppingartintotheinfinite]

watched the first episode of the live action atla adaptation and took notes:

-what is this opening. who are these people. am i expected to care about this random earth kingdom man because i really don’t

-opening fight is kinda meh :/

-sozin looks weirdly… nice? like he has “harmless old man” vibes. i don’t actually dislike this casting choice i think there’s a lot of potential to having him look friendly and approachable even as he does war crimes

-seriously did someone in the writer’s room watch rogue one before coming in and then go like “HEY I KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD ADD” WHAT is this plot doing here

-where is katara’s opening narration. like i get they aren’t adapting one to one but that’s such a loss. the opening cutscene from the original series was so good

-WHERE THE FUCK IS THE GAANG SERIOUSLY. WHY ARE WE STARTING WITH RANDOM EARTH KINGDOM MAN AND SOZIN

-all of these people are so fucking sweaty what is this

-sozin’s outfit is appropriately fuckable

-“my sights… are set… higher… because… it is… our time…” “[screaming]” wow very emo

-KATARA IS HERE!! MY BEST GIRL

-why did they change the narration. this is objectively worse.

-oh no this isn’t katara is it… dang :(

-air temple looking neat. why are we here tho. where are katara and sokka

-why is everyone watching aang jumping around like he’s a fucking celebrity. have they never seen an airbender before in the fucking air temple

-at least they say aang’s name right. step up from shamalalalam or whatever his name is. of course that bar is so low the devil declared it a tripping hazard, so

-these people do NOT talk like actual humans. have these writers never had to write natural exposition before

-genuinely what was the point of that first scene. WHAT does it add

-“when yangchen died the next avatar was born into the water tribe” what, does aang not know this. my fucking god this exposition is shit

-aang didn’t know he was the avatar?? and then didn’t immediately get an ego about it when gyatso told him??? who is this and what did you do with my BOY

-the acting isn’t bad but the lines are so shit it’s hard to tell

-aang is NOT sufficiently goofy

-appa’s kind of ugly :(

-TEAM ROCKET’S BLASTING OFF AGAIN (<— my unfiltered reaction to sozin going jetpack mode)

-unnecessary airbender fight scene. i think this is literally just here to look cool and honestly? 6/10

-aang just fuckin… wandered off? instead of willfully running away? bro you can’t take my boy’s agency like this

-i want a video of appa’s va making those noises into the mic. come on netflix do it it’ll be funny

-WHY is everything so WET all the time

-20 minutes in and i have yet to see the south pole. literally none of this is necessary to the story. you could cut all of it and nothing would change

-HERE SHE IS. FINALLY. IT’S HER

-no funny boat scene with sokka? insert no bitches megamind here

-oh they still have a boat scene. unfortunately it sucks ass

-WHERE IS PISSED OFF KATARA DECIMATING AN ICEBERG BY ACCIDENT

-seriously. they’re removing all the good scenes to fit more unnecessary action and/or melodrama filler in

-shitty zuko cameo

-WHAT is that scar. why is it so small. did he fall and get a scrape on his face? looks more like a scab than anything. 2/10

-baffling why the iceberg even reacted to katara when she’s apparently so fucking incapable she can’t even lift a water orb. they’re massacring my girl

-why does sokka want to leave this random child to die

-kanna!

-“it can’t be… this… is an airbender…..” i am rolling my fucking eyes

-iffy on this iroh so far but i’ll reserve judgement

-tumblr was right. zuko’s actor is absolutely putting his whole pussy into this. he can have rights

-how are NONE of these jokes landing. even the ones they directly crib from the original just… lose all impact

-why is kanna saying the intro dialogue randomly with no prompting. seriously these writers are SO. FUCKING. SHIT

-every emotional beat in this comes off more wooden than a fucking tree

-seriously. everything i could say about this just boils down to the wooden writing, unnecessary and poorly executed exposition, the action scenes shoehorned in for no discernible reason, inability to create any impact from anything ever, and the removal of all the good scenes from the original in favor of more unnecessary poorly written TRASH

-oh one more thing actually

-AANG TEACHES KATARA TO WATERBEND. GET OUT??

