Emmy Rossum talks about the new season of “Shameless” premiering in January.
They get it.
"All I want is education, and I am afraid of no one."
Malala Yousafzai as Rosie the Riveter.
farscape: an actual show
parks and rec rewatch » 3.07 “harvest festival”
willow rosenberg in season two of buffy the vampire slayer
You know what I want julietumbling? I would prefer if you just left me alone, because I am under enough stress as it is. I will address this, and after that, I really don’t want to be bothered. I don’t have the energy for this…
That's fine. I'm going out of town this weekend anyway and will need to step away from this as well. And as I mentioned before, you are not the only person in this discussion with mental health issues that are easily triggered. So I'll respond to your last post before I leave.
No, you really did not want to avoid conflict. If you did, you could have brought issues to me privately and asked to discuss it privately.
Again, I was responding to you because I saw you ask people to. You said you hate people talking about you behind your back and wished people would address you directly. That's why I responded. It's impossible to have a conversation of any length via DM, so that's why I responded here.
because you did not read what was within parenthesis, and so foolishly assumed that I was talking about Lip’s behavior the entire time.
Yes, I did read the parenthesis and I've told you this many, many times. Go back and read the last paragraph of my original response. While you were typing your reply, I had already edited my original response to include a few sentences about this that I had initially left off my post. Those edits were up before you ever replied to me. I pointed out them to you later.
Which, considering that you made those accusations without really knowing that I have talked about that before, do you understand why I am angry?
As I mentioned, I've seen a lot of your posts. Have I seen every post you've ever made? No. Have you seen every post any other person has ever made? Probably not. I was responding to the bulk of posts I see from you and the common, consistent themes in these posts. You were free to point out things I missed, and you did.
Why I can’t simply sit here and take this right now, especially because of the current bullshit I’m dealing with that I posted above?
I'm very sorry you're going through all that. But I am not one of those people. I have never communicated with you as those people do.
see: “Karen deserved to get hit by a car,” “Mandy deserves to get abused after what she did,” “Mickey deserves to be killed for his actions.” — these are actual present attitudes I see in the fandom over and over again.
My sense, based on the volume of posts I read in the fandom, is that those views are definitely the minority opinion and are outliers to the way most people feel. Those actually seem like troll comments to me more than legitimate discussion points, honestly. I never see them on my dash, but then I follow great people.
I have talked about what could possibly influence Lip’s behavior before, so again, that is an assumption on your part.
I just read this post, and it's actually an example of what I was describing before--ascribing the most negative possible interpretations of Lip's motivations without providing the kind of thoughtful context that you provide for other characters. In the same post, you describe how the Milkovich kids' family life and history of abuse informs their reactions and motivations--all great points. But when describing Lip's motivations, you attribute his actions to feelings of superiority, being easily influenced by others, self-centeredness, personal biases, etc. You don't examine Lip's home life and history and address how that background influences his actions, and in particular his relationships with women. Lip was abandoned by his mother, over and over again. It's clear from his reactions to Monica every time she appears that he feels devastated and deeply betrayed by this abandonment. Lip is old enough to remember his family when it was still intact. He saw Frank and Monica's dysfunctional, toxic history played out in front of him again and again at a young and impressionable age. There were absolutely no examples of loving and respectful relationships in his neighborhood while growing up to model for him the way men are supposed to treat women. When he and Ian are trying to think of any good dads they know in S1, the only person they can come up with is a registered sex offender. There has been no one in Lip's life to teach him how to be a good man. He grew up associating relationships with abandonment and betrayal. You don't think this history might influence the way he interacts with women, more than some sort of bias that he's "better than" other families in the neighborhood?
I disagree with your interpretations of Lip’s behaviors. See Kelly’s post
I did read her post, and I view it as another example of what I described above--ascribing the most negative possible interpretations of Lip's actions without giving him any benefit of the doubt. When Lip when to Mandy's last season, he believed he was dropping out/flunking out of school. He was trying to imagine what his life would be like once he returned to the south side, a life that could only include partnering with someone, having kids, and working crappy jobs--the norm in his neighborhood. If he simply wanted an easy lay, why would he immediately embrace the idea of having a family with Mandy? People who are looking for casual sex don't generally want to have kids with their partner. Lip knows exactly what fatherhood would entail, since he's been co-raising his siblings his whole life. And we know from Karen's pregnancy that he's determined to stick around for his kids and not be like his dad. I believe that in that moment, Lip was absolutely sincere about the possibility of pursuing that path with Mandy, and that if she had gotten pregnant, that's what he would have done.
