1. Try and understand the other person’s perspective. They may just be feeling down, or be having a bad day, or there may be some truth in what they have to say. Don’t write them off, and dismiss them right away - but listen and process what they have to say.
2. Don’t jump to being defensive. Try and learn what you can. But also weigh what they are saying – as they could have got it wrong!
3. Don’t accept criticism from those you don’t respect. They’re view’s not trustworthy – don’t take them seriously.
4. Work on delaying your immediate reaction. Don’t respond right away – work on feeling more detached. That will lessen the emotion so your mind stays in control!
5. Where appropriate … admit that you were wrong as we all make mistakes. It makes you seem more secure as well as more self-confident. Also, it removes the emotions and will calm the person down.
6. Be proud of yourself if you’ve taken a risk. Even if it went badly, it is good that you have tried!
Abuse isn’t just extreme incidents that are obviously recognized as abuse. Abuse is also more subtle things in between the incidents. Sometimes it’s backhanded compliments or unsolicited and overbearing advice disguised as someone who “knows best” and “is just trying to help”. Sometimes it’s being irritable and critical of everything you do, so you gradually begin to feel like you can’t do anything right. Sometimes it’s a lack of boundaries surrounding your personal business– invasive questions about your weight, your romantic life, or your health, so that you feel obligated to tell them everything. Sometimes it’s an offhand comment about how someone else thinks negatively of you or them telling you false things about yourself– such as “I know who you really are on the inside. You love socializing, you’ve always been an extrovert,” when it’s a direct contradiction of your personality. They might do this to get you to do what they want or to create a conflict when you try to speak for yourself. Sometimes they say something to embarrass you that seems unintentional and oblivious, like, “How’s your diet going? It seems like you gained a couple pounds; you’ve been eating a lot lately. I just want to help you stay on track.” Abuse isn’t always being hit or shoved. It’s not always someone flying into a rage and breaking things or screaming swear words at you. Abuse isn’t always loud and violent. Sometimes it’s quiet. Sometimes abuse pretends it’s love and concern. Sometimes it hides so that it won’t be recognized, and that’s one of the most terrifying aspects of it. Because those subtleties allow you to adjust to being treated abusively until you notice it escalating less and less.
What's with the RWBY fandoms utter hatred towards Jaune? Just want to get an opinion so I can write a TV Tropes example...
Frankly i dont think jaune is hated enough tbh, he’s got plenty of stans.
To answer you though. Why is jaune disliked? Well I’m gonna give you the full list, all my thoughts, so strap in, this will be a bit long. Ive been looking for a chance to talk about this.
He’s treated like a main character even though he wasn’t billed as one
When RWBY was just getting started, there were four amazing, cinematic trailers for it. One for each main character. Ruby, Weiss, Blake and Yang. These four ladies will be our protagonists as they go to monster fighting school and become a team!!
That’s the premise the show sold itself on.
Then what actually happened is that immediately once the show begins, Jaune is introduced. And the show focuses on him a lot…… even more then most of the main characters………
But the majority of (female and many male) viewers didn’t come to the show named RWBY for “the jaune arc show.” They came to see Team RWBY. They came to see a show with all female protagonists, not another scrawny white dude with a sword and shield like every other fantasy show ever made.
At first it wasn’t so bad. Jaune was mainly used for exposition, and being the guy who didn’t know anything so that there would be a reason for things to be explained to him, and through him the audience. He was likeable and seemed to be getting set up to be a tactician leader.
Asserting that something is or is not feminist can put off a lot of people from truly embracing something or from participating in the general conversation. Instead of asking such a black and white question as the be all and end all of discourse, let us ask more questions and listen to the wider context. Instead, we should ask “Why do people find this empowering, or why not?” “Who is this who could this potentially be empowering to, and why?” “What is this film doing or saying?” “Does it succeed in those terms?” “Where does this sit in terms of this genre and its history?”
At the end of the day, as Tumblr says, your fave is probably problematic so the least you can do is actually talk about it. You’re still allowed to enjoy it.
Despite the vast quantities of domestic!AU fanfic that exist to the contrary, there’s still a common misconception in TVlandia that romantic relationships are only really interesting when imminent or imperilled; that any sort of emotional contentment or continuity between the characters will be boring to watch. And yet platonic relationships, in which we’re also meant to invest, are just as frequently treated as rock-solid: inviolable except, potentially, at a few plot-critical junctures. And that’s a big problem for romantic pairings – or rather, for our ability to invest in them, because the plain fact is, you can’t successfully threaten to destroy a thing you’ve never committed to building. Not only will nobody care, but there’s literally nothing to tear down except your own expired eviction notices. When you make it your telegraphed aim, week in, week out, year after year, to perpetuate a will-they, won’t-they dynamic, it becomes increasingly hard to give a shit about the won’t-they episodes, because, just like a child threatening to run away to the circus, it doesn’t matter how loudly you scream And this time, I mean it! – we all know you’re bluffing.