-basically

-they took all the good stuff out to fit in more melodrama and action, but their writing (and directing. and acting) is too shitty to actually sell said drama and their fight scenes are mid at best

-3/10

[swallowtail-ageha]

When miquella's childhood curse became apparent they had the fleeting single thought "oh well thank god i wont enter puberty have my voice deepen and grow body hair" and then repressed that thought so hard it literally tulpa'd saint trina into existance

[aeide-thea]

saw a post that was like

'i'm so floored by the fact that this mid-20th century author of historical fiction wrote about queerness as though it was natural and important!'

and it's like. the author in question was queer! queer people have been writing work in which queerness was natural and important since much earlier than the 50s—forster wrote maurice in the 1910s! whitman was writing poetry that celebrated queerness in the mid-19th century! i'm sure that if i did any actual research into the history of queer fiction instead of just whipping out the things that spring immediately to mind for me, many more examples would present themselves!

anyway i just think like. that sort of reflexive naive modern chauvinism is a real mistake (especially considering how things have been going in america lately…), and for anyone who is, or wants to be, a serious student of the past, worth scrutinizing and uprooting in oneself. queerness is present and positively depicted in some of the oldest literature we have; and when we encounter matter-of-fact, even celebratory, representations of it from eras we reflexively conceptualize as more conservative than ours, i think we need to be aware that any startlement we feel at that is an artifact of the repressive, erasive, homophobic thinking inculcated in us by our own particular milieu(x), and not in fact a neutral or historically informed reaction?

[marz-artswede]

Process video for Season One Dani from Rolling With Difficulty. I know I saved the actual art around here SOMEWHERE, but I can’t find it anymore. I really like starting from the grayscale and then adding color for digital painting.

[heartbrake-hotel]

I will say this; when it comes to Scotty, Lamar and the rest of the Memphis Mafia, always beware of what the "boys" say. I tend to take their stories with a grain of salt. According to a 2008 article,

"One would think that the various members of Elvis’ entourage, having worked and socialized closely with him for years, would be convincing sources of information. However, over the years several of the “boys” have proved themselves far from reliable when recalling their times with Elvis. Back in 1977, Red West, Sonny West, and Dave Hebler’s book, Elvis: What Happened?, was filled with bias and inaccuracies, Lamar Fike was a main conduit of misinformation for Albert Goodman’s deeply flawed 1981 Elvis biography, and Byron Raphael’s article about Elvis’ sex life in a 2005 issue of Playboy is completely spurious.

Of course, not all those close to Elvis have proved unreliable. Joe Esposito and Jerry Schilling are two who seem to have told their stories about Elvis with honesty and balance. The lesson here is that when reading these “I-was-there-books,” the reader must keep an open mind when it comes to accuracy, honesty, and bias.

In the end, I’m not suggesting we should all be cynical about everything that has been and will be written about Elvis. And I don’t think there is anything to be gained by arguing over isolated facts. However, the legacy of Elvis should be important to all of his fans. And if it takes setting the record straight once in awhile, then sign me up for the crusade."

hiya nonnie ! i'm guessing you're the same person who sent this same quote to norah about the palm springs girl a couple days ago- if so, howdy! (if not, also howdy 👋)

but yes, i think this is a really good point to make again ! (i had that post in mind when answering this ask today, lol)

it's important to remember that not just the mafia, but virtually every figure in elvis' life wrote a book or otherwise sold their story (whether marketed as a personal memoir or not) after his death - there is a tremendous wealth of information available about elvis and it is almost in its entirety anecdotal and virtually non-verifiable bc of that... only made more difficult by the fact that so much of it directly conflicts.

and of course that can be intentional (like in the case of elvis: what happened?, where explicit scandal was the selling point) or not- its been almost 50 years since elvis died, after all. its possible and even likely that information is misremembered!

i think it's a difficult but necessary task for us to wade through sources and decide who to trust, and the basis by which that trust is given varies for every fan, im sure! personally, i don't trust any of the stanleys, ever, or the wests for a significant period after his death (altho ill give more credibility to their more recent documentary appearances before their deaths). i do trust jerry and larry, and for the most part joe, george, and the smiths. scotty, marty, and lamar can go either way depending on what you're reading, etc etc turtles all the way down.

and remember, too, that none of these guys were academics! even removed a few layers from those original sources, when we're looking at further literature written by elvis historians (pietro, dundy, or nash, for example), their information traces back to someone who says something like "i remember-" or "im pretty sure-". (guralnick is the only one im willing to give a tentative pass on this front- and that's only cuz content-wise the majority of his books are about people and situations adjacent to elvis' life at the time! and that information is much more conducive to credible research. we all remember how many pages of last train to memphis is took for elvis' birth to even be covered 😅 but all of his interview-based elvis factoids fall prey to the same criticisms.)

