but also, that the staff of ao3 need to remove the rampant amount of CP and rape fics from their site if they truly wish to be a source of service to fandom communities, because unchecked sexually abusive content harms all young members of fandom, and THAT is a disservice.
There is literally no but. Don’t make addendums to my post. Make your fucking own. Thanks.
Anyway, in this house, we love and support ao3 as is because we know fandom history and understand that fiction doesn’t affect reality on a 1:1 basis unlike this yahoo.
Also, fandom isn’t just for young people, and young people should be taught how to curate their internet experience. Ao3 makes it literally so easy. Also, it’s not rampant. At all. You people are looking for things to complain about and making it bigger than it really is.
The entire reason that AO3 exists is that every other site started by saying they were just going to get rid of the child porn, and then the rape, and then the abuse, but then what they actually did was get rid of all the LGBT content, and all the support communities for survivors, and eventually anything that contradicted the political opinions of the people in charge.
So a group of fans came together, with no support from any company or organization except donations freely given by other fans, and they said ‘Fuck it, no censorship. At all. Ever. Doesn’t matter how much I hate whatever you have to say, I’m not gonna prevent you from saying it because then nobody can ever prevent me from saying the things that actually matter.’
And they made the best damn tagging and filtering system in existence at the time, so you could avoid seeing things that you hate or things that can harm you, but they never tried to curate what was and was not allowed on the site. Because they’d seen what happened to all of their predecessors, and they refused to let it happen to them.
No matter how many children started whining about things they had no comprehension of.
Okay, informal survey time just because this is bizarre to me: Which of these seems most correct to you? Do any of them seem outright wrong? a) Breakfast, lunch, dinner b) Breakfast, lunch, supper c) Breakfast, dinner, supper d) Breakfast, lunch, supper e) Breakfast, dinner, dinner
Okay, we’ve gotten a handful of responses, and… they’re what the data told me to expect but still surprising.
First, yes, B and D were the same. This was unintentional.
Atlantic Canadian English is apparently in the middle of a transition – “breakfast, dinner, supper” is traditional, but American influence has been spreading “breakfast, lunch, dinner.” At this point, supper is still more common, but dinner is ambiguous (hence E). I have one friend who solves it by using “breakfast, lunch, supper.”
A is what I use. B/D sounds okay and C or E seem wrong.
Perhaps worth noting: My family actually calls the last meal of the day supper fairly often, but I never hear it listed with the other two. So saying something like “I’m going to go make supper” is normal but “breakfast, lunch and supper” sounds super weird. When listed out like that it’s gotta be dinner for some reason.
Teachers should let kids eat and drink in class, I have no idea why high school teachers act like tiny dictators of their pathetic kingdoms. Like, let them go to the bathroom, if they are hungry let them eat, if they are thirsty let them drink.
If someone is hungry there is a reason, they should eat. If I’m hungry at home, school or work…I eat. School shouldn’t teach you not to listen to your body.
As an actual high school science teacher, I would love to let my students eat, drink, and go to the bathroom without issue. However, the students leave food and drink mess on the desk, floors, and for some reason the classroom sinks. When they go to the bathroom, they are gone for excessive amounts of time, usually to hang out with their friends in the halls. It’s not me trying to be a dictator, it’s me struggling to teach kids when they abuse my kindness and suffer no consequences for it. It is incredibly difficult to do labs or any kind of engaging activity with kids eating and drinking, making a mess, and carrying on as if they are at home in their bedrooms. They *do* disrupt the class. They don’t learn. They don’t allow me to teach. Idk what asshole teacher y’all have dealt with, but a of us aren’t like this and we get nowhere for being so. We aren’t left with much choice but to deny students basic things because they abuse it when we allow them 😦
I mean…you’re instituting blanket bans on things because of individuals? There are solutions to all of these problems and banning them can be detrimental to their health so like? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I’ve been in full 1000 seat lecture halls in first year university classes where the majority of people are somewhere around 18. Fresh out of high school. Food and drink? Allowed. Bathroom breaks? Allowed without even having to ask. If it’s too disruptive in a small classroom setting, how do colleges and universities function?
Same goes for smaller first year classes. The ones that many fewer people take and are around more like 60ish students by the time people have finished re-working classes and schedules. Food and drink? Allowed. Bathroom breaks? Don’t ask, just go.
Labs? As in biology and chemistry labs at a university level with chemicals that are actually dangerous if accidentally ingested? Food and water must be left outside/somewhere contained and just not consumed in the room. Need food or water? Go get it, leave the room, consume it and come back. Need the bathroom? Also just go.
Like. Sure. Most of my experiences in university weren’t with classes full of mostly 18 year olds, but my first year classes sure were. If professors can keep control of classes at least twice the size of most high school classes and at most 1000+ of teens AND masters students who are TAs on the side can keep control of roughly 30 eighteen year olds without stripping them of agency over their basic needs and marking their needs *as* needs and not things they do to inconvenience you as the adult in charge, why are there teachers still not letting their students use a goddamn bathroom or take a fucking drink from a water bottle in class?
Sure, if you have like. Kindergarten students, then it’s reasonable to require they be supervised for those things because they’re little humans who are inexperienced, have very little control of their fine motor skills, and aren’t mature enough to take care of their needs on their own or understand complex consequences that aren’t predominantly or exclusively directed at them.
But if you teach high school, what’s your excuse for treating your students as sub-humans who exist to only inconvenience you and should only be allowed to take care of their basic needs when you give them that privilege, which if they use even slightly incorrectly you frame as them as taking advantage of your kindness to let them care for their needs. These are human fucking people for god’s sake.
When I was in high school I sometimes would ask to go to the bathroom and stay there all class. Want to know why? And here’s a hint, it wasn’t because I was taking advantage of my teachers in order to talk to friends or drink alcohol or do drugs or skip school.
It was because I had undiagnosed chronic conditions, illnesses, and disabilities that I was struggling to manage because I didn’t even know I was managing anything abnormal.
Are there kids who do take advantage of being let out of class? Sure. But there are also students who legitimately need time out of class, for reasons like my own, or maybe because they just really need to pee and don’t want to do it in their pants in your classroom in front of their peers.
We can’t be stripping students of the right to take care of their basic needs because someone might take advantage of the freedom. And honestly, I think if teachers started treating their teenaged students like people and not as robotic demons who exist only to take advantage of them, they would also start respecting their teachers more because they’re not being treated worse than a captive animal.
