lack of critical thinking skills

anonymous asked:

Hey man I was just wondering what your take was on the whole controversy around the age difference in Call Me By Your Name and people deeming it as pedophilia because it portrays an adult man pursuing a minor? I know you loved the film so am interested to hear your opinion on the topic.

I didn’t answer this question when I first received it at least two months ago because it’s a complicated issue and it demands that I go into things I wouldn’t normally go into. That said, since this movie means a lot to me and it’s going to be a big part of movie culture for the next year or so, I want to take a stab at answering this.

First of all, I think personal experience dictates a person’s perspective on anything, especially art. That means that if for any reason Call Me by Your Name is triggering or makes you uncomfortable based on your own experiences or feelings, you should do whatever you need to do to stay away from it. I do not believe that gives you the right to say that those that do support the film are supporting pedophilia or glamorizing rape. 

That said, I’m seeing a lot of moral absolutism when it comes to the discourse around this issue. It’s an innate human desire for every issue to have a clear “right” and “wrong” but that’s just not the way of the world. Personally, I’m not keen on people who aren’t able to admit to or identify when subjects are more complicated than a simple dichotomous answer. This is especially frustrating for me given the subject matter. Would it suddenly be OK if Elio’s character were 18, instead of 17? Because “that’s what the law says”? If we follow that train of thought, we fall very quickly down the rabbit hole that depends on laws dictating what is and is not “right” - I think we can all easily admit that the laws are a poor judge of this. 

Even more than that, I think that calling the relationship depicted in the story “predatory” shows an astounding lack of critical thinking and analytical skills. It’s that straight-forward. It’s like when you’re in high school and you have to write a paper about the book you were reading for class. Say the thesis of this paper is, “Oliver is predatory character” - ok, sure, show me the evidence! But guess what? It’s not there. I’ve read the book twice now and there’s not enough textual evidence to support that claim. 

To arrive at the conclusion that Call Me by Your Name depicts pedophilia means that you would first have to strip away all the necessary context within the film that defines the relationship itself. 

As someone who has experienced first hand what it’s like to be groomed by a pedophile and then be abused for more than a year, it’s offensive to me that people are lodging this claim against the movie. This is a movie that celebrates what it’s like to be in love. I’m not asking you to agree with me or share that experience with me. I’m not even asking you to change your opinion on the film because that’s your right just as much as it is mine. That’s simply how I feel about it. 

Context is everything. Moral absolutism is dangerous. 

anonymous asked:

I'm straight and I don't see what's so bad about that. I understand other people of different sexualities have gone through so much more oppression than I have, but that doesn't mean I don't deserve happiness or kindness as well. I completely support the LGBT community. I'm in no way homophobic but being straight shouldn't be frowned upon. We're all equal. No gender, sex or sexuality is better than the others.

what you lack in critical thinking skills you make up for in allyship, apparently

@doublehex replied to your post “Actual footage of aegony stans popping a bottle of champagne…”

You make it seem as if only J0nerys shippers bought into it. BryndenBFish thought it was a legit interview at first, and he was someone that has poured over most of GRRM’s interviews. The way the interviewer wrote his responses were very cleaver. And it was written by no means a Jonsa shipper, because the Jonsa answer was just one small part about it. Get off your high horse and take a chill pill.

How about you get off my post and take a red pill that takes you back to reality? 

I do not make it seem like only J0nerys shippers bought into it. I specifically made fun of the specific group of people (mostly J0nerys shippers) who used this interview as “prove” to debunk Jonsa and celebrated the “death of the delusional crackship” before getting all their facts straight. Yes, while the Jonsa passage was only a small part of the interview, I made fun of the people who only cared about this “small part” and made a big deal about it. Weak reading comprehension, much? Would explain a lot of things. 

As a lot of other people, I didn’t dismiss the interview right away either, that would be just as biased as buying into it without any further questions. I thought maybe the “interviewer” had some personal connection to GRRM and he did them a solid by talking with them. I read the entire thing, while considering the problems that arise with automated translation and compared his statements with some he’s made before. I actually took my time to apply some critical thinking skills before forming a final opinion. The post was not directed at people like BryndenBFish (btw, what’s with the appeal to authority? People can’t think for themselves unless someone with supposed “higher credentials” gives them the green light to do so?) who did the same thing, who wasn’t sure about it’s legitimacy, but actually looked into it before drawing any final conclusions, but at the gullible, biased idiots who never learned to not believe everything they read on the internet. So what is your point exactly? 

