experience media

anonymous asked:

Do you have any advice for becoming a freshman in highschool or any advice in general

i can tell you the best things about my high school experience: the times spent with my closest girl friends, playing on the soccer team and being dirty and sweaty and feeling a part of a team, and becoming closer to my mother, working at an ice cream shop and making my own money

i can tell you what were NOT the best things of my high school experience: boyfriends, social media, gossip and needless competition, pressure to conform, academic pressure 

you’re so young. LET yourself be young. play a sport, hard. have sleepovers with your best friends. the older you get, a lot of people will ask you about your future plans and if you don’t know what you’re doing, remember that most people don’t, and keep your chin up.

Stuff kids on tumblr better relearn

1. You are responsible for your own media experience. 

2. There is such a thing as a healthy level of avoidance towards topics that make you feel unwell or even (in a real-life clinical definition of the term) trigger you - but you are the one to actively take care of what you view.

3. Avoiding does not mean policing others.

4. You have no right to tell artists to censor themselves - you may criticize what others do, you may dislike it, that’s fine - but actively asking for censorship when you could easily unfollow or block a person just makes you look incompetent in your use of the internet.

5. Do not give people on tumblr or /any/ website the responsibility for your emotional well-being. Because these people do not even know you so no, you have no right to ask them to take care of you.

i’m sure this has all been said before but it’s so fucking tiring to read article after article and post after post by straight (or even just non-lesbian) feminists waxing poetic about the bechdel test. like yeah, obviously it’s indicative of a massive issue w the representation of women in media and a useful tool to gauge the failings of hollywood and big time show writers or whatever

but that wasn’t what it was fucking intended for. it was never about all women, it was about the lesbian experience. it was about the overwhelming loneliness of the lesbian identity and how far removed you feel from media. i feel this every day, and i have for the last decade that i’ve been out

it’s infuriating to watch straight women talk about the bechdel test at all (“my show is different – even though they’re talking about men, the story is about their friendship. it’s like turning the bechdel test on its head”) and even MORESO when they’re fucking criticizing it (“the bechdel test isn’t the end all be all… films can still be feminist and not pass it. films that don’t pass can be even more feminist than films that do!”)

it’s like…. the name of the fucking strip has the word “dyke” in it. have you all ever considered once that the original comic wasn’t ever meant for your consumption at all? have you ever thought about the fact that alison bechdel was writing as a lesbian about her lesbian experiences and that maybe, just maybe, this isn’t some generic feminist concept but instead a description of a lesbian-specific experience?

and the thing is that the liberal feminist application of the bechdel test has been criticized for not being intersectional – which it isn’t! movies about gay men and men of color are still incredibly groundbreaking and significant to our culture even though they “fail” the bechdel test

and that is LITERALLY BECAUSE the bechdel test wasn’t ever fucking MEANT to be the Generic Feminism Test Of Diversity And Equality – it was commentary specific to the lesbian experience when engaging with media

straight feminists historically hated and excluded lesbian feminists (and many do to this day lmao) but still, as always, want to co-opt and misappropriate our writing, concepts, and experiences to suit their needs


@hpquidditchnet creation event: get to know the members & pour femme

Angelina Johnson Twitter AU

Get back in position, she’s fine! But as you’re passing to a teammate, do try not to knock her off her broom, won’t you? We’ve got Bludgers for that!

I’m really sick and tired of lesbians thinking bisexual women are just “experimenting” or “are secretly gay inside”. That I’m using you to figure myself out. That I need you to help me. I’m not broken. I’m not greedy. I’m not your project to fix and help “convert”. Stop spreading bullshit. 

I’m also really sick of straight men asking me to have threesomes. My sexuality isn’t some fetish. My sexuality isn’t an invitation to talk to me like a sexual object. I do not exist to spice up your love life. I do happen to be a person so interact with me like a person. 

The History of “Wacko Jacko”

“They desire our blood, not our pain,” Jackson wrote in a note in 1987. Tabloids soon began disparaging him with the nickname “Wacko Jacko” (a term Jackson despised). It was a term first applied to the pop star by the British tabloid, The Sun, in 1985, but its etymology goes back further. “Jacko Macacco” was the name of a famous monkey used in monkey-baiting matches at the Westminster Pit in London in the early 1820s. Subsequently, the term “Jacco” or “Jacco Macacco” was Cockney slang to refer to monkeys in general. The term persisted into the 20th century as “Jacko Monkeys” became popular children’s toys in Great Britain in the 1950s. They remained common in British households into the 1980s (and can still be found on Ebay today).