THIS IS 100% HOW EXCLUSIONISTS “DISCOURSE”. This is past alt-right, its just straight up how reactionaries roll.
If you’re as sick of them as I am but also sometimes confused by all the blatant bullshit, merry-go-round tactics, false and sweeping statements to justify their blanket hatred and even can’t seem to figure out why the target keeps shifting (its to keep looking shiny and never acknowledge the gaping holes in everything they try to assert) you should probably watch this.
TERFs and SWERFs (this is directly referenced in the video!) do this, Alt-righters do this, the Manosphere does this, anti choicers do this and, yes, the Discourse does this. Right down to the brass tacks, this is their game.
I recommend the entire series is watched and I gotta credit the original post floating around for introducing me to it which I tried to hotlink but can’t find, so, srry about that.
This is why they make pseudo intellectual, poorly rationalized and foundationless posts about how Asexuals did this or that when it didnt happen, always have to present anecdotal evidence and twisted horseshit as to why Asexuality just means you wont admit you’re gay/have internalized homophobia/just straight and trying to hang with the cool kids club…because reasons? What angers them the most is that the LGBTQ+ community is enormously welcoming and evolving and they HATE that we’re already in the house, comfortable and legitimized. It burns their biscuits lol. Its all about thieving thunder.
Time to realize, fam, it was never discourse. “Ace is homophobic” is their remixed version of “BLM is antiwhite” and “Feminism is just misandry”. They break a sweat doing everything they have to never concede or engage in good faith because ultimately, Exclusionism is a performance. Don’t look weak, keep the goals moving,recruit through misinformation and above all, control the conversation. There is ZERO rationality behind it because they just flat out are mad that asexuality is recognized and validated, so lets all collectively stop pretending they have any interest in finding common ground. They just wanna keep the punches rolling. Because exclusivity feels good and makes them feel important. Can’t do that without a target to direct it at and keep the wheels turning.
Why? Because this “X identity thats getting visibility threatens me!” is as old as the LGBTQ community itself.
I made it pretty clear and not only that, I was thorough. Watch the video again if you need to.
I’m not interested in what smells like fully expected sealioning from you lot and my post is specifically addressing what WE are dealing with from you as Asexuals.
So think what you will. Maybe someone who still has patience remaining will engage you in earnest.
I think the whole thing of “asexual people are stealing our resources!!!” is a good example. Exclusionists have to phrase asexuals using suicide hotlines or LGBTQ+ shelters as resource theft because no one would get angry at “marginalised people use community resources meant for marginalised people so they don’t have to be homeless” or “suicidal people use a hotline sympathetic to their needs”.
Tbh I’ve seen a LOT more of people who feel uncomfortable with cishets in their spaces more generally. I’ve seen countless stories of people who’s school GSAs have lost focus on sga/trans people and how having cishets in spaces makes them uncomfortable.
Also, LGBT spaces aren’t for any “marginalized people” they’re for LGBT-specific issues. Sorry if this sounds harsh (and correct me if I’m wrong) but ive never seen examples of straight aces getting kicked out of their homes, and they certainly aren’t to the extent same gender attracted and transgender youth are.
You just changed ace people to cishets to make it sound like these organizations weren’t focusing on issues that pretain to their members!
If an organization welcomes ace people then sorry but they get a seat at the table and sometimes they get to have the spotlight. If you don’t like that then leave that group! It’s obviously not the place for you anyway if it accepts ace people and you don’t.
Unless you mean actual cishets (and not ace people) in which case what does that have to do with this?
I said cishets because this discussion was in the context of ace exclusionists. Therefore, this is not about lesbian aces, gay aces, bi aces, trans aces, or pan aces. It’s about cisgender heteromantic aces and possibly cis aroaces (and should be implied that it’s not about non-ace cishets)
I really don’t want to have this discussion rn but basically if gay aces are gay, then straight aces are straight.
Cishet aces are “actual cishets”
And you totally misunderstood my GSA part. It’s not “sometimes the spotlight,” it’s LGBT people worried about the entire spotlight going to people who are cisgender and who feel attraction to only the opposite gender.
And yet the gag is, part of the bullshit is yall pretending its not about saying Asexuality isnt real and made up but dancing around it with shitty excuses.
When you’re BLATANTLY saying that when you call someone who experiences no romantic or sexual attraction (cis aroaces, in your own words) a straight person. Which is contradictory.
And of course we’ve explained this a gazillion and a half times how it makes zero sense and its foundation -rests- in claiming it isnt legitimate.
You cant say its real and its not a backlash against asexuality in general when you only want to count those you can vaguely tether back to being bisexual/pan/gay/lesbian through romantic attraction.
It’s incoherent as fuck. The conversation, thus, is ALWAYS about all Asexuals because you are ALWAYS shitting on that part of all of us. Because you are reactionaries. Thank fuck its not present outside of Facebook and Tumblr.
Otherwise you wouldnt blatantly be calling it heterosexual and using reactionary rhetoric to hop over accountability for that.
Meanwhile, our fucking experience on this platform is ruined while yall bounce this shit from us to bisexuals to nonbinary people and to pansexual in the same rhetorical style as TERFs just like I said.
They even brought up the bullshit “Spaces” crap (part and parcel used in TERF shit, Gamergate, the alt right but with women’s spaces, white spaces and gaming/geekery) in the video, so I’m wondering if you actually watched it at all. It flat out clocks your bullshit.
@nicediscourse, @awfulpunk, the thing that’s offensive about what you’re saying is this: Aces, by definition, are not cishet. They cannot be cishet.
You can insist otherwise until you’re red in the face, but aces are explicitly not cishet. They don’t fit that definition and ergo are just as much a part of the LGBTQ+ community as anyone else marginalized due to their sexuality or gender. Talking the way you do, you’re sitting there trying to rewrite language and history in order to justify your need to discriminate against them. You’re trying to gaslight us into believing as you do by telling us constantly that what we know, what we remember, is untrue.
Simply put, that’s not just horridly offensive, it’s also harmful to everyone involved, including you.
The only way you’re going to heal from doing that kind of damage to yourself is to stop and really consider why you’re so afraid of aces being a part of the LGBTQ+ community that you need to attack them. You have to be able to stop and admit that you might be wrong, and that you may have learned something harmful from someone you trust.