Btw, I retain the right to make fun of the people who didn’t even bother to look into it before making hateful, condescending, snarky posts because there were so many things that should make everyone capable of critical thinking at least a bit sceptical: 

  • An exclusive interview with a high-caliber author is published on some random, unknown blog? 
  • Why didn’t a “professional journalist” sell that thing to some news media, actually making some profit with their supposed profession?
  • Why wouldn’t the author at least take one picture with grrm?  
  • One tiny little google session would’ve showed that this “interview” wasn’t picked up by any verified news outlet. 
  • Neither, nor the asoiaf wikia picked it up either. They’re usually pretty fast with that. Most interviews show up a few hours after they were published. Maybe because the administrators have connection to grrm and his pr-team themselves and are aware of any upcoming interviews? 
  • The interview has no links to grrm’s blog, twitter, his official website and their was no mention of that interview on all these outlets either. 
  • The interview was ill-formatted and the blog itself looks rather shitty. Not a sign of professionalism. 
  • Why would GRRM agree to making interview that was only going to be published in Spanish? Why would GRRM agree to making an interview with such a low-profile outlet at all? 

Those were at least a couple of things that seemed fishy about the circumstances of the “release”. If that wasn’t enough to at least raise one of your eyebrows, there are couple of things about the content that an attentive reader could/should have noticed:

  • George is praising D&D? After politely redirecting any questions about them with neutral answers? After throwing some epic shade at them not two months ago? (Like, he has no time to watch “his own show”, but fangirls about another? Sick burn, george.)
  • GRRM has never outright denied any fantheories. Here he takes strong stances about Azor Ahai and Jon’s endgame romantic partner. This isn’t about me being a pressed shipper, it simply isn’t in line with his previous reactions to questions like this. Do you remember the dubious, unambiguous way he talked about S@nsan in the past? He didn’t confirm it, he didn’t completely deny it. He 
  • While we’re at the topic of the jonsa-passage, he contradicts himself numerous times here alone, for example: Well, in my books Jon Snow is dead … but to find out about his possible relationship with Dany you have to keep reading. Any romantic relationship is very unlikely, because they only share a siblingy bond … but Jon and Sansa don’t even have that. Like, what? Sounds awfully like a rehash of your usual anti-jonsa arguments, don’t you think? The creator of the whole series has no more to say than your average redditor? 
  • Btw, Grrm honestly reacting to a question involving his original outline? When has that ever happened?  
  • I remembered that Medusa interview, I don’t remember any news about it being fake. But in this interview it’s presented as fact and common knowledge?  
  • GRRM answers a question about Arya by talking about how she isn’t like Sansa? Sounds less like him and more like your typical reddit douchebag. 
  • Btw, he talks about revenge and it’s downfalls, but doesn’t bring up Lady Stoneheart? A character about whose non-inclusion in the show bugs him so much, he talks about her significance to the narrative every chance he gets? 
  • At one point he emphasized that Jon is dead in the books, but later doesn’t correct the “interviewer” when she calls Jon a king? How is Jon a king in the books, btw? Or would GRRM really confirm in an interview that Jon will become KITN in the books too? Seems like an obvious mix up of book and show canon to me. 
  • Another instance of this is him taking Cersei as an example that women can rule in Westeros, when talking about Asha. In the books, Cersei does not rule in her own right, she rules through her son. This is no correct comparison to Asha becoming queen of the Iron Islands, at least not for current book-canon. And Goerge doesn’t discuss show canon. 
  • Just in general, many, many answers don’t hold up to the usual intellectual level displayed in his interviews.  
  • He says Jon Snow isn’t a hero, that every question about right and wrong depends on which side you are own, - which sounds a lot like him - but “regarding Dany, deserving something because you’re a good person doesn’t mean you will obtain it?” Biased, much? 
  • GRRM confirms a couple of characters as bisexual, some very surprising candidates included, but doesn’t mention those who have relationships with both men and women in canon like Ellia, or even Jon ?
  • George names a rather specific release date for Winds of Winter? 