The term “Jacko,” then, didn’t arise out of a vacuum, and certainly wasn’t meant as a term of endearment. In the ensuing years, it would be used by the tabloid and mainstream media alike with a contempt that left no doubt about its intent. Even for those with no knowledge of its racist roots and connotations, it was obviously used to “otherize,” humiliate and demean its target. Like Ralph Ellison’s “Battle Royal” scene in Invisible Man, it was a process by which to reduce Michael Jackson the human being and artist, to “Jacko” the minstrelized spectacle for avaricious amusement. (It is significant to note that, while the term was used widely by the white media, it was rarely, if ever used by black journalists.)

Please Watch this Video:


when people do that ‘gotcha! Japanese people in Japan aren’t upset about so and so white person cast as Kusanagi Motoko or Light or whatever so no one in America should be” always conveniently leave out that a lot of those same Japanese people also add “better a white person play so and so character than another Asian person who’s from a different Asian country pretending to be Japanese.” Or the confusion over a black man cast as L, for example, because ‘it doesn’t really fit why’s he black now?” It shows how little they understand America. (I mean, of course this is even beyond the fact that Japanese people in Japan aren’t a monolith, and I have actually had conversations with people in Japan who understood why white washing stories in Hollywood is a big deal.) 

when Japanese people in Japan say they don’t really mind an Americanized version featuring white people it’s usually for a variety of reasons. First and foremost that Japan as a country has its own thriving media machine. They don’t need Hollywood or American media to reflect them or their values accurately because they already have their own Death Note films. They already have their Ghost in the Shell movies and manga and so forth.Those properties getting attention in other countries is just a cool thing- like, hey this is getting popular in other places cool.” Japanese creators do it with foreign properties too- Romeo and Juliet, Alice in Wonderland, Gone with the Wind- adapted for and played by Japanese people. (The Gone with the Wind I saw in Japan included black face actually. That was… a thing.)The Howl’s Moving Castle film is a Japanese version of a British novel. Ponyo is inspired by Hans Christian Andersen. 

 But when people in America complain about how Hollywood handles this stuff, it’s because they are directly affected by the messages that are packed into media and how that media is produced. A Japanese person in Japan might complain about the inaccuracies in Memoirs of a Geisha and be derisive about it, but they may not end up being affected by it in the same way as an Asian person in America is. (The overwhelming controversy about Memoirs in Japan beyond the inaccuracies and exotified Japan was that they got Chinese actresses to play Japanese characters). But Asian people in America are dealing with the media in a different way. They have a totally unique experience where white people are taking Asian stories and adapting them with white people and leaving Asian people out of the equation. And approaching the issue of white washing without talking about poc experiences in America is ridiculous. 

And then when it comes to like- confusion that L is black in the new Netflix version, for instance. They see this as a ‘deviation’ from the ‘norm.’ That is one thing that they have gotten from American media in Japan- that most people in America are white and anything else is a deviation from ‘normal.’ I think a lot of the people I interacted directly with in Japan didn’t assume I was American usually- my hair and my eyes are dark. Hell I had a student who actually got sad that her mental image- that most Americans are white blonde folks with light colored eyes- was simply not accurate. And Japanese people in Japan usually don’t get a lot of narratives about the experiences of poc in america. they learn some of the history of course- slavery and Jim Crow and Native Americans historically. But they don’t usually have a wide understanding of American racial politics in the modern day. (Sometimes when big news makes it to Japan like the murder of black people by police, they’ll learn more about it in those moments, but in general i don’t they they really know much. Or for people who’s particular field in college includes sociological studies- like one of the men I talked to who was very upset with the casting of ScarJo because he understood the politics in the US) 

i’m going to end this because i’m rambling but like i wanted to acknowledge again that Japanese people in Japan still have diverse opinions as well and this is more addressing general trends of ‘why is it a big deal’ coming from the japanese public and the whole ‘well shut up about being irritated about white washing because japanese people in japan don’t care!” b/c its bull

UPDATE: Holly was recovered from the Hood River on 4/22. She is no longer with us.

My friend Holly went missing from where she was camping on the Hood River on March 15th. She was last seen with two men she had known conflicts with, and all of her belongings are where she left them.
Oregon Police have not sent out a search party and are going to close the case soon, while a femme of color has disappeared suspiciously.
I am looking for people with Oregon connections, experience contacting media outlets, or search and rescue experience  please contact 

 the @Find Holly Lester page on Facebook, or 

Hood River Police: 541-386-2121

Michael Jackson's Prosecution

“Ten years ago tomorrow a jury in Santa Maria, California acquitted mega pop star Michael Jackson of child molestation and conspiracy. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon charged Michael with molesting Garvin Arvizo and then kidnapping Gavin’s family– his mother, brother, and sister. Attorney Thomas Mesereau mounted a brilliant defense and Michael, after four months, was acquitted.