@awfulpunk, iron-sunrise didn’t call anyone a TERF, they said that you’re ripping off the TERF playbook. Which is absolutely true. The comparison between exclusionists and TERFs speaks for itself. It kinda sounds like you’re the person who doesn’t know what words mean here.
The phrase “Pointing out exclusionists use rhetoric similar to TERFs” getting transmuted into “Calling trans women TERFs” is exactly what the video talks about.
[Exclusionists use the rhetoric] –> [Exclusionists, some of whom are trans] –> [Trans women]
[use rhetoric similar to TERFs] –> [use TERF rhetoric] –> [use TERF arguments] –> [spout TERF ideology] –> [are TERFs]
Good addition. This is a fairly concise way to demonstrate the fault in this logic.
I don’t know their intentions for certain, but it really feels like it’s just a way for exclusionists to claim that they’re the victim in all of this.
For the record, I don’t believe that exclusionists are the same as TERFs. I believe they’re just another community of authoritarians who are shockingly comfortable borrowing strategy and rhetoric from other authoritarian groups, like TERFs, and are unwilling to address that fact.
Wonder Woman also wasn’t cringe inducing with its “Girl Power” feminist pandering. And also wasn’t mindshatteringly dull. Gal Godot’s preformance was a good balance of strength and vulnerability, and achingly sincere. Brie Larson (and idk if I can fully fault her for what might have been the Director’s choices) was just this bland moosh of traits apes from other MCU protagonists and was at no point her own, fully realized character. Her character depth begins and ends with “Ooo So Empowered”. She was just kind of dead eyed and vaguely smug the whole time. It was irritating.
I watched Captain Marvel 3 beers deep and still couldn’t find it entertaining. That to me is the sign if a film with no substance.
Maybe you didn’t pick up on the subtleties of Carol’s character development because you were drunk when you watched it.
Because like, how anyone could watch past the 20 minute mark and not see that Carol’s whole arc is to move past the stoicism forced upon her by the Kree, and remember how to be the snarky, dry-humored, kind, determined person that we see her become around Maria and Monica is….like.
That’s the movie. The movie is Carol remembering who she is. We see her joke and smile. Like, that moment when Yon Rogg realized that she DOESN’T have the tessaract, and Carol she gives a shit eating grin and says “I swear I put it in there” is so fucking charming.
Yeah no thanks. I don’t need Internet nerds trying to convince me to like a boring character just cuz she has boobs like I do and is ocassionally snarky.
Snark is not a substitute for a personality despite what Marvel would like you to beleive.
Do you ever get bored just being so… wrong? Like, you’re whole *thing* is tedious and uninspired. The only reason that you would go so far out of your way to hate on something is malicious at best, and mostly just downright sad.
Like, cool, you don’t like the movie. Big whoop. Your opinion has been noted, deemed trash, and discarded accordingly. Move on.
I like how they pretend nobody cares about the opinions of the negative critics, even as they write shedloads of articles and blog posts and draw fanart and make videos and change the rating system of a major website just because of those criticisms.
I also like how apologists claim “she was brainwashed to be emotionless in the film, and has to learn to break through that! It’s a character arc!” Which is barely hinted at in the trailers, and the ones where it was hinted were near the release date. Also, she’s still low on expressed emotion before she got brainwashed.
It does nothing to improve or develop the Captain Marvel character. Carol’s character arc was shit. Larson’s acting was horrendous. The humor had no timing and didn’t fit the character at all. There were no stakes. The villains weren’t villains and the good guys were a waste of time. It added nothing good to the MCU and fucked up several other things. It’s an ugly as fuck movie with a dull, lifeless color palette.
You can try to defend this movie by whining about evil nerdy dudebros who hate strong womyn, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a bad film, anymore than it changes the fact that Captain Marvel is a movie that is quite bad on many technical and artistic levels. Doesn’t change the fact that there’s been many movies that did this strong female protagonist shtick before and didn’t have a backlash because they weren’t overhyped piles of shit.
But go on pretending that your empty-headed defense of a bad movie is some form of feminist activism and not just unpaid PR bootlicking @fandomsandfeminism
Nice job proving my point that you’re just doing unpaid PR for a corporation that already owns 27% of the entertainment industry. Ticket sales don’t mean it’s a good movie. Or do you want to tell me that the Michael Bay Transformers movies are high art because they’ve made billions?
Jesus, dude. It was fine. It was, honestly, an above average MCU film. Better than Antman. Better than Ultron. Better than Thor 2. It’s middle of the pack in most regards.
I found Carol’s character incredibly relatable and engaging. I thought her arc was well written. I thought the theme was coherant and meaningful. I have my own nitpicks, sure, but I love the character and I enjoyed the movie.
And apparently, plenty of other people liked it well enough too.
People like bad things all the time. Doesn’t mean they suddenly jump in quality or mean that it’s anything better than mediocre. Even your own defense of this pile of shit went from trying to insist it was subtle and better than pissbabies claimed it was, to calling it just “fine” and “middle of the pack.”
You’re disingenuous and insincere at best. At worst, you’re trying to run damage control for your own ideologically driven idiocy and a movie that you can’t even honestly critique. It’s not about whether it’s a good movie or if it should have made any money, just that it did and therefore it’s good and no one is allowed to have complaints without being labeled a crybaby.
Yes, and Superman VS Batman also did incredible well in box office, however it was a shit only remembered for the phrase “My mothers name is martha”
Here is carols character.
She starts of as an imperfect kree soldier, she is emotional, she can’t focus, she cares, but she has no fear, she just has general emotions of anger or something it’s not specified, she is an imperfect Kree soldier, and has been threatened to have her powers taken away multiple times, so she stands somewhat weakly in that society.
She then gets caught out on a mission by the Skrull, and has her mind fiddled with by weird ugly aliens, she then remembers something she does not remember, escapes from inside a spaceship, and fall onto earth.
Down on earth she is this cold woman, she looks for answers and follows them, she reacts to everything with the same bland face, she goes on finds her answers, and masters her powers.
She has now turned into the perfect kree soldier, in control of herself, emotionless, coldhearted, she oneshots every challenge.