Those are only a few things I remember. If I went through this glorious clusterfuck one more time, I’m sure to find more. There are so many things in this “interview” that stick out, but in the name of fairness, let’s look at some of the things that seemed convincing:

  • Some passages successfully copied Grrm’s way of speaking. 
  • Some statements were in line with grrm’s usual style of answering spoilery questions. (You have to keep reading, the show is the show and the books are  the books etc)
  • No one could be batshit crazy enough to seriously fake an interview with GRRM. 

Sry, if all these red flags didn’t lead you to even do a bit of investigating, if instead, your first reaction was to make petty posts about “jonsa being dead” and “grrm killing jonsa” you deserve to be made fun of. Should I give you a pat on the back for focusing solely on the few things that seemed legit, while completely dismissing everything that pointed to the opposite?

Sry not sry, but after being called “delusional” for shipping Jonsa, despite bringing up a bunch of compelling arguments, while your strongest argument against it is screaming DELUSIONAL!!!,  after being told “to seek professional help” thousands of time, I have absolutely no problem with pointing out the mass delusion that these assholes suffered from the last day. Payback’s a bitch. I actually made another post about why this whole surreal situation is so endlessly funny to me, and it has nothing to with people “who AT FIRST thought this as a legit interview”, before taking a closer look and realizing that it’s most likely forgery (like your weak argumentative shield BryndenBFish did). 

It’s because of the sheer hypocrisy and the delicious irony: 

J*nerys-stans and co were so desperate to discredit us “delusional crackshippers” that they took some random interview on some random blog with  zero credentials, something that seemed fishy to anyone who took 5 minutes to clearly think about it, but instead they just swallowed it like a bowl of dramatic rice, because they were so excited about proving that other people are “delusional” and I just can’t. This morning there were dozens of posts celebrating that the “delusional jonsa stans will finally shut up about their delusional crack ship” and now they’re the ones whining about being called delusional and how unfair and inappropriate that is and, fuck, payback’s a bitch. Like, you gotta appreciate the fucking irony of the situation.

Never forget the blessed Halloween of 2k17 when antis got a taste of their own medicine. The dramatic rice remember.

Now pop in the blue pill and go back to the matrix where jonsa-shippers are the “delusional” ones, who only see what they want to see”. That’s the only place where you people can still pretend that jonsa-shippers are the ones who lack critical thinking skills. I’ll be enjoying the view from my high horse, thank you. 

Actual footage of you, thinking you can get one over me with that weak ass comment.

anonymous asked:

Is there anything that bothers you about anti posts?

I aim not to read them, so as a general rule, no - there’s not much.

Of the ones posted in the general tags, I suppose it’s the lack of critical thinking that surprises me the most.  I don’t have a problem with people disliking Snape, but I suppose I find it a little disappointing when people appear to blindly accept things on face value, or don’t attempt to factor in any context.

For instance, we discussed the firework scene in CoS the other day, and that’s a great canon example where the reader is given context for Harry’s behaviour whilst the characters are not.  Harry throws a firework into Goyle’s cauldron, temporarily disfiguring some of the kids in the class.  His actions are explicitly explained and justified within the text: he doesn’t intend to hurt others - his aim is to cause a distraction, enabling Hermione to steal from Snape’s stores.  

The reader knows that Harry’s ultimate goal was altruistic - to save the school - but Goyle, and the other kids, and Snape have absolutely no way of discovering this; they can’t see Harry as a kid trying to save the school because they aren’t privy to the pieces of information which would help them to draw that conclusion.

Furthermore, Harry’s actions don’t occur in isolation.  He doesn’t hop, skip and jump away from the consequences, even if he appears to escape any punishment.  I think it’s fair that Goyle might’ve retaliated the next time he saw a Gryffindor.  I think it’s fair that Harry’s actions added fuel to the Gryffindor vs Slytherin animosity.  I think it’s probably also fair to say that Snape appraised the situation, and decided that his previous conclusions were correct; that Harry was just like James - an arrogant and nasty bully…and therefore, Snape escalated his hatred of Harry.

Stepping away from Harry, when it comes to reading Snape, I think it’s much more interesting if you apply similar rules to him.  Canon provides Harry’s internal logic, whereas the reader is rarely privy to Snape’s.  Consequently, you have to fill in the gaps - you have to mull on his actions, and both the immediate context and wider context for his behaviour.  You have to think about the things that he would credibly know, and the things he might not know - and then you have to decide why you think he behaved in the way he did.