on a primary basis, this isn't peer-reviewed amd intellectually-neutral research, it's the lives and memories of an amalgamation of people, and they can all be unreliable narrators. it's important to factor in how each one viewed elvis and which parts of him they understood, because they all loved him, but they all knew him differently.

the spirituality point is a big one here, for instance- for the, shall we say, stoner mellow types like larry and jerry, they can speak about this facet of elvis' personality very positively! but most of the rest of the mafia doesn't do that. their personal convictions color their recollections and interpretations thereof in a way that's not really about elvis at all, but about their own upbringing/values/etc.

and it's hard, too, not only objectively but emotionally, for us [junior historians? elvis enthusiasts? fans?] to acknowledge these facts, to accept that the people we want to trust most- the people elvis trusted most- aren't always very good sources and didn't always have either his best interests OR the truth in mind (whatever that may be).

when it all comes down it it, a lot of elvis lore can and should be taken with a grain of salt! so watch your cholesterol 🤭🧂

[celepeace]

I went into my english class at the start of the semester and my professor was like "you guys dont discuss hard questions, like philosophy or politics, or analyze literature very much outside of academia, right? In some other cultures this is normal, but we don't do this very much here" and I was internally like lady I don't know how to say this but talking about those things in my personal life is all I fucking do it feels like

[homophyte]

last post i will make abt this fucking among us post but the idea that caring about women at all is a burden is itself indicative of misogyny. “ugh but i don’t WANT to you’re FORCING me! why would i want to pay attention to GIRLS! why would i want to dedicate my time and energy to GIRLS! i can’t believe you want me to LIKE women!” and then pulling out the ‘actually fan communities are majority women’ + ‘women write exclusively about men because they’re attracted to men’ shit out is just insane. we r never making it out of this cisheteropatriarchy

[kactusnz]

People who believe abusers, murderers, etc are monsters: oh I would NEVER do that Also those people: don't actually do any work to ensure that when they're experiencing strong feelings they don't lash out, don't actually do any work to make sure they're driving safely, don't actually do any work to ensure they aren't harming others around them with their words, don't actually do any work to ensure they're not buying products that are harming others

and yknow what i also don’t like the idea that abusers are these like. horrible monsters and there’s something ~wrong with them~ cuz no “normal” person could ever do such a thing like. my abusers are normal people. not even particularly bad people, really, aside from… well, yknow. there’s not some special ingredient that makes abusers abusers. they’re just people, doing fucked up things. you wouldn’t know it from looking at them, there’s no one specific reason they do what they do. it’s weird to try and like… explain it all away like that.

and actually yknow what i’ve always hated the dehumanization of abusers or bad people or whatever cuz like. no! they aren’t monsters, they’re people! this is what humans have the capacity to do! there’s nothing special about it! don’t try to distance ‘nice, normal folks’ from ‘monsters’ cuz we’re the same goddamn thing; we all have free will and the ability to choose how we act and some people choose fucked up stuff and that’s human, unfortunately

[diniidjarin]

at some point in the ordeal of looking to move on a budget you're so sick of every room being furnished in the same ikea outlet that a mere glimpse of something with a lifespan beyond ten years and design philosophy other than scandinavian frugality sparks joy. saw an old cabinet lovingly but inexpertly upcycled with a tacky picture in place of a mirror, tucked in the corner of a slightly dingy bathroom of a flat with shitty tile floors and uneven doors, and for a second the prospect of having to move to a tourist trap city wasn't as bleak

[oldmanyaoi-jpeg]

struck by the realization that someone could probably walk up to me and go "i think [male oc] is a trans woman" and for like 50-80% of them the only thing i could really say is "yeah you're probably right"

[sensenmaedchen]

Every few months I remember the song Row Row Row Your Boat* and I think about The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living and I wonder who is right. Should I be partying or pondering my purpose?

*gently down the stream, merrily (x3), Life is but a dream.

[amis127]

Jammer's arc this season is making me think of Lou's genius take on Pinocchio as a metaphor for the struggles of Black boyhood and WHEW!!