Yes, he told her that he was just looking for a fun distraction. Mickey told Ian he was just a warm mouth to him, but that didn't make it true. And he wasn't slut-shaming her, since Lip does not see casual sex as negative or shameful. She called him a "shithead" and he retaliated with "skank," because, unfortunately, those are common insults people hurl at each other in this neighborhood. Kelly also said that the punch Lip received was "less than he deserved." You just condemned others for saying that Mandy or Mickey deserve abuse, but it's okay to say that Lip not only deserves abuse, but he deserves worse abuse than he received? Okay.
I believe Lip went to Mandy because they understand each other. Lip doesn't understand the rules with college girls or what is expected of him in his interactions with them. When he meets the girl from the neighborhood at the party, he's relieved because he's identifying someone like himself and believes the rules with her will be like the rules with other girls on the south side. He thinks he knows what's expected of him in this interaction. We've established that kids on the south side sleep together at the drop of a hat, that getting high and having casual sex is actually their favorite thing to do. That's why he (wrongly) assumes she'll be up for sex. And yes, he assumes his tutor will also probably be up for sex, because again, in his world, everyone is always up for sex. Lip has ZERO experience with girls who do not feel or act this way. Sex is how men and women on the south side connect. Look at Mickey's encounter with the woman in the Alibi Room or his interaction with Angie--no preamble whatsoever required, girls are usually up for sex. Lip assumes women will act this way in college because it's all he knows. He's grown up in a world where women enjoy casual sex as much as men do, so he's very confused when women in college don't feel this way. He doesn't understand the rules with them or how he's supposed to act.
I consider completely misrepresenting what I’ve said with no evidence to be an ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem attack is an attack on a person's character rather than his argument. It isn't an unwelcome response to a person's argument or a misunderstanding of what someone else said.
I did not need this now…and I should not have to give you evidence after evidence to appease you or enlighten you as to the reasons I think the way I do, and to clear up assumptions you have made about me.
Again, I responded because you asked people to. I can dig up the link if you'd like. I saw you post an invitation for people to respond to you directly when they disagree with your views, and so I did. If that invitation is now revoked, that's fine. I really do wish you the best and hope the coming weeks get better for you. Thanks for your response, and have a good weekend.
Giving this one last try, since you keep responding to me and seem to believe my issues have nothing to do with characters and are all personal.
You were never any kind of an "experiment" for me. I've read through many of your posts as they appeared on my dash for a while now and have always thought about discussing some of your views with you, as you seem to be an intelligent and articulate person. You also have a bit of a reputation for reacting aggressively to people (which you have acknowledged), so I was hesitant to approach you because I wanted to avoid the kind of conflict we're engaged in tonight. Finally I decided it was wrong of me to assume our interaction would be negative before I'd even tried to have a conversation with you, so I went ahead and addressed you, directly, as you had been requesting. I figured if it didn't work out, that was that, but what was the harm in trying.
I had been confused for a while by what I perceived to be some inconsistencies in how you view the flaws of different characters on the show. For instance, you pointed out in our discussion tonight that you have acknowledged that Mickey can be misogynistic, etc.--and I had not seen those posts, so thank you for pointing them out to me. However, the reason I was surprised to learn this was because I've seen you strongly criticize other posters when they label Mickey as a "bad boy," so I couldn't understand the disconnect--if Mickey is deeply flawed and you acknowledge this, why are you upset when other people acknowledge it? I also noticed that you seem to disproportionately criticize Lip relative to other characters on the show, which seemed odd, since I so often see you defending Karen or Mandy or Mickey, etc., and their behavior can be equally or more problematic than Lip's. Lip has never run over a person with his car or become a pimp, so it seemed strange to me that I've never seen you make such defenses of Lip or put his problematic behavior into context the way you do for Karen or Mickey or Mandy, etc. (and it's completely possible that you have done this and I'm missing those posts; please tell me if I am).
It seemed odd to me that you were able to love and defend all these other characters so fiercely despite their flaws, yet you seemed to hate Lip so much. Every time a spoiler or trailer came out that indicated something negative was going to happen to Lip--having to wear a hairnet or getting rejected by women or doing poorly in school, etc.--I remember you expressing a sort of gleeful schadenfreude. This sentiment seemed to be popular among people in your circle, and I couldn't understand what made Lip so much worse in your eyes than these other characters. You seemed to spend more time criticizing Lip than any other single character on the show, and this didn't make sense to me, since, again, his behavior is less harmful than that of those who run people down with cars or are employed as pimps. So what I'm really trying to understand here is why? What is it about Lip that seems to make his behavior less forgivable to you than other characters? You sometimes acknowledge the problematic behavior of other characters, and thank you for directing me to those posts. But the reason I had this impression is because I see you defending these other characters many, many times more than I see you discussing their problematic behaviors, while the vast majority of Lip discussion I see from you and others seems to be critical. I'm trying to understand this anomaly.