So it’s not that I have a problem with people disliking Snape, but I suppose I find it an incredibly boring critique of his character when people merely say, “I don’t like Snape because he was mean to Harry / Neville / Hermione.”  It’s not that it’s not true - because yes, at times, he was mean to them…but that it’s not the only truth, and presenting it as such is a demonstration of a very shallow reading.  

I suppose I have rather higher expectations for people participating in a twenty year old fandom.  Perhaps that is unfair of me.  After all, I am beyond certain that the majority of the arguments we’re making have all been made countless times before…  It’s just, if your argument is something so cursory that a seven year old could’ve concluded on their first read, then it’s probably not particularly insightful - and you’d probably benefit from looking at the text a little more deeply.

And the real reason that bothers me?  Well, it’s got nothing to do with Snape, or Harry Potter…it’s because I fear that some people lack those critical thinking skills when it comes to appraising other media in their life.  It’s not remotely important when it’s Potter, but when it’s a news article that you’re failing to sufficiently interrogate and are happy to blindly accept on face value, it is rather more serious.

anonymous asked:

I'm a different anon to the previous and I'm actually really interested to hear your thoughts on Pansy and Draco now. I would love it if you could write some meta on it? <3 your work and blog, just fyi.

Prefect!Pansy and Prefect!Draco - it’s an interesting question, right? Thanks for being lovely about it, anon!! Here’s why I think Pansy and Draco were the right choices.

As with Ron, we have to consider the options, and consider them in the context of the war. Dumbledore would have needed prefects who were as tactically advantageous as possible, but in the context of Slytherin house, and given the choices he had there, he would’ve needed to use slightly different criteria than he would for Gryffindor. He wouldn’t have been able to think so much in terms as making the Order stronger, as in terms of making sure that the Death Eaters didn’t gain strength or attack Hogwarts.

Unlike with Ron I don’t think we can make an argument that at 15 either Pansy or Draco were especially upstanding or full of leadership potential (nor do I think that Dumbledore would have made those arguments) so it comes down much more to a question of damage control.

First, the girls:

  • Millicent Bulstrode had shown that she was inclined towards brute force (as when she broke the rules at Duelling Club to put Hermione in a headlock, which in a magical context would suggest that she’s both violent and unpredictable). We also see signs that she’s neither liked nor respected by her peers, and JK Rowling has suggested that she’s a half-blood, which would’ve had the potential to put her in the position of having to prove herself to the Death Eaters. It’s unlikely that she would have been able to do much as a prefect in terms of keeping order or lightening the adults’ load, and hard to know how much damage she would have done. You don’t want to give authority to someone violent, unpredictable, and with something to prove to your enemies.
  • Daphne Greengrass and Tracy Davis are question marks tbh which probably puts them in the same category as Dean for the Gryffindors, wherein they could have been fine but, as far as we know, were not particularly advantageous (and if they were going to be particularly important to the war in some way that would make them advantageous or dangerous, we would know more about them)
  • Pansy Parkinson has some of the same liabilities as Millicent Bulstrode, but more advantages.
    • She’s already the leader of the pack so is going to be taken most seriously by her peers, and she’s going to have an interest in maintaining her status, so she’s most likely to lighten teachers’ loads (thereby giving them more time to devote to the war effort) by dealing with things independently and exercising judgment about what really really needs adult attention.
    • She’s not physically or magically violent. Mean, yes, and laughs and encourages it when other people do bad things, but she doesn’t instigate violence, which limits the amount and type of violence she’s going to cause with her authority as a prefect.
    • The Golden Trio probably could have taken her. Push comes to shove, she wasn’t going to be able to get in their way.
    • Pansy is clearly motivated but not clearly principled. This would be a liability in an ally, but is an asset in an enemy. She doesn’t give any sign of having actually bought into the idea of blood purity, it’s more that she’s interested in her own influence, power, and comfort. Even when she wants to turn Harry over, it’s more about an easy solution than an ideological crusade.
    • All of this would have made her easy for Dumbledore to manipulate if he’d needed to. She wasn’t ideologically motivated enough to go on a recruiting spree, and she was predictable in her responsiveness to promises of status, safety, luxury, and comfort -  which, by making her a Prefect, Dumbledore was demonstrating that he could make and keep.