That constant impossible pressure on his shoulders as he enters adulthood. The way he talks about taking care of his mom and life back home. THE GOAT HOOF COMING OFF HIS CHEST?? Jammer could very easily be my younger brother and so many young guys I know and boy howdy let me tell y'all I burst into tears thinking about all the goat hoofs on all their chests

On a related note, there's something about people (including Sam in this too) who make others feel welcomed that gets overlooked so often - where does that desire come from? Why do you think a charismatic person would prioritize community if it comes so easily to them? I think folks see the "quantity" (so to speak) of the community created and don't consider the quality of those relationships. And yeah you can't ignore the racial aspect of this. The sort of unexamined "this is my Black friend" vibe they are up against in their lives. Jammer and Sam are not just being kind good hearted people. They are searching for something substantive and I really need them both to have moments that let them dig into why that is soon.

[thydungeongal]

So there is a pretty clear shift in playstyle between TSR D&D and WotC D&D: for better and for worse, D&D 3e introduced the idea of encounter balance, de-emphasized mechanics that had previously encouraged the GM to think of the monsters as real living creatures (reaction rolls, morale, etc.), and it had the effect of making D&D a much more combat-focused game. D&D has always been a game that's opinionated about combat, it's basically the most expressive and detailed form of play regardless of edition, but combat in the TSR editions was not exactly zoomed in and tactical. The WotC editions purposefully made combat zoomed in, granular, and tactical.

And this has had an effect on playstyle: since combat is now the main form of player expression what players actually want is for their characters to get into combat. Because combat is the most fun part of the game. But the game has also changed from the largely amoral dungeon-crawling game into a game of fantasy heroics (even though a lot of the trappings of the amoral dungeon-crawling still remain, which contributes to the dissonance), so you can't just have the player characters going into combat for the sake of it. That would frame the player characters as kind of Fucked Up, and we can't have that in our supposedly heroic fantasy.

What you end up with is a variety of contrivances like "they're bandits," "they're cultists," or, my all-time favorite, "they attacked first" to make the action seem morally justifiable, even though gameplay is still motivated by a desire to fight. The monsters fight to the death and, importantly, can often not be reasoned and negotiated with, partly because combat is supposed to be the fun, engaging part everyone is here to do, but also because if they actually acted like reasonable people it could cause dissonance with the whole "the player characters are the goodest heroes."

As my friend @tenleaguesbeneath once called it: what is actually going on is that the player characters are hunting people and monsters who have been programmed to fight to the death and never negotiate for sport, while justifying it as self-defence.

It's a simple power fantasy, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Sometimes you want to play a morally uncomplicated game about killing guys with cool magic swords. But I think it's also fun to think about what the specific types of monsters players end up fighting reveals about Society the invisible, unexamined ideology lying under the surface that the designers of even modern D&D have failed to examine. And to me it often reads like a frontier justice fantasy. None of that is to detract from anyone's joy of the game, and for me it's just fun to think about and post about this stuff while Still Enjoying the Game, but if someone expressing that opinion makes you feel uncomfortable, why? That's pretty silly imo.

[short-wooloo]

Tags by @thegreencarousel

#honestly have no idea how someone can look at trying to be good as simple and not nuanced#did people forget we live in a society#do you know hard it is to be a good person in a society#the grey morality is in straddling the line between being a good person and surviving in a society#like we practically have 3 prequel movies and a 7 season tv series about it#but you know hey thats apparently not morally grey at all#somehow all the jedi haters who call the jedi hypocrites for going against their values in a war isn't an example of grey morality or nuanc#somehow if a villain showed a modicum of goodness its nuanced but if the hero does something bad its hypocritical and they are worse#something something unexamined puritanical values peeking out much#i must practice my attachment apparently i still hold a lot of bitterness towards sw fandom i must let go#thank you for letting me vent in your tags ara#100% op post and extended version

my two sentence pithy hopepunk post escaped containment - you never can predict what will! - and it was obviously never going to encompass the whole spectrum of story possibilities hopepunk obviously like, omg, people in the notes. but i reiterate!

Star Wars is hopepunk! not grimdark!

it doesn't mean there's not darkness or evil or bad in the stories or genre, but ultimately it's about the triumph of good or the possibility thereof!

personally, i find the focus on stories in the fascist government point of view loses that - and are honestly a drain - and I stand by that, but also, stop defining morally gray at me people! i do know the meaning even if i'm not writing out the damn definition!

also, morally gray does not automatically mean more interesting or more nuanced! (anyone saying that can fight me.) (i'm a wuss and too chronically ill for this so not really.)

choosing to be good, to do good in a world of increasing darkness and evil and selfishness is a fucking compelling story, and it can be handled with such complexity and delicacy if someone actually gives a shit and doesn't go "good vs evil is boring" automatically!