But the damage was done. Michael had sat through weeks and weeks of crazy testimony and accusations. His entire life was laid open– his finances, his personal peccadilloes, relationships with every single person he ever knew, descriptions of his body parts. His mother and sometimes his father, or a sibling, sat in the row behind him. They heard it all. Everything was on the record for his child one day to read.

By the time the jury reached their verdict, Jackson was destroyed. There was no jubilant celebration. He was done. He took his kids and left California. Mesereau advised him, “Leave here now.” Why? He knew, as did I, and every reasonable person who’d watched this circus since Jackson’s arrest in November 2003, that Sneddon had it in for him. Sneddon was not going to stop until he somehow put Michael Jackson in jail. If Michael stayed at Neverland, in Santa Barbara County, he would always be a target.

Sneddon’s vendetta against Jackson reached back a decade, to when Michael agreed to a financial settlement with the family of another boy, Jordan Chandler. It was the worst decision that Michael ever made. It created an aura around him of a pedophile, one that he couldn’t shake. It made him a target for more extortion. It turned him into a real drug addict who couldn’t always make other, clear decisions. Eventually, it would kill him.

What was the upside of the Chandler settlement? To the lawyers and advisers, it kept Michael out of jail and court in 1994. Sneddon couldn’t prosecute Michael without the Chandlers. Sneddon was defeated before he could make his case. Jackson, Sneddon felt, danced away. Instead of leaving it alone, Jackson mocked Sneddon publicly in song, taunted him. And Sneddon vowed revenge.

There are just a couple of things you need to know about that trial. Gavin Arvizo’s mother, proved in court to be a scammer and a schemer, was crazy. Sneddon found in her a perfect collaborator. She said and did whatever he wanted. It didn’t matter that her so called “kidnappers” had a full record of their time with her including receipts for spa treatments, movie dates, fast food restaurant meals and shopping safaris. When those guys — Frank Cascio and Vinnie Amen– came to me in 2004 with a huge metal briefcase filled with records of what had gone on, the first thing I remember saying to them was, “Are you sure the Arvizos didn’t kidnap you?”

I was joking, but that’s really what had happened. Gavin Arvizo had cancer. His mother, Janet, used the cancer as leverage to worm her way into Michael’s life. Michael Jackson was naive about one thing since his “We are the World” hit project– that he could save the world, and “save the children who are destined to die,” as Marvin Gaye once sang. Michael, after selling 100 million records, and being dubbed the “King of Pop,” saw himself as a savior. Saving Gavin was just part of his duties.

And that’s what blew him up. He allowed Martin Bashir to come to his house and make a documentary that showed Michael embracing the Arvizos. It was appalling. The worst part of Bashir’ heavily slanted film, called “Living with Michael Jackson,” was a segment in which Gavin– who Michael had brought to Neverland for the filming to show that he was a savior– talked about sleeping in Michael’s bed. When the documentary ran on ABC at the end of January 2003, this moment set off alarms. I wrote at the time that it was possible Michael would wind up in jail. The internet blew up.

Sneddon immediately sent his people to the Arvizos’ apartment in Los Angeles. They left his card under their door. And when Michael realized what had happened, he kicked the freeloading Arvizo’s out of Neverland. They had to return to their real life– no more spa treatments and gifts. And that’s when Sneddon found a conspirator in Janet Arvizo. The only thing was, he didn’t do due diligence. He was so excited to have someone who could help him realize his goal of putting Michael Jackson in jail, he never investigated Janet Arvizo’s background.

My favorite moment sitting in that Santa Maria courthouse? When Tom Mesereau got Janet Arvizo to testify she thought Michael Jackson was going to steal her children by taking them away in a hot air balloon. The courtroom howled. Judge Melville banged his gavel. It was the culmination of a devastating testimony skillfully delived by Mesereau. Everyone knew at that moment the jury was not going to buy Sneddon’s prosecution. Everyone, that is, except Sneddon.

There were good prosecutors on Sneddon’s team. Ron Zonen was and is respected. So is Gordon Auchincloss. They had some great dramatic moments in court. But they never questioned Sneddon’s motives. They followed him right off the bridge into the ocean.

The prosecutors were so out of touch with what was happening that on the eve of the verdict, they threw themselves a congratulatory party. In a public restaurant. A woman I knew stumbled upon them and called me immediately.

This is what I wrote on June 10, 2005:
The prosecutors in Michael Jackson’s child molestation and conspiracy trial apparently feel they’ve already won their case.