Then the boys:

  • Vincent Crabbe is everything Dumbledore wouldn’t want in a prefect. Violent, loyal and closely tied to the Death Eater cause, lacking the independence or critical thinking skills to question Death Eater ideology or to negotiate/finesse orders to mitigate damaging shows of force, lacking the foresight to consider even the possibility of losing and to hedge his bets accordingly (/act less poorly/respond to incentives from Dumbledore), willing to recruit, and willing to recruit through coercion and threats. He would’ve been a disaster.
  • Greg Goyle is in the same position as Crabbe, basically.
  • Theodore Nott might have been an interesting choice, because he’s smart and because he’s not a joiner/part of Draco’s gang, but he is the son of a Death Eater and we don’t see signs that he wasn’t on board with that, plus his loner status probably made him harder to manipulate. Also, tbh, making him Prefect likely would have incurred the wrath of Lucius Malfoy, which Dumbledore needed not to do - more about that below.
  • Blaise Zabini could have been another interesting choice, but with the same issues as Theodore Nott - not clearly manipulable, not as clearly influential, and not a problem to not pick him.
  • Draco Malfoy was basically the only possibility because of his father, and outside of that he’s a compromise choice in a lot of (understandable) ways.
    • If Draco hadn’t been made a Prefect Lucius would have thrown a fit and retaliated. We know that Lucius is on the Board of Governors and was able to arrange to have Dumbledore expelled from the school in Chamber of Secrets. That wasn’t a risk Dumbledore could take.
    • If Draco hadn’t been made a Prefect Lucius would have been genuinely angry and might have lashed out. Following Fourth Year, when Dumbledore had to make the decision, Lucius and the Death Eaters were ascendant and Lucius still felt he had, and did have, the power to direct their attention. Giving him a reason to be angry, and to direct that anger at Hogwarts (which he’d already shown he would do - children were definitely not off limits, as with the whole Chamber of Secrets/basilisk situation), was unwise. Not that Dumbledore couldn’t have taken him, but that it could have caused collateral damage that would have made people panic, disrupted the social order, had kids pulled out of Hogwarts (where especially the half-bloods and Muggle-borns would be even more vulnerable), and depleted the Orders resources and attention.
    • Like Pansy, his social status means that he has an interest in maintaining his authority by dealing with things himself instead of calling in the adults unless it’s really necessary
    • Having Draco as a Prefect gave Dumbledore and other adults in charge a legitimate reason to keep an eye on him and interact with him. If they’d succeeded in bringing him over that would have been a good cover for convincing him and arranging meetings, and if, as happened, he was going to becoming a Death Eater that meant that they were going to be more able to get to know how he worked and to monitor his behavior.
    • Being a Prefect would keep Draco busy - it filled his time, kept him out of the common room, kept him on patrol and therefore meant that he was often being patrolled by both the other Prefects and teachers.
    • Draco talked a big game but, like his father, was largely interested in power. Being the one to give Draco power meant both that Dumbledore could see how he was going to behave once he had it (which could be useful for any number of reasons to do with understanding and changing how the war might unfold) and that Draco would have a little bit of an incentive not to go against Dumbledore too openly or to associate working with Dumbledore with getting what he wanted. At least, it would have made Draco understand that his father wasn’t the one and only power broker in town. 

tl;dr: Neither Pansy nor Draco was a perfect choice, but they were the best ones available as far as we can see. Neither of them is a hard-line advocate of blood purity, neither of them is gratuitously violent, both are predictable and can be manipulated, both of them would have done the basic job without needing a lot of energy/time from the adults, both have enough social power that it would have been advantageous for Dumbledore to get a sense for how they worked and to give them reasons to understand what he could offer them, and both of them were worth keeping a close eye on. And, with Draco, picking him was probably very tactically necessary.

The complete lack of critical thinking skills I see so many adults exhibiting is worrying. It’s like they can’t disagree and come up with a well thought-out rebuttal, everything turns into an ad hominem attack where the only goal is to embarrass the other person. It like they can’t hold two opposing thoughts or see things from any other angle.

i really honestly have come to the conclusion that hard right conservatives are legit just have a total absence of critical thinking skills combined with a complete lack of empathy

Rational people: “Those who wish to eradicate people based on the colour of their skin, sexuality etc. should not exist. Those who have historically attempted to eradicate entire groups of people based on these factors should not exist. Further, if they proudly proclaim these views near me, I will openly mock them or punch them so they know their views aren’t tolerated.”