Captain Marvel was not a bad movie, but her character arch was shit, I mean we see all those flashbacks about her never giving up, yeah she is still not giving up, how is that growth, how is that fucking interesting that a rock is a rock.
The problem with making a good Captain Marvel movie is the same as making a good superman movie, with them alone it’s terrible fucking bland, I mean the best part of captain marvel was Nick Fury.
THe problem is they are incredible bland heros, and if they don’t get some proper conflict then they are bad, like superman vs batman, probably one of the WORST superhero movies ever, irregardless of how well it sold, nobody gonna fucking remember it, superman needs a problem he can’t just fucking beat up with his super strength.
Captain Marvel is the same, she should have started out as Ms. Marvel along with Captain Marvel, or something rather then this shitty character arch.
it does not help that Captain Marvel been a fucking feminist mouth piece for the past two decade in the comic world, and was basically fucking forgotten as a marvel hero.
In itself, Captain Marvel was not a bad movie, it was mediocre, should have been made maybe 7-8 years earlier.
But her character arch was horrible, I mean how should i describe her, the half human, half kree, with the powers of the space stone, and the strength and fighting ability of a perfect kree soldier.
Compared to wonder women who had fucking character growth, had struggle, was a person, had fucking emotions, had character and personality.
I think we saw a different movie if you can watch Carol’s last few interactions with Maria and Monica and decide that she is “emotionless, cold hearted, and a perfect kree solider.” That’s just….not what happened.
Like. It’s factually wrong.
And this is what happens when you go into movie already convinced it must be bad. You dont see the movie for what it actually is.
Brie Larson did a fantastic job portraying a character that, if she was a man, people like @pinkiepieinsane and @throw-away-opinions would probably be falling all over themselves to praise. And she wasn’t even remotely emotionless, I’m guessing that people just don’t realize that women can have more emotions than smiling and looking pretty.
I mean, she was a powerful woman who was constantly held back by people in her life, people who were explicitly trying to manipulate her by telling her to not be emotional and to not get angry. And her arc is about realizing her own strength and breaking free of those bonds.
Why, it’s almost like these people don’t get that a lot of women see themselves reflected in a story like that. Or that they might not understand that because they live in a misogynistic society that taught them to discount the lives and stories of women!
Also, @fandomsandfeminism, I’m going to have to disagree with you. Captain Marvel was a great Marvel film. I wouldn’t call it top 3, but it’s close.
Her being portrayed a man would not make the character any better, he would still be a bland character.
There are 3 issues with the movie, and none of them has to do with carol being a women, or fury being a black or a man.
1. She had no personality: She was surrounded by an ocean of strong personalities, she had none, I mean what would I describe her as? This is not her fault, it’s the writers fault, for giving her the personality of a banana. Like when she found out Yon-Rogg killed the MOST important person in her life, killed the CLOSEST thing she had to a mother, there was nothing
2. She had no character growth, growth maketh the hero, she was never weak, she was never broken, she was never losing, she never game up, she started of strong, and ended stronger, she started off as the imperfect kree warrior and ended as the perfect kree warrior.
3. We do not feel invested in her, and this is basically a combination of the previous points, I mean, I was more invested in monica, i was all “Ah yeah, she gonna inherit the mantle of captain marvel” or maybe she steps up herself, with her own superpowers.
I wanted the movie to kickass, I wanted the movie to be on the level of Thor, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man and Captain America.
I wanted this movie to be a kickass prequel to Endgame, I wanted this movie to be good in every way.
I mean take a look and Wonder Woman, the essence of wonder women is she got the strength of superman but is actually not afraid to kill, she can be fucking brutal in combat.
We have her grow from a young, kind innocent girl to grow into an inquisitive, brave young woman who does not back down from any difficulties, when a man somehow crashes onto the island, she leaves the only home that she knows, to enter a world she knows nothing about, to fight a war that is not hers, going from the utopia Themyscira into early 1900s london creates a sharp contrast.
But one of the most important thing is her suit is the best i’ve seen, I remember seeing the one from the tv-series that was earlier, and a fucking PORN movie had a better suit for her, but for Wonder Woman, the suit did not wear her, she wore the suit, she made the suit.
I mean the only bad things about wonder women is the villains did not get the characterization needed to give the impact needed.
Diana from the entering london faces sexism from powerful men who doubts her intelligence and power, but she shows them, and you can see it in combat, I mean the cgi is a bit bleh, but when she fights and others, she shows off the strength of amazons, she seems like she is dancing in combat, with every important character having their own distinct style of combat, this movie here takes what makes wonder woman into wonder woman, and does not hide it under the excuse of feminism or sexism, but she is empowered as it, Gol Gadot will be remembered as Wonder Woman, while Brie Larson will fade away.
While neither movie was bad, Wonder Woman was a far more empowering as a character compared to Captain Marvel who was bland.
That was a lot of words to say “Watch me invent reasons to hate a fantastic movie about a powerful woman who’s kind, caring, and absolutely uncompromising in her pursuit of doing the right thing.”
Seriously, everything you say is hollow. It’s fine if you didn’t like it. You’re even allowed to like it because you didn’t care about Carol as a character.
But you’re representing yourself as though your words are The Truth. And they’re not.
If you want to portray Carol as someone with no personality? You didn’t watch the movie. If you want to say she had no character growth? You didn’t watch the movie. If you want to say that we don’t feel invested in her? Well, you didn’t just not watch the movie, you have also had to ignore all of us who were invested in the character.
I mean come on. You’re making an earnest argument that Brie Larson is going to fade away because you think she hid under the excuse of feminism or sexism. You cannot expect me to take anything you say seriously when you have such an obvious axe to grind.
>That was a lot of words to say “Watch me invent reasons to hate a fantastic movie about a powerful woman who’s kind, caring, and absolutely uncompromising in her pursuit of doing the right thing.”
…said the woman who is inventing reasons to ignore the opinions of someone she disagrees with in this very sentence.
Do people legitimately think that people don’t criticize male actors for being wooden? Do they forget people’s complaints about Patterson in Twilight or Bloom in Pirates of the Caribbean? Broderick in … numerous films. Or any number of action stars that get put into more serious roles?
I think it’s worth it to note the people responding to this latest part of the thread post too, and what exactly they’re doing in this thread:
@siryouarebeingmocked was responding to me even though he didn’t actually read my post, doesn’t understand what goalposts or strawmanning are, and never seems to present any evidence to back up his claims. And yet seems comfortable saying that here.