On Wednesday night [June 8], the whole lot of them — DA Tom Sneddon, Ron Zonen, Gordon Auchincloss, their wives and families — all celebrated at the Hitching Post restaurant in Casmalia.

The Hitching Post, cousin of the Buellton restaurant featured in the movie “Sideways,” is considered the best restaurant in the greater Santa Maria area.

Sneddon was so happy that he actually embraced celebrity crime reporter Aphrodite Jones. She told me he was in a jubilant mood, and the most outgoing of all the people on hand.

Said one observer, “This group was happy. There was definitely a celebratory mood.”

The prosecutor’s team was first spotted making merry at the bar, and then retreated to a private dining room behind the bar that has no door.

“They could be heard laughing and carrying on,” said a source.

Also present at what could only be termed a party were several of the police investigators involved in the case, including Sgts. Steve Robel and Jeff Klapakis.

By contrast, little has been seen around town of defense attorney Tom Mesereau, who’s kept a low profile since the jury began deliberations a week ago.

It was two weeks since the defense had rested. It would be five more days before the jury would come back with their stunning verdict that rebuked Sneddon’s entire case. But there they were, so full of hubris, certain that they’d prevailed.

In a way they had. Tom Sneddon essentially killed Michael Jackson. If Sneddon had really been objective and had investigated the Arvizo’s properly, the case would not have come to trial. But he turned it into a circus from day 1–staging a surprise raid of Neverland, conspiring with tabloid reporter Diane Dimond (whose entire career is built on her obsession with being Jackson’s snarling enemy)– to make it a big media splash. Nothing was done by the book. It was all done to ruin Michael Jackson and it worked.

The Arvizos– we’ve never heard from them again, not a peep (except for Diane Dimond’s report about his 2013 wedding where — unbelievably– at least one Michael Jackson was played by the deejay). Jordan Chandler? His father, after turning his son into a recluse and destroying Jackson’s reputation, committed suicide five months after Michael’s death at the hands of Dr. Conrad Murray. In 1996, a journalist named Mary Fisher wrote a seminal piece in GQ proving Evan Chandler and his ex-wife’s new husband had brainwashed Jordy into thinking he’d been molested. They got $20 million for their hard work. Thirteen years later Michael Jackson was dead.

The jury in the trial thought that once they’d acquitted Michael, the solid gold gates to Neverland would swing open and Jackson would thank each of them individually. They were so wrong. The gates snapped shut. Jackson was never seen again in the town of Los Olivos. Two weeks later he and his children were gone, kicking off four years of homelessness that would end in death. Neverland fell silent. Unlike with the prosecutors, there was no celebration of this bitter victory.”

TL;DR : The entire prosecution was just to destroy Michael Jackson’s image. The prosecution played a major role in his death. Please think before you make ignorant comments about the case.

Written by Roger Friedman

Let teenagers explore and make mistakes and take up for their responsibilities.

If you’re old enough to be online, unsupervised, then I, or other adults online, are not responsible for your experience online, and what media you happen to consume. 

I’m done with this, “But they’re a minor, you need to protect them and set a good example,” like who the Hell are you to tell me and others what to do and how to act online? For “minors,”? No, if you’re 13-16, 17, 18– you’re either an adolescent teenager or merging on young adulthood.
You aren’t a minor anymore, you’re a teenager, you’re a young adult, so start acting like one.

Fiction is a place of safe escapism– nobody can get harmed, nobody real can be harmed. 
I don’t care for this “but fiction doesn’t exist in a vacuum,” yeah? Well then provide me evidence that fiction affects reality in the way you believe it does–
I want cold hard facts, studies, reliable evidence. If you can’t give me that, then you lose, just like all those radical zealots and soccer mom’s lost the fight of banning rock music and video games because they believed they made people violent or satanists. 

Fiction has always been a safe escapism, and the fact you are advocating for the belief that fiction affects reality in such a way that certain genres of fiction and media should be censored or banned, well, that’s dangerous thinking, very dangerous thinking.