Some of y’all: “My critical thinking skills (or lack thereof) lead me to the conclusion that this means you are no better than Nazis. Wanting people dead for their historical genocidal crimes and beliefs, so that we can live in a society free from those views, makes you no better than people who hold those views. I am very smart and have the deductive abilities of Sherlock Holmes.”

anonymous asked:

A fucking smear campaign is happening and people who can't see it are totally and literally blind. There is a fucking video showing he was helping eleanor, he was scared and alone, but he was helping eleanor. It's unbelievable.

it is unbelievable and i continue to be concerned about the lack of critical thinking skills of a huge portion of this fandom

A guy who I haven’t talked to in two months (despite seeing him every day) at work came up to me today out of nowhere.

  • Him: “Hey. what do you think about the NFL?”
  • Me: “I don’t watch sports.”
  • Him: “Okay, but they’re kneeling during the national anthem. You’re a veteran, doesn’t that piss you off?”
  • Me: “No, why would I fucking care? They’re expressing themselves freely. That’s kinda the point of serving in the military, to preserve and defend the freedoms we were given regardless of content. I don’t stress about that stuff.”
  • Him: “You have a voice though.”
  • Me: “Yeah I do, so why would I waste it on them?”
  • Him: “Alright but veterans died for that. There was an Army ranger on the stage and…”
  • Me: “And I guarantee you he and the friends I’ve lost will tell you the same thing I am. Those guys never lived in our world and know nothing of the privileges and freedom they are afforded. They’ve never had it taken away, they’re just ignorant and disconnected from reality. The fact that they can do the things they do freely instead of being put in a shallow ditch or jail is what tells me we did our job.”
  • Him, visibly distressed now: “Yeah, buts it’s disrespectful to those who fought!”
  • Me: “I never asked for nor wanted their respect. They know nothing of me or what I’ve done, so what would it even mean to me? At least they have the balls to take a stand for something they believe is right, even if it’s the wrong fight during the wrong time at the wrong place. It’s more honest than going around blowing hot air up your own ass by thanking complete strangers for a job theydid to fulfill your quota for nice things you did today. I don’t have to agree with their stance or logic, but that doesn’t make it a crime that needs to be punished.”
  • Him, completely dumb look on his face: “You’re really that mellow?”
  • Me: “I’m cool like the underside of a pillow. Why bother getting worked up about a non issue?”

Guy actually thought I was going to give some one sided incensed insight and reinforcement to his lack of self awareness and critical thinking skills.

TL/DR: Football is gay and most of the people that watch it are dumb as shit.

you are just brainwashed where do you get your talking points from?? you just aren’t smart enough or you’d agree with me

so like my brother is 11 years old and my parents and relatives call him handsome a lot bc he has good face structure and whatever and theres nothing wrong with that bc it’s, you know, an innocent compliment, of course they dont mean it in a sexual way, they’re just saying that the kid is cute

in the same regard theres nothing wrong with saying that like millie bobby brown is pretty or finn wolfhard is handsome because it’s a completely innocent thing to say, there’s literally no sexual intent there, people say it to their kids or nieces or nephews all the time, they’re cute kids, etc like nobody is saying you cant compliment them

but there IS a MASSIVE different between saying something like that and then saying something like “WOW can’t wait til these kids are 18 unf daddy”…. like one is an innocent, almost parental compliment with literally 0 sexual nature and the other is blatant sexualization and harrassment. it’s kind of similar logic to catcalling, there’s an obvious difference between offhand telling a stranger “oh i love your outfit!” and then yelling at them abt how their pants make their ass look.

basically if you try to justify sexualizing these kids by saying “its just a compliment” then you clearly lack any sort of critical thinking skills or contextual awareness and probably shouldnt be allowed near children and thats the tea for today

anonymous asked:

Never trust a man whose response to a woman's reports of abuse is "why didn't you leave him sooner if it was so bad?0


When I was a child, I never understood why my mother wouldn’t leave her abuser. But I was a child. As I grew up I realised its not easy. Sometimes finances are tied up into everything, sometimes people are reliant on their abuser and there is no way to be untangled from that. It can be a long, difficult and scary process to leave.