The lesson to take away from this? People who come to discussions in bad faith or with bigoted opinions will generally make up anything they can to try to appear correct. You need to make them back up their statements with logic and evidence, and last I checked putting, “Disclaimer: I didn’t get past the first line of Korrasera’s post,” doesn’t provide either.
@thespectacularspider-girl here is representing what happened with Brie Larson in Captain Marvel as completely normal, typical hollywood experience. Despite the fact that this argument, which has been around since long before the release of this film, was so toxic that it’s the thing that finally convinced Rotten Tomatoes to not allow people to rate a film prior to release.
Let me repeat that: One of the most prominent film review aggregator sites on the net removed functionality specifically because people were so toxic about this film, arguing that Brie Larson was wooden from the very outset, that it made the reviews for Captain Marvel completely meaningless.
@artemuscain-gamingandbs is pulling the classic schoolyard trick of complete and utter denial, arguing that this is laughable despite the fact that we all know that people like this are making comments like that because they are pissed as hell that Captain Marvel is kicking ass and taking names at the box office
Like I was saying before when I was responding to @pinkiepieinsane, if you haven’t seen the movie and you’re repeating the same arguments that people were saying, before the film came out, before anyone had seen it, how can anyone like this possibly expect for their opinion to be taken seriously?
I mean, what else do you call it besides misogyny.
They didn’t watch the movie, but they know that it sucks.
They didn’t watch the movie, but they know that Carol has no character arc.
They didn’t watch the movie, but they know that Brie Larson is a terrible actor.
They didn’t watch the movie, but they want me to know that this film might have been good if it wasn’t a feminist weapon.
It’s almost like their mind was made up for them, by other people, completely independent of whether or not the film itself was good, has made a shocking amount of money, and completely disproves every point they made.
Really, the only good thing I can say? At least this kind of bullshit misogyny is more visible than it’s ever been.
I watched the movie, thought it was garbage regardless of the feminist message and the fact that Mauler just put out a 2 hour evisceration of the film, having watched it something like a dozen times to do so, just makes me realize how much worse the film was after he uncovered dozens of critical plot holes I missed (And I caught several).
And yes, people were saying she was wooden before because she looked wooden in the trailers. Saying an actor or actress is wooden is not new thing. It is something that is leveled at bad actors across the spectrum because it’s a quality of bad acting.
The fact that Rotten Tomatoes removed something like 50k “want to watch” reviews and it only boosted the score by 3% is funny. Maybe Brie should’ve chosen her words more carefully in pre-release because THAT is what people responded to.
All your blustering and bitching doesn’t change the fact that Captain Marvel is an awful film; poorly written, contrived, with a bad actress and that actively breaks several pieces of MCU lore.
Captain Marvel is a very fun film, I liked it, die mad about it.
“I saw a youtube about it being bad” isnt the basis for a reasonable, productive exchange of opinions.
https://youtu.be/2NKVPaSDAF8 <- hey, look, I can talk about the movie on youtube too and I didn’t even take me two whole hours to get to my point. Amazing.
Nobody is saying you can’t like it. Liking something is subjective. People like “The Room”.
It isn’t “I saw a youtube about it being bad”. It is “I saw several plotholes as I watched it” followed by a Youtuber doing a film dissection that exposes plot holes and bad writing.
“Didn’t take me two whole hours”. Irrelevant. Mauler is known and popular because of his long form content, where he dissects films and games. He goes through films scene by scene, breaks them down and then points out the plot holes, inconsistencies and errors.
But it’s telling that you say “get to my point”. Because Mauler’s point is pretty much up front. The two hours following it is the justification, the facts and the meticulous attention to detail to back up his point.
That’s the strength of his long form content. That he will watch a film dozens upon dozens of times, scene by scene, and will be FAIR about what is good and bad.
This isn’t an “oh, this is my opinion, go see this film” video. This is him doing research on the film and him going point for point, like he’s a lawyer trying to break down the events of a crime to prove someone guilty or innocent.
Captain Marvel is a bad film. You can like it. But it is poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed and it damages the MCU in several regards. It is okay to like bad things. I like bad things.
But I think the difference is you NEED Captain Marvel to be good and so you can’t acknowledge that you like a badly written film, because if you like it or not is largely irrelevant compared to your need delude yourself into thinking it’s a quality film.
Disliking something is ALSO subjective, which is a point I have raised many times in this thread.
And yes, your point WAS “well a youtuber said it was bad.” You didnt link that video, you didnt summarize its major points, you didnt give example of these alleged plot holes. You just said it was bad amd said a youtuber had a long video agreeing, as though that’s proof of some objective badness.
And, look, I cant speak to these SPECIFIC plot holes since you didnt actually list them, but in my experience, most “plot holes” are either the result of viewer confusion or are incredibly minor. “Bad writing” is subjective and vague. Bad how? Did it fail to convey its theme? Was the character arc confusing or ineffective? What does that mean?
At the end of the day, I kinda….dont care. My opinions are clear. I made two whole videos about this. I’ve conveyed my point, repeatedly, and you insisting that its actually objectively bad and you know thats true because a dude on YouTube said so for 120 minutes aint gonna change my mind.
>You just said it was bad amd said a youtuber had a long video agreeing, as though that’s proof of some objective badness.
You miss the part where I said, explicitly, that I saw the film and thought it was bad. I saw the film before the dissection. The entire point was that I noticed several things that made the film bad, but I didn’t even catch half of it compared to someone actually grading the film based on writing.
And, look, I cant speak to these SPECIFIC plot holes since you didnt actually list them
Incorrect. There are concrete examples of objectively bad writing. Plot holes are one of them. Carol suddenly no longer needing her helmet for breathing in space is an example, where there are no reasons and no logic as to why it suddenly disappears.
Another example is the objective break in the MCU regarding Fury claiming Thor and Loki were the first aliens they’ve encountered. These are examples of bad writing. They don’t have to bother you, you can write them off, but that does not excuse the quality of the writing.
>I’ve conveyed my point, repeatedly, and you insisting that its actually objectively bad and you know thats true because a dude on YouTube said so for 120 minutes aint gonna change my mind.
No, that’s not why. I already thought it was bad after the first watching due to several issues I had with it. Only now, after watching Mauler’s video, am I fully aware of all the plot holes and such.
