Reasons why I think the leaked version of Sherlock is fake:
-They spent twice as much time filming it as any of the other episodes
-They did the press screening 3 days before it showed and didn’t make the participants sign NDA’s. For the FINALE. Which is insane, especially considering for the last episode they only showed it a few hours before, made everyone sign NDA’s and cut out the last scene so there was very little chance of spoilers.
-They’ve been basically advertising the leak, for example tagging it and telling everyone to not watch it which is reverse Psychology. They know how the internet works, they arent idiots.
-The length of the episode for the press screening and the one on tv are different
-The strapline “it’s not a game anymore” is from an 80’s film called Clue in which three different versions of the film were given to show at different cinemas so all the endings were different.
-The episode was leaked in HQ, like COME ON. Even if you want to the screening how tf would you get ahold of that?
-Amanda said that if they pulled this off (whatever “this” is) it would be amazing and a landmark in tv history, from what I’ve seen the episode released is not that and Moffat and Gatiss are hecking great writers so I highly doubt the episode is actually bad.
-Moffat and Gatiss are sneaky shits
Internet descriptions of Scorpio are malicious, or else raunchy and uncontrollable. Scorpio is hinged and described with an air of mystery, desire, and an outrageously potent passion. We relate Scorpio to the 8th house and Pluto. We relate Scorpio to intimacy, sex, passion, shared things, psychology, and obsession.
Internet descriptions of Taurus are dry. Taurus plagued with the stereotypes of stubbornness and gluttony. We describe Taurus as a loyal, hardworking person who likes nice things. Taurus is related to the second house and Venus. The bull is akin to finances, personal belongings, self worth, valued belongings, and generalized sensuality.
The bull and the scorpion unite on opposite poles of a single wavelength. The wavelength follows that of Aries and Libra, which rightly rules the self and the others. (Others being people with whom the self interacts, be it briefly or in a strong relationship.) Following awareness of self, of the existence of a single self that is controlled by that same self, is acknowledgement of personal possession, capability, and power. Following the presence of others, in relation to the self, comes shared relationships. This shared closeness can be expanded to depth of relationship, or as we better know it: intimacy.
Thus it can be presumed that one pole holding possession, capability, and power must relate to the opposite pole. It is not the qualities that change in two connected points, but the expression of each.
As previously mentioned, Taurus follows Aries and accordingly relates to the self. Taurus governs my things, my pleasures, my earnings, my power, my work, my ability, my body, my self.
Scorpio, then, following Libra, relates to the relationship. This should not be pigeon-holed into romantic unions, but those relationships that are riddled with depth, dependency, and intimacy. Scorpio governs our things, our pleasures, our trust, our power, our accomplishments, our union, our relationship.
So it is not sex or murder that drives the Scorpio, but intimacy and, consequentially, betrayal. Breaking apart an intimate relationship- be it romantic, platonic, or familial- is destructive to the very identity and well-being of the Scorpio archetype. Depending on the planet placed in Scorpio, and generally the eighth house, Scorpio themes can be examined and interpreted with better clarity and finesse.
And Taurus, our hungry bull, displays individual accomplishments and working for reward. The concept is basic, and it is the Taurus archetype that allows us to value our individual selves. The identity of the Taurus is formulated around their decision-making, their value systems, and their belongings. Disregarding the work, autonomy, and earnings of Taurean placements, and generally the 2nd house, is equally as destructive as breaking intimacy with Scorpion placements.
The difference comes from vindication, which is more prevalent in the Scorpio towards a single individual, where as the Taurus immediately writes off those who challenge their prowess. A boring Taurus is a Taurus uninterested in letting you into their life. An angry Scorpio is a Scorpio that has been broken and used from the inside-out.
what do you think about bellarke's codependency? it's a criticism i've seen floating around reddit and i haven't fully articulated my opinion on that yet.
Okay. Let’s do it.
Because this is a phenomenon that I’ve seen the entire time I’ve been in fandom. It’s probably not limited to The 100 fandom, but it sure does mess everyone up here.
So. This is the thing.
This is why they’re wrong.
Because they don’t understand the word “codependency.” It’s not two people who depend upon each other. It’s not mutual support. It’s not partnership. That’s called “interdependence.” Relationship. Reciprocity.
Just google it or go to wikipedia for a basic, starting understanding of the concept.
This does not fit. They’re trying to save humanity here. Do you mind removing your shipwar offenses, bad interpretations and psychobabble from the fandom?
Among the core characteristics of codependency, the most common theme is an excessive reliance on other people for approval and a sense of identity. [wikipedia]
They spent quite a bit of time making sure that Clarke and Bellamy would go on their personal journeys independently so that people would recognize that they are independent in their identities and were making their decisions on their own. Pay attention.
In its broadest definition, a codependent is someone who cannot function from their innate self and whose thinking and behavior is instead organized around another person, or even a process, or substance.[wikipedia]
Bellamy and Clarke help stabilize each other, help them make peace with the hard decisions they need to make. AND THESE ARE HARD DECISIONS. But they are not defining them. They are not dependent upon each other to exist within themselves.
All you need to do is just the slightest little bit of research into what a technical term means, for people to stop using it to mean the OPPOSITE of what is being shown.