Having gone this route, the writers then wonder why fandom is often far more invested in seeing those platonic (predominantly male/male) relationships become romantic than in their canonical (predominantly male/female) pairings. Which: yes, we want queer representation, and yes, we enjoy our own interpretations of the characters, but at base, the problem - as far as you TV writers are concerned, anyway - is trifold. Firstly, you’re limiting your romantic male/female interactions to fit a preordained narrative, which paradoxically weakens the same relationship they’re meant to promote by shallowing its development. Secondly, because you’re worried portraying a platonic male/female relationship in addition to your romantic one might confuse viewers as to who, in fact, the girl is meant to end up with, you don’t create any extraneous narrative potential between characters of the opposite gender. Which means, third and finally, that your same sex interactions are likely biased towards male-male, as most shows tend to have fewer female characters overall – and when they do appear, as per the first point, you’re usually orienting their participation around a single particular man, instead of letting them talk to each other – which means the most naturally developed, complex relationships portrayed are, overwhelmingly, between men.
Thus: having firmly invested your audience in the importance of a romantic relationship, you then proceed to use all the juiciest romantic foundations – which is to say, shared interests, complex histories, mutual respect, in-jokes, magnetic antagonism, slowly kindled alliances and a dozen other things – in male/male scenes, and then affect gaping surprise when your fanbase not only notices, but expresses a preference for it.
“Do not shoot the piano player. He is doing his best.”
I came across this line in one of my notebooks and had no idea where it came from. Google tells me it’s from a story about visiting a saloon with Colorado miners in Oscar Wilde’s essay, “Impressions of America”:
It’s even better in context, and shows that violence has been alive and well in the West for a long time:
I also love this bit about how American cities really ain’t much to look at:
One of the things that any artist is working with is other art. You think about filmmakers, for example, and they all start out as film fans. You have Martin Scorsese as a kid going to double features every day and absorbing all of the world in that way, and then thinking about Quentin Tarantino in the video store,” Scott said. “In the simplest way that you see something or you hear something, and you start thinking, ‘How did they do that? Could I do that? Could I do it better? How would I do it differently?’ All of what we identify as aspects of the creative process, the absorption of influence, the learning and discarding of rules, the workshop discipline of figuring out what works and what doesn’t and how—all of that is criticism.
The most common complaints I hear against The Lord of the Rings are about the characters. People say that in the books they have no real personalities, or that they’re just black and white; blandly good and blandly evil. These are really odd criticisms though. They’re odd because they’re so untrue.
The characters do have distinct personalities. And they don’t act like one dimensional stereotypes either, but like people. Can you really read the books without noticing Pippin’s clever curiosity, or Sam’s humble love, or Gimli’s proud honour (and intense loyalty), Gandalf’s quick temper, Éomer’s violent emotions, and on and on. To go into detail of each personality would take a dozen metas. And hardly anyone in the story is all good or all bad. Saruman and Wormtongue used to loyal to the good guys. The Southrons are hinted at having been deceived or coerced into fighting. The Dunlendings were explicitly lied to (and not entirely in the wrong in their grudge against Rohan). All the orcs we meet, though certainly nasty, still act like people and have believable motivations. Even Sauron was once good. And as for the good guys, do I really need to remind anyone of Denethor? He never at any point gave in to Sauron, but he wasn’t exactly good at the end either. What about Boromir or Sméagol? The Rohirrim, though unambiguously opposed to Sauron’s evil, are actually pretty racist, and the story does not justify it. Their treatment of the Dunlendings and the Woses is not okay, and not meant to be. Faramir provides us with criticism of Gondor and their increasing love of war for war’s sake (and that’s not even getting into their colonization). Gimli, Legolas, and Aragon each in their turn become stubborn and recalcitrant (though not all over the same thing) and nearly cause fights with their allies. Sam — possibly the most selfless character in the story — is unreasonably suspicious and distrusting of every new person he meets (unless they’re an elf), and that trait, in a very real sense, costs Sméagol his redemption.
Having said all that the curiosity remains. If these criticisms aren’t true, why do we feel like they are? I think I might know what’s going on. I’ve recently been reading a lot about medieval literature and discovered how very, very much they loved allegories. They even loved works that weren’t that good, just for being allegories. Because that’s the kind of story people of that age were crazy for. Our own age is crazy over something else: we want character stories. That is, we want stories that focus in on the personalities, flaws, emotions, and development of the characters. And we tend to forget that this isn’t the only kind of story, nor the only kind of good story. But it is the kind of story we have a very strong love of. Lord of the Rings has characters with actual personalities and flaws, but those aren’t the focus of the story. They’re there, but we see them more at a distance, when we’re crazy about seeing them close up. But LOTR couldn’t be the story that it is if it was making those kind of close ups. It’s definitely good, and it’s particular goodness depends on it being told the way it is. We can see that it’s good, but then we also criticize it for not providing the one thing we’re nearly always looking for. If this makes sense?