I know it seemed odd to you that I would bring these issues up while you were discussing Lip spoilers in the upcoming season. I realize you see my comments as out of context. The reason I made them is because it didn't surprise me that you were reacting negatively to Lip spoilers because I don't think I've ever seen you react positively to Lip spoilers. (Again, please let me know if I'm wrong.) I almost never see any positive reactions about any Lip storylines coming from you. So again, I'm wondering, why? You say it's because of how problematic Lip's storylines are, and that this view isn't just about him, but about the other characters in his storylines that you find to be equally problematic. I hear you on this. But I disagree with a lot of elements of Lip's storylines that you have defined as problematic, and I believe you are more likely to view his behavior as problematic than you otherwise might because you don't personally care for him. I don't know how else to explain why you get so upset when people strongly or disproportionately (in your view) criticize Mickey, but you don't seem to mind at all if Lip is disproportionately criticized.
The reason I veered into the issues of communication is because I know many fans hesitate to even defend Lip because they believe you or others who share your views of his behavior will come crashing down on them. If some random person in fandom posts a defense of Mickey Milkovich, it's likely that they will receive a ton of support due to his popularity and fandom's empathy for him. If someone posts something in defense of Lip, they know they'll probably be attacked by others who will split hairs on every argument they make and view every action of Lip's through the most negative possible lens. They feel this fear when they consider posting any unpopular fandom opinion. I'm not trying to support a narrative of you as fandom bully, and I also don't believe raising issues about communication problems constitutes an ad hominem attack. I'm not attacking your character or saying I think you're a bad person or that you need to get a life. I'm saying that for whatever reason, something about the way you communicate with others is making them feel intimidated. If you don't care, that's fine. If you think I'm a dick for acknowledging people feel this way, that's fine. All I want is for people to feel safe and comfortable posting whatever they want.
I’m not interested in discussion with you, if your only interest is to “test” me on my beliefs with no real concern for the problems themselves (and in testing me, having no real concern for my answer.)
That's actually not what I was doing. Others have accused you of being unable to have a calm discussion without going on the attack, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if maybe we could have a civil discussion about some things. There's no way to know without trying. I was actually disappointed when you so quickly jumped to the defensive attack language.
Your “issues” with my meta, had nothing to do with the meta themselves and everything to do with your dislike of me.
I've seen you say this to others as well, and I know it's probably comforting to you--this idea that others only respond negatively to your viewpoints because they dislike you. But how on earth could I possible dislike you? I've never met you. I don't even know how to dislike a person I've never met. All I know of you is your viewpoints and the way you interact with others on Tumblr. Do I disagree with some of your viewpoints? I do. Does it bum me out that so many people in this fandom seem terrified to have open discussions about anything because they're afraid you and your friends will tag-team attack them? Yes, it does. I love discussions about television. I love discussing books and movies and music and ideas. And Shameless has incredibly rich material to discuss. So I do find you to be a problematic presence in the fandom simply because you cause so many others to shut down and be afraid to ever debate anything. That doesn't mean I dislike you (again, not possible since I've never met you).
I will say I'm disappointed that although I'm showing you the respect of addressing all my issues with you directly, you're doing a lot of whatever the Tumblr version of subtweeting is. Because I take issue with some of your viewpoints and debate tactics, I'm "obsessed with [you]?" That's just silly. Are you obsessed with people whose views and debate methods you find problematic when they show up on your dash? And resorting to the "get a life" invective is possibly the lowest possible form of discourse that exists. I don't agree with everything you say or do, but I believe you're better than that.
I apologize if I misunderstood your positions on certain issues--that's going to happen in any discussion, and I'm perfectly happy to admit it when I'm wrong about something. It was hard to even get into those issues when you so quickly retreated to attack language. And it does somewhat undermine your sincerity when you complete a corrections statement with, "Seriously, do something better with your life." Again, lowest form of discourse, used only by those who seek to wound and not discuss.
I mean that people have made threats in their name, people have harassed me, people have used slurs against me and my friends, people would rather attack our persons than address the criticism, etc. In the past few weeks, I’ve received threats to my person and livelihood.
I'm sorry those things have happened to you and that you feel unsafe. Obviously, that kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. It's my hope that everyone in this fandom would feel safe. That's actually one of the reasons I'm so troubled by the nature of the attacks you sometimes engage in; I know that others in the fandom have anxiety issues, like you, or major depressive disorder, like me. You never know when you start throwing incendiary language around who you could be triggering. That's why I try to keep language neutral, although of course I sometimes get a little heated, like everyone. Of course you're still going to be upset if I say something about you or your views that you don't like, but I try to never use ad hominem attacks, as you have done here with me.