And it’s odd that you say a guy on Youtube breaking down plotholes for 120 minutes isn’t going to change your mind and sorta proves my point how you NEED this film to be good.
Like, could this guy not point out two or three points that completely decimate the film? Or point out something you missed that actually is highly important to your enjoyment of the film?
It’s pretty dogmatic that you go “this won’t change my mind” even though you haven’t seen it, even though you presumably haven’t seen any of his work, nor are you seemingly aware of all the plot holes in the film.
I mean, Carol is basically walking around with the galactic equivalent of the swastika on her chest, the symbol of a genocidal empire that, at the time, was fully and completely willing to engage in planetary genocide.
That’s the sorta thing you maybe haven’t considered while watching the film.
You still didnt clarify or give further detail about your objections. You just repeated that its bad because you and some other youtuber think its bad.
But like. I dont give a shit if you think it’s bad. I made my opinions clear. I’ve explained them at length. Its kiiiiinda like we are out of shit to talk about.
I said it’s bad because it’s technically bad; full of bad writing in the form of plot holes and lore breaks. That’s what you seem to be handwaving off.
You act like you liking the movie is the same as the movie being good, being of quality. It isn’t. One is subjective, the other is a matter of objective analysis. Trying to conflate the two is either ignorant or dishonest.
People can like, even love, The Room. But just because they like the film for subjective reasons doesn’t mean the film is good, doesn’t mean it is a film of quality.
I’d suggest you watch Mauler’s video because he’s a lot more thorough than I am, but I have a feeling you won’t because, ultimately, you said you aren’t open to having your mind changed. Heck, I’d wager he’d even debate you in completely good faith if you were legitimately open to having your mind changed, just like he is.
I gave you things to reply to and consider. I gave you perspectives to look at. And you treat it as I didn’t because, in the end, you don’t care enough because you NEED this film to be good and so nobody can change your opinion. It’s this sort of dogmatic approach to the film people are reacting to.
Hold up, MauLer is why you’re insisting a film is objectively bad? Sorry but MauLer isn’t actually objective (despite what you and he might think) and in my subjective opinion his videos are an absolute drag that involve far too much plot synopsis and nitpicking, and far too little consideration for aspects of film that aren’t straight up plot logistics. His videos are not something you should direct people to if you want to prove to them that a film is bad, unless you believe their priorities and tastes match up with his .
If you want to watch something new that might challenge your opinions, I recommend Jack Saint’s video Long Critique Is Not Deep Critique. It’s less than 45 minutes long, and does an excellent job of explaining why MauLer’s videos are not objective, and why his subjective opinions on what makes a film good simply aren’t meaningful for those of us who don’t place such an importance on plot logistics.
You should feel free to like or dislike things for whatever reasons are important to you, but you should also understand why @fandomsandfeminism isn’t going to be interested in what MauLer has to say about Captain Marvel, without feeling the need to insult her or suggest some religious attachment to the film.
Okay, I wasn’t going to do this, but it kept eating at me (and other people around me). So. Let it be known that I am a South African Bisexual cis female.
“Corrective rape was a term coined by South African lesbians! Thus this is a lesbian-only term!” is something that’s getting thrown around a lot by the Discourse Brigade.
The first time I saw this I burst into laughter. I mean, I am the victim of corrective rape and never have I ever been told by any of my lesbian sisters to not use this term. It never occurred to anyone I know that I would not be able to use this term, or that this is not what my sexual assault was.
It was yet another example of how silly people could be. Were people who had never spoken to a single LGBT+ South African really going to be this ignorant?
I never took it seriously for a second because, really? Surely nobody actually thought that South African Lesbians were gonna expect everyone to conform to some nebulously specific list of things to qualify to use the term “corrective rape”.
But hey, as an African you get used to people talking over you and thinking you ride to school on a lion. Whatever, you laugh and you move on.
But I couldn’t move on.
Because people kept telling other people that they were, I don’t know, spitting on people’s graves, for using this term “incorrectly”.
So let me tell you this right now: If your assault happened because you do not conform precisely to your society/culture’s cisheteronormative* values, congratulations! You get to use the term corrective rape. Compliments of your South African brethren.
End. Of. Fucking. Discussion.
Now- let me tell you why I couldn’t move on.
Because the assholes that are policing the use of this term are spitting on the graves of every single one of my fucking ancestors.
Allow me to explain.
South Africa is a really unique place. Did you know we have eleven (11) official languages? That’s not including the minority ethnic groups that call my country home.
Now, when you realise that you have nine (9) traditionally black South African cultures, two (2) white cultures, the Chinese people, the Indian people, Other Africans… You may begin to figure out we’re really fucking diverse.
And we’re pretty proud of that diversity. Post Apartheid.
Apartheid was a system built- at its core- on ‘us’ vs ‘them’. It wasn’t inclusive. It separated people. It put some people in positions of power over others. It redefined the term ‘gatekeeping’ (in my opinion).
It was really fucking nasty.
It killed a lot of people.
And then Nelson Mandela came along. You know the story- he was imprisoned and instead of hating everyone he taught love and inclusion (after Winnie Mandela got him freed whilst running the Struggle- go read up on her. She’s a true feminist icon).
He is the father of our nation. And he taught us that hatred and bigotry and exclusion are never ever the way to go.
Afrikaans is still an official language. Part of the old Afrikaans anthem is still included in our official anthem.
We are taught that this is our country’s way forward.
We’re the Rainbow Nation!
LGBT+ people were granted every single right American LGBT+ people are still fighting for in our constitution in 1994.
But unfortunately, this lead to a huge homophobic backlash.
Thus- corrective rapes started happening all across the country.
But! The assholes who rape people? They don’t ask whether you’re lesbian or gay. They don’t check your credentials.
They can rape the girl who’s a little too ‘butch’ for their tastes, or the boy who might not play football (soccer for the Americans).
They do not care if you are a card carrying member of the LGBT+! They care only for the fact that you don’t look masculine/feminine enough. That you might have been staring at a boy/girl. That you said no earlier. Maybe you have a LGBT+ friend, so obviously you’re the same. Or hell, maybe your parents know you’re LGBT+ and they pay someone to rape it out of you. Maybe your arranged husband does it on your wedding night.
They do not care how you do not conform to societal standards- only that you do not.