Allow teenagers to use fiction as a way to help them understand their sexuality more
– you have no right to tell people how they may enjoy a piece of fiction, especially if it’s due to their sexuality/gender. Like, come on, aren’t you assholes suppose to be progressive and tolerate or something? Then why the fuck have you suddenly become so hostile and intolerant to those you deem lower than you (because come on, you believe you’re somehow superior in morals, and because of your sexuality) to the point you start wanting to control what people watch and read– like, that way of thinking and perceiving the world is dangerous.
Teenagers are already confused as is it, with puberty and all– dictating to them what they’re allowed to read and watch in fiction– whether it regards them as a way to help explore their sexuality and even creativity –will only make things worse, will make them more ashamed, more aggressive, more troubled

I don’t care how much it makes you uncomfortable, or disturbed, or even upset– that’s your personal reaction, feelings, and opinions. You can’t push them on others, that’s wrong, it just is.
People have the right to their individual feelings and beliefs, and that’s that. I also don’t care how much you twist very serious terms to fit your agenda– you’re wrong, and you know it, but you don’t care as long as you cause mass hysteria and feel like you’ve done something almost heroic– but you’re wrong, you’re a tyrant, and you’re toxic movement is what is actually doing harm.

greyward3ns  asked:

How might social media negatively affect mental health? How can you tell when you need a break?

Social media is linked to poor mental health in a few ways.  First, some people use social media too much or may find that it is difficult to stop using social media. They may feel like they have to check it too frequently throughout the day.  Others may have trouble accomplishing goals, like work or school work, because they use social media too much.  Second, some people do not get positive support on social media, and others have very negative experiences with others on social media, such as when people are critical or mean.  Each of these things has been shown in research to be linked with feeling more depressed or anxious.  There are a few things to think about when you are deciding whether to take a break from social media.  First, consider why you use social media and what type of emotions you experience when using social media (for example, joy, anger).  Also think about whether you are having difficulty at work, school, or in relationships because of your use of social media.  Finally, think about how other people treat you on social media. Are most people supportive of you or do they say mean things to you?  It may be good to take a break from social media if you are spending too much time on it, neglecting other parts of your life, or if you do not feel supported by others.  Social media are tools to communicate and network with others.  In general, using social media should be a positive experience in your life.  If it is not, you should consider taking a break, reducing the time that you spend on it, or changing your social media network.

Great White Sharks in Media Pt 2

So you may remember the post from last year where I talked about the effect media has on great white sharks and how the public feels about them and the effect that in turn has on the great white shark population. Read it here!

Well we’re at it again! Last year there was a movie called “The Shallows” where a young woman is being targeted by a great white for a long duration of time. there were several reasons the whole thing was ridiculous but what bothered me the most was the over dramatization and how people try to make a quick dollar on people’s fears.

This year we have “47 Meters Down” which has many of the same elements: young pretty girls being hunted by great whites, a fun vacation gone wrong, etc. During the movie the girls are cage diving and the cord breaks sending them down to the depths of “shark infested waters”. So lets talk about cage diving.

First of all: yes it can be dangerous if proper precautions are not met. Accidents do happen and there are places where people will bait the sharks to make it more exciting which is how this happened:

Now you don’t see it in this video but sometimes they will pull the bait along to get the sharks more riled up, again for excitement. Luckily in this incident the diver was uninjured.

Here is a video of a safer dive, please keep in mind these are all seasoned professionals:

This is Big Blue, the largest great white filmed to date. Notice how they talk about how calm she was and how incredible their experience was. Yes they did have bait, but they were not there for cheap thrills and they got a better experience for it.

The media tries to paint a picture of an aggressive killing machine but sharks are graceful and curious. They are efficient at all that they do which is why they have been on this planet for millions of years.

Finally I want to point out that sharks are not interested in eating people. We do not have the fat and nutrients that it takes to keep these animals going. Great whites feed on large fish, seals, sea lions, sea turtles, etc. Most shark attacks are a single bite because the shark realizes that it’s not eating something it wants to and is not going to waist energy on that.

Side note: I hate the term “shark infested waters” becasue the sharks are not infesting anything. We are the outsiders in their home, and we need to be mindful and respectful.

for antis

Just because a space includes minors, does not mean the space is structured around minors. At thirteen years of age, you are well capable of controlling your own media experience. The adults on Tungle are not responsible for making sure eyou avoid their content beyond flagging what the content is. Just because you have the opinion that something is wrong or “”Problematic”” does not mean that it’s going to be expunged from the internet for your comfort.

echo-from-the-void  asked:

Hmm, so Ishida draws art about TG and it's characters, usually attaching some cryptic message or a poem that makes the fandom scratch it's head. So because we have these things outisde of the manga, I wonder if it makes TG some sort cross-media experience/series? Like you don't need these clues to enjoy the series, butt they make it even more fun.


Ishida straight-up used Tsukiyama to encourage people to look into the books and references mentioned in TG. And he’s right– knowing a little more about scenes and situations from the author’s standpoint (the tarots, literature and mythology references, etc) really helps you understand what’s happening on a deeper intellectual/emotional level and thus makes it more evocative :’)