They don’t want to be attacked with incendiary language, but they have no problem calling me a bitch and spreading rumors about me.
Again, I'd never condone that behavior. I can't personally speak to people who are engaging in that, since I've never seen anyone use that kind of language directed at you. I certainly have never done that.
They don’t want to view “condescending flowcharts,” which are really meant to combat really problematic viewpoints (ex. “Mickey wasn’t raped”) So, if you’re honestly valuing those opinions over the issue itself, I have no interest in you.
I'm not taking issue with the content of your flowcharts--I actually did a whole post about Mickey's rape myself--but if your goal is truly to enlighten, I'm not sure why you approach these issues as if you are scolding second graders rather than sharing views with adults. These posts often include allcaps ranty statements like, "I CAN'T BELIEVE I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE MORE TIME," etc. Tell me, do you find yourself most persuaded by an argument when people address you with condescension and derision? Or do you respond better when people share ideas, thoughts, and experiences, and understand that we're all in different places on a journey towards greater education? I do question whether enlightenment is your true goal, because I don't know if a person can ever be enlightened by someone who is screaming at them in allcaps.
You didn’t respond to me calmly at all. You actually accused me of a lot of things that are based on a misinterpretation of my post
It is actually possible to say something critical about someone in a calm way. Yes, I find your intimidation of other posters to be problematic. Yes, I find some of your views to be inconsistent. Did I ever use incendiary language to illustrate these points? Please tell me if I did, because that would never be my intention. You don't seem to understand that people have issues with your methods as much as they have issues with your messages. You might hate my message, but I've tried to keep my method as calm and non-threatening as possible.
Please find a better hobby, because this one isn’t doing anyone any good.
(Lowest form of discourse.)
I don’t wish you anything at all, because I don’t personally care about you. I don’t expect you to care about me at all either, and I personally believe your ending statement is very fake.
I'm sorry you feel that way, because there was nothing fake about it. You seem to feel that if anyone takes issue with anything you say or do and communicates these issues to you, they are cartoon villains plotting against you. For crying out loud, we're talking about television on a social media site. Why would I wish a stranger ill? You could be a wonderful person for all I know. That doesn't mean I agree with your intimidation or harsh treatment of others, or with every view you express.
I wish we could have had a longer discussion about what you see as my misconceptions about your viewpoints and what I see as of your impact on the fandom. But I understand that you're angry and don't want to discuss this anymore, so I'll bow out.
Since I’m tired of engaging with you Julietumbling, nor do I have the time to engage with you since you’ve derailed my post completely, and more importantly, misinterpreted a major part of it — I’m not going to say any more on this. However, mandyfuckinmilkovich has offered a very good counter argument that I agree with.
You don’t follow me julietumbling. You don’t know everything I’ve written, and wouldn’t know unless you were stalking my blog. You have projected a lot of false understanding on me, through accusatory statements that are unfounded — and I’ve told you that you misread my post (not reading what was within parenthesis) but did you listen? No, of course not, because you would give anything to attack me. That’s not good arguing/debating skills though. So, either get a better hobby or write a decent on-topic argument that isn’t a poorly disguised personal attack on me.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tw: misogyny, sexual abuse, abuse, etc.
Since you don't want to continue this, I'll drop it, since I have no interest in talking at someone who isn't interested in discussion. The reason I addressed this in the first place is because I've seen you say several times that you wish people would talk directly to you about their issues with your meta instead of talking behind your back. So I addressed you directly. I don't leave anon hate for anyone, ever. I don't direct message with Shameless fans about you. This is how I address people when I have something to say.
A person doesn't need to follow or "stalk" a Tumblr user to be familiar with their posts--they're called reblogs. People reblog you all the time--which, hey, that's good for you because it means a lot of people respond well to what you say. But there are many others who are afraid to disagree with you because they're afraid you'll go into attack mode--I'm sure you've seen people publicly expressing this fear the last few weeks. I got anon messages today from people expressing gratitude that I pressed you on these issues and saying they wish they could do the same, but they're afraid you and others will "steamroll" them. They don't want to be attacked with incendiary language, condescending flowcharts, etc., so people who hate conflict tend to refrain from engaging with you. Today I wanted to see what would happen if I attempted to disagree with your viewpoints calmly using neutral language, directly to you as requested. I wanted to know if you'd respond cordially or jump immediately to incendiary language. I got my answer.
I really do wish you the best and hope we all can learn something from these interactions.