I’m proud of the woman for leaving her abuser and I hope she is doing better now, anon. Keep safe, and stay away from gross men with little understanding and a lack critical thinking skills.

it’s so annoying that any critique of laura is swatted away w “so why do you hate well-written female characters, huh???????”

like, shut up. you can acknowledge how amazingly real and well-written her character is and still realize that she’s really shitty?? they aren’t mutually exclusive things.

you can be depressed af and still be an abusive and disgusting person. mental illness doesn’t give you a pass to be an absolute piece of shit. so idk why the “OMG ITS BC SHES FUCKIG DEPRESSED!!!! NEUROTYPICALS ARE SO ANNOYING” defense is still getting play bc it’s childish and absolves her of any wrongdoing. it’s kind of gross that you guys think that mental illness allows someone to be as abusive as they want without reproach…. that…. is not okay. mental illness isn’t an excuse.

so yes i relate to laura feeling empty and alone and i love how realistically her struggle with depression was written. i appreciated that. i loved that. it made me feel really validated and it was a nice change of pace from seeing it depicted romantically in other shows.

but stop attacking ppl and invalidating them bc you want them to love your trash fave. she’s not supposed to be a likable character. is it wrong for you to understand her? to empathize w her? no! like i said, she’s a well-written character with real, human flaws and hopes and dreams and goals. relating to her doesn’t make you a bad person. no one is saying that. tbh, laura is the character i relate to the most so far.

but don’t go thru the tag trying to JUSTIFY her actions and shooting down any real critique of her character w “djfjdjd i guess y'all just don’t want well-written female characters” like you lack critical thinking and reasoning skills. you can appreciate the character for all that they are and what it means for representation in books/media while also realizing that in the context of the book/show/movie they are a horrible person and probably shouldn’t be put on a pedestal? like, honestly, why do you want ppl to unabashedly love your abusive, selfish fave so much? some of y'all need to do a teeny bit of soul-searching. that shit is uncomfy.

anonymous asked:

Hey :) Can you elaborate when you say Harry's marketing campaign has been short sighted?

I will try my best!  Harry Edward Styles, son of Anne and Des is a 23 year old musician and actor.  Harry.StylesTM is a brand. A brand worth tens of millions of dollars. Nobody on knows Harry Edward Styles, we only know Harry.StylesTM the brand.  This distinction seems to get lost on many who know the importance of critical thinking skills but seem to lack them.  

A brand is a name, term, symbol or other feature than distinguishes it from its rivals.

Branding is a set of marketing and communication methods that help to distinguish a brand from its competitors, aiming to create a lasting impression. 

Harry.StylesTM was the adorably slow, quirky teen who was living the life traveling the word with his 4 best friends. Harry.StylesTM is now the mysterious elitist.

Sometime in 2014, in a very large conference room, a group of people decided to rebrand Harry.StylesTM.  Make no mistake everything we see is deliberate.

A brand personality is the way a brand makes you feel, it is the essence of a brand.  The logo, signature colors, the voice on social media all designed to give the brand it’s personality.  Today Harry.StylesTM is a elitist, musical icon who only has celebrity friends, only dates models, doesn’t know a One Direction and does not feel the need to engage with his fans.  So when people comment on not getting a thank you for supporting him, they are commenting that his brand chose to market him as someone that doesn’t appreciate his fans.

The one thing a brand can never do is disappoint you.  If you go to a new restaurant and not only have an awful experience but a disgusting meal, would you return?  Harry.StylesTM is being marketing as a music icon, legend in the making, soon to be an Academy nominated actor.  Then he appears on SNL. To be kind, let’s just say he did not live up to the hype.  He was portrayed as the next Adele, even mirroring her TV commercial.  Then the sales of SOTT fall very short of the expectations his own team set.  That is why I felt his marketing campaign seemed shortsighted.

I personally am not a fan of his current brand image.  It is like if my all time favorite restaurant decided to be Trumps #1 supporter and it renamed all it’s food items to pay homage to Trump.  I would no long go there, not because I no longer enjoyed the food but because our beliefs were no longer aligned.🌼

peachyrad  asked:

why do you think so many genderists and libs in general are sympathy vampires? any theories as to why it's now cool to hang with the ""more oppressed"" crowds?