And in South Africa we know this.
We know that no one’s rape is exactly the same as anyone else’s. Because it could never be exactly the same.
So yeah, here a completely straight white girl could use the term “corrective rape” and no one, no one, would bat an eyelash. Because she was correctively raped.
Because we know that united we stand, but divided we fall. And we have fallen so very very far in our past.
So no.
You do not get to fucking gatekeep this term which my brothers and sisters and I in this struggle have shed our blood and tears in.
You do not get to exclude people in our name.
Not when we freely gave this term to the world to use as and if needed.
Kindly respect us and our culture enough to not spit directly into our and our forefathers faces.
*I’m so sorry Trans Tumblr. I couldn’t find another word that really worked here.
** Yes, I have spoken to my fellow LGBT+ brethren. This is a PSA from the majority of us. If only because I cannot speak for all South Africans. Some of us are assholes too.
*** I know the UN wants to rename it “homophobic rape” but we will never us this term since it throws our Trans/NB/intersex/Bi/Ace/Aro/Agender/Questioning/Ally siblings under the bus. It frankly goes against what we invented it for. You, however, are welcome to coin the term yourselves.
If x charity aims for £10, but gets £15, would you expect then to give back the extra five or give it then to another charity? No. Any extra costs go into the “rainy day” fund; sometimes servers crash or break, sometimes false reports are made that require the legal team, sometimes you need to hire coders or what not to implement new features or fix bugs or deal with broken code …
The money they aimed for is the bare minimum, which goes towards things like basic server costs and domain names and legal advice and so forth, but they don’t just “pocket” the rest (as people claim). It’s not a business. It has no advertisements. It needs some “rainy day” cash to function.
You can’t ask a charity to give money to another charity.
They don’t “pocket” excess money. They have a publicly accessible budget – waaaay more info than most charities, in fact. In it, you can clearly see where each dollar goes. (Also, you are vastly underestimating either how much traffic AO3 gets or how much servers/hosting costs.)
In my experience, people who don’t work in web design and hosting just have no concept of how heavy a load something like AO3 would have. Not only is the traffic absolutely buck wild, but the quantity of data that archive needs to store is fuckoff crazy. I’m talking “more than the library of congress” crazy. The only reason it doesn’t require Netflix levels of data serving is that it’s text based rather than video.
AO3 is in the top 300 websites in the world, and the top 100 in the US. It is the number 2 literature website.
Number 2 in the entire world. JSTOR is 20.
It sees about 6 million people a day.About 250k an hour. Each of those people is loading multiple pages, many are running searches that execute on literally hundreds of potential variables per search. The demands involved are astronomical.
JSTOR, btw, makes 85 million dollars a year.
It’s 18 ranks below AO3′s traffic, and takes in 650 times the amount of money.
But let’s say you think that’s an unfair comparison. Would you say that the Project Gutenberg Literature Archival Group- another text based archive that handles literature operating outside traditional copyright requirements- is more similar?
Because it sees all of 4% of the traffic that AO3 handles.
Care to guess its budget?
Double that of AO3.
AO3 is doing shit on the kind of shoestring budget that I fully, 100% cannot comprehend. And that’s just the archival service.
The 130k also pays for the OTW’s legal team, which they use to defend the right of fandom to fucking exist.
It’s absolutely batshit fucked up that people are fighting to have the OTW defunded and AO3 shut down. They are the only organized group that actually stands directly between fandom- all the art and the fics and the vids and the music and the chats and the memes and everything we love about interactive, transformative work- and an incalculable amount of lawsuits.
The number of people on this blue hellsite who apparently do not understand how nonprofits work is mind-boggling (pro tip: by definition, THEY DON’T MAKE A PROFIT), as is the number of people with no idea about the cost of running something that gets that much traffic.
…this is completely false. According to this page, OTW has spent less than $3,000 on legal expenses in 2018, more than half of which went to challenging a domain name that might have misdirected traffic meant for AO3. Additionally, the lawyers who work for AO3 on a volunteer basis are, I imagine, more concerned with copyright issues than anything else. You may have heard of EU articles 11 and 13? Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s the focus right now, not some imaginary cp bugbear. The idea that AO3 is some kind of hotbed of child pornography, and that it is particularly concerned with defending child porn, is a complete fabrication.
03,53hey did u like miss the part where I said they can lie about what they use their money for.
also they still allow child porn and incest/rape fics on their site without question it was literally created bc livejournal didn’t allow content involving incest/pedophilia/rape on their site and these nasty mfs created a new site where they could put up whatever gross fetish fics they wanted.
one of their main warning tags is for underage. you can look at the site itself and see that there are currently 103,526 fics listed under that warning. yeah that seems like a hotbed of child pornography to me. don’t donate to ao3.
Did you know thats not the only thing on AO3. That while people write that shit theres millions of other people who dont and are just trying to find a place to write and enjoy fandoms and other peoples work. Condemning a whole site because they dont fit your views is idiotic because the whole point of ao3 is not to wrote underage shit but its to allow a safe space for writers to post their work without fear of deletion
Yea the stories are gross but dont fucking read them. Be responsible for your own internet useage. Also are you seriously riding livejournals dick like your insulting others of doing to ao3. How bout you stay in 2007
Bold of FreshPrince to assume people would suddenly stop writing dark fiction without said tags. I personally love that AO3 has such a comprehensive tagging system because it means I can avoid the stories I don’t want to read with ease!
It’s also incorrect to assume everything tagged underage is graphic porn. I help moderate a few AO3 feed tumblr blogs, and I can tell you a lot of the stories with underage warnings are rated teen and really only involve implied sex (teens in high school have sex sometimes, and stories about high school kids, written by current or former high school kids, reflect this… not all that shocking when you actually take the time to think about it).
Speaking of: For anyone with their own AO3 blog who is struggling because it’s hard to filter RSS feed content, I’ve learned enough Javascript to help!
I support the right of people to write whatever they want AND the right of blog owners to keep certain types of content off their blogs. These things are not mutually exclusive!
Ever wanted to post an AO3 feed to tumblr, but didn’t like the fact you can’t filter out certain ships, characters, or authors? Well a way to do this exists!
Step 1: Go to the feed rinse site and select continue to old site. (As of the making of this post, the new site is not yet available).