Neither of them are enabling negative behaviors. They are supporting each other so that they can be strong enough to do the impossible.
Honestly, people get mad at me when I tell them they are wrong about things. But these are things that a simple wikipedia search would clarify. You don’t even need to go into any psychology sites. Just wikipedia. HECK, Just a dictionary would do it. So if y’all want me to not call people stupid. Y’all need to look UP THE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS YOU’RE USING BECAUSE YOU ARE USING THEM WRONG. It absolutely possible for people, even people with a lot of followers, to be wrong.
wikipedia. you don’t even have to be a scholar. just wikipedia so you’re not talking out of your ass.
how often are you put off by things you don't see simply as the perspective of Westeros, but of GRRM himself?
I’m not put off by this as long as it doesn’t screw with individual character consistency. ASOIAF is set in a medieval-ish world, but it’s deeply informed by ideas and experiences from many different eras, including the present day in which George R.R. Martin and his audience lives. This is perfectly appropriate if you’re interested in not only presenting a world, but interrogating it and the genre at large. @racefortheironthrone pretty much nailed it:
And this is where I think there’s an interesting political edge to GRRM’s writing. To speak frankly for a minute, Chett is an Men’s Rights Activist, he’s a Gamergater, he’s a Sad Puppy. He’s got the exact same psychological hangups and compulsions, predicted a decade or more before the internet gave his ilk anonymity and the ability to group up without having to socially interact in real life. So for all those people who read ASOIAF, this is what GRRM thinks of you.
I’ve been visualizing most personality traits this way since Psych 101 a million years ago, but I often see sexuality and gender talked about as if they had on/off switches. In truth, it’s OK to be a combination of elements in differing amounts. It’s OK to fit neatly in some categories but not others.
A whole bunch of psychologists are trying to systematically figure out how the rules of socializing work differently online. It’s almost as if the Internet is a different planet, where gravity pulls on us in a different way.
For as long as large blocks of text have existed, your eyeballs have been trained to suck in the information by quickly hopping horizontally from one word to the next, then zipping back to the start of the next line, on and on steadily down the page, until you get bored or decide you’ve pretty much gotten the gist. But this was back in the days when you were reading a single book or a newspaper and your only choice was to either steadily plow through it, or stare quietly at the wall. Today, your brain is a battered refugee huddled in the middle of a howling typhoon of web content. You can’t hope to read it all, or even skim it. So, your eyes have adapted. NNG refers to it as the F-Shaped Pattern, while Mediative calls it the Golden Triangle, but what they both boil down to is that when screen reading (i.e., reading on Internet-connected computer screens, smartphones, e-book readers, etc.), our eyes make a triangle or F-shape down the page. … The effect was first discovered back in 2005, which has given savvy Internet marketers ample time to capitalize on the decaying orbit of our reading patterns by making sure premium content is displayed within the Golden Triangle, which is beginning to sound less like a scientific phenomenon and more like the tarp shielding the space of carpet between R. Kelly’s bed and DVD player.
Your digital avatar gives away more hints about your personality than you might think, according to a study published Friday in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. And that’s true even if you craft your avatar to look completely different than you.
“Despite avatars being whatever an individual wants them to be … that person’s personality can come through and be communicated accurately to others,” Katrina Fong, a Ph.D. student in psychology at York University and lead author of the study, tells Shots. “Who we are in real life does to some extent drive our choices in deciding how to represent ourselves online.”
A psychological/sociological semantic analysis of typical alt-right Internet jargon.
Until literally just now, it never struck me how much the psychology of 4channers, redpillers, etc. is revealed by their parlance alone. Perhaps most telling is their most common pejoratives, which seem to almost exclusively consist of either emasculating remarks or one of a million ways to call someone gay.
The growing zeitgeist around ‘cuck’ is of particular fascination to me here. ‘Cuck’ is as immediately funny-sounding as it is semantically dense with every kind of masculine insecurity: implications of sexual impotence (having to watch a sex act instead of performing it); the basest kind of emasculation (the outsider involved in cuckoldry is often supposed to be more virile); and even a hint of sexual deviance (alt-right types are always going on about moral degeneracy). The entire way of speaking one finds in these male-dominated spaces betrays an obsession with asserting one’s own masculinity and heterosexuality. The (cis)male ego is so fucking fragile that their entire dialect revolves around it.
Maybe all I’ve done here is state the obvious and then over-analyze the obvious. Still, though, the cognitive scientist in me says that the forms and content of our language have a profound impact on our thoughts and our deeper beliefs. Or, as Wittgenstein so succinctly put it, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” There’s surely some interesting research and writing to be done on this subject!
On the internet, evidence doesn’t always matter — and now there’s evidence for that. A study published this week shows that men on the internet find it difficult to believe that sexism is a problem in scientific fields, even when its existence is demonstrated in studies.
“22 percent of the comments justified sexism in scientific fields”
To reach this conclusion, researchers looked at how internet commenters reacted to news of studies describing gender-based harassment and discrimination against women in science, reports The Washington Post. Their investigation, published in Psychology of Women Quarterly, helped confirm what most women on the internet already know: male commenters don’t like to confront their male privilege. For some men it’s easier to either deny its existence, claim that sexism is actually directed toward men, or justify sexism with biological explanations.