-Liberalism largely emphasizes “individual freedoms”

-Narcs are inherently self-focused, and therefore Liberalism’s emphasis of individual freedom (as opposed to serving the greater good) appeals to them

-To a cluster B, “right to individual freedom” means “right to control others as I see fit in order to achieve or obtain whatever I please”

-Cluster Bs attempt to manipulate their perceived “right to individual freedom” in order to guilt others into subordination, seeing as they value their individual desires over the rights of others

-The most effective way to induce this guilt in others is to play on the weak morals of people with poor critical thinking skills and/or a lack of boundaries

-Creating a false “oppressed” identity allows cluster Bs to gain the sympathy required to play on the weak morals of others

-The most effective way for a “privileged” person to create a false “oppressed” identity is to co-opt the suffering of a genuinely oppressed group 

-Attempting to opt-in to an oppressed group requires you to lie about reality, which Cluster Bs have no qualms about doing

-You see this with liberal feminism’s rampant female appropriation, lesbian appropriation, gay male appropriation (in the case of fujoshis), racefaking, self-diagnosis of mental disorders, etc

One way cluster Bs distort reality to elicit sympathy is by claiming to have “made a suicide attempt” after merely threatening suicide or committing a non-injurious gesture. 

These unsubstantiated self-reports of “suicide attempts” skew statistics and are used as a tool to induce further guilt in people with poor critical thinking skills and/or a lack of boundaries. 

Cluster Bs threaten suicide as a means of controlling others - i.e. “I’m so suicidal because of my nose :^( donate to my Paypal so I can get facial feminization surgery”. They use the inaccurate suicide stats (and the implicit threat of suicide) to garner pity which they manipulate for financial gain.

Why do I think so many genderists and libs in general are sympathy vampires? Because Liberalism attracts cluster Bs, and because genderism is a tool Cluster Bs use to manipulate others. 

Why is it now cool to hang with the “more oppressed” crowds? Because claiming to be oppressed is an effective way of eliciting sympathy in people with weak boundaries, making them vulnerable to manipulation.

Nobody would be donating to a genderist’s gofundme if they didn’t feel sorry for those charlatans. Genderists need sympathy to exist in others in order to leech off of others. That’s why they’re called “sympathy vampires”.

The worst part of the post is the “has interests outside of hockey” because so many nd people hyperfocus on a specific interest and are super insecure about it. Like the obvious and blatant sexism and self righteousness is gross. But that just. Like to say you don’t want to start discourse when saying that stuff you lack critical thinking skills and the rest of your post is void of legitimacy.

not gonna reblog from the source because they really dont deserve the attention but,,,,, Pidge’s intellect alone will never make up for the fact that she is 14 and her brain is not developed enough to make choices based on long term consequences. hunk, lance, and keith arent adults either, though slightly more mature than she is. 

pidge is 14 and she can create a false identity so detailed that it can fool a prestigious military-based boarding school, write programs that can interface with alien technology, and create a distress beacon out of space litter, but she didnt notice anything strange about allura’s behavior when allura was trying to get her to admit she was a girl. she was gonna hop into a pod (that she was able to install cloaking tech and explosives onto) and fly off into the infinitely vast universe, alone, with one (1) taser knife and one (1) laptop to find her father and brother without telling anyone else about her plan. 

she is extremely intelligent, but lacks a lot of critical thinking skills and rationale, which are extremely important when you want to walk in the minefield that is teen romance. combined with the high-stress environment shes in (space war) and the fact that shes never canonically expressed romantic interest in any of the other paladins (or any character, really) i think its inappropriate to put her in a relationship with any other paladin.

tl;dr pidge is young and immature and raw intellect doesnt make up for that

anonymous asked:

what in your opinion stops some people from believing in Harry not being straight? like, can you make a short list of reasons why they just seem to be blind or don't wanna see? love xx

There are only four reasons for straight people not considering that Harry is not straight: 

1. they’re not paying attention closely enough

2. they are paying attention but lack the critical thinking skills/cultural capitol to discern his behaviors from the official narrative. 

3. they want to fuck him

4. they’re homophobic. 

I know LGBTQ people who choose to believe he’s straight because it hurts them/upsets them too much to think about how coercive his closeting has been. That feels different to me and I respect it.