Step 2: Sign up for an account. It’s free and only requires an email address. (If you are worried about spam, you can always use a disposable email address from some place like temp-mail.org. Just be sure you either customize your fake email or you don’t forget your password).
Step 3: Sign in and select add feeds to start creating new feed that you can filter! (On your first log in, “Let’s get started” will take you to the same place).
Step 4: Collect your desired feed from AO3 and enter it into the subscription url field. Then select import.
For my example, I’ll be using the RSS feed for Haikyuu!! fics.
Step 5: Set up your rules for filtering and save your changes.
For my example I will filter out stories that include any of AO3′s archive warnings and stories not in English.
Use the plus signs to add additional filters, and the minus signs to remove filters you no longer want.
Notes:
These filters are not specific. If you try to filter out “sex” you will also remove “sexuality”, “sexual tension”, “sexy” and so on. The filters also do not differentiate between things like tags, titles, or author names. Because of this, if you are trying to run a ‘clean’ feed, you will likely still need to do some of the work yourself.
To filter out a pairing, you will need to enter it in exactly as shown on AO3. To be safe, I recommend adding two filters, one for each order the names might be be presented in, for example, “Joe Smith/Alex Johnson” and “Alex Johnson/Joe Smith”.
To filter out an “&” relationship, use “&amp;” in place of the ampersand. For example, instead of “Joe Smith & Alex Johnson” use “Joe Smith
&amp;
Alex Johnson”. This is necessary due to how RSS feeds code ampersands.
To filter out only works by a specific author, instead of filtering their name (which might be the same as that of a character), use “users/[insert author name]”. To filter out a specific pseudonym, use “pseuds/[insert author pseudonym]”.
Filters cannot be made with HTML coding, despite AO3′s RSS feed including HTML. Because of this, you cannot create filters that only omit (or include) characters or pairings listed first, such as “Relationships: Joe Smith/Alex Johnson”. The actual RSS feed lists this as something like “Relationships: <a full_path=“true” class=“tag” href=“http://archiveofourown.org/tags/Joe%20 Smith*s*Alex%20Johnson/works”>Joe Smith/Alex Johnson</a>“, which Feed Rinse will not accept, due to the inclusion of the characters ”<“ and ”>“.
Step 6: Right click the RSS icon to acquireyour brand new filtered feed!
This can be entered into any IFTTT applets in place of an AO3 feed.
Since you talk a lot about fans being responsible for their own experience on places like AO3, I think this might be of interest to you!
It’s a simple tutorial that should help people who run AO3 Feed blogs here on tumblr, so they can avoid posting whichever works they would rather not post.
For people who don’t mind posting AO3 stories with warnings but would like tumblr tags to match, or people who want more complicated filters (like only skipping fics that are both rated “Explicit” and have an “Underage” warning), they can contact me and I’ll help them create an IFTTT applet that includes javascript able to do exactly that.
I want to believe it only matters on Tumblr, but then I’ll see people going to school wearing Sheith is nasty t-shirts (there’s photographic proof of this), reporting their classmates for ships (no proof, only anecdotal), slapping people at cons (also anecdotal, but not surprising given how much they drooled at the chance to praise the needle in the cookie stalker), and wearing Bakudekus don’t interact bags in public (this one is legit on my blog). It’s… extending unpleasantly past this hellsite.
In its beginnings, the whole anti nonsense reminds me so much of something from my teenage years.
It has been a while and the internet wasn’t a thing for us mere mortals yet, at least not in Germany.
There was one specific slogan all us teens (think 13-15) loved:
“Stoppt Tierversuche, nehmt Kinderschänder!”
In English:”Stop animal testing, use child abusers!”
You’d see it on stickers that were randomly scattered around every town or city.
We loved that. Having no clue what animal testing is really used for that time, we, of course, thought of poor cute rabbits and sad monkeys being tortured with needles, chemical burns, having their skulls drilled open…
Naturally, we were against it!
And naturally, we were against child abusers! Child abusers are disgusting, criminals, as bad as those who torture cute fluffy rabbits, these people deserve each other! And this way, those disgusting people would actually serve a purpose.
Made sense for us, being in that weird age that makes humans highly idealistic based on a minimum of information.
We’d sing that slogan, yell it at each other, scribble it on our notebooks (paper ones, remember, it’s still the stone age)
Until one of our teachers had enough. One day, he came in and said, today, we’re doing something different.
Then, he explained to us that this phrase, worded the way it was, was neo-nazi propaganda. It wasn’t just an empathic, energetic random phrase.
It was engineered to appeal to young people, especially teenagers, who were just becoming aware of violence against animal and the concept of sexual child abuse. It appealed to emotion and offered a seemingly simple solution to two ugly problems.
Next, he began to discuss the consequences if we made this phrase come true. And the ethical consequences. Legitimizing torture towards humans. I remember, in my class, that was met with mixed opinions. You had some students who’d say, yeah, right, it’s true, we cannot dehumanize humans like that, it does make us as bad as they are.
And you had those who said, for their crimes, they deserve to be dehumanized!
To which our teacher replied, so, let’s say child abusers deserve it. What about murderers?
“Yes, of course, those, too!”
Should someone who killed one person be tortured the same way as a serial killer?
“Uhm, well, not really, I guess, maybe? No, that’s probably not fair…”
What about manslaughter? Or self-defense?
“What, no!” vs. “murder is murder, right?”
What about people who hit other people, or beat others up? Or parents who hit their children?
“uh, wait, no, no that goes too far!”
Why, is violence less damaging than sexual assault?
“uh…”
It’s both child abuse.
“well, but…”
So, if we cannot really agree on which kind and measure of abuse deserves to be dehumanized, how can we agree on who is an abuser who deserves to be treated like that and who’s not? Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide to draw the line?
If we can’t agree on this, what do you think would happen if we support groups like neo-nazis who define homosexuals and foreigners as child abusers by default?
That’s when it clicked. That was when we finally understood why we have not only to be wary of slogans that promise easy solutions to complex questions, but also why we do have to look very carefully at who created them.
Be assured, we erased the phrase wherever possible and didn’t utter it again.
(Inb4 “r/thathappened”: you’re free to not believe this conversation happened, this only tells me you weren’t a German kid going to a German school in Germany in the 90s. Our teachers did not kid around when it came to this part of our country’s history)
The Lady Sunami 