ive made this post before but i feel like ideally “peaking” should make you question more than just postmodern queer theory/gender ideology. the core of the issue was that you werent thinking for yourself. you let ppl on social media brainwash you with big words. you bowed down to peer pressure. simply moving on without trying to work on that tendency is not enough because then you might just end up running to others to tell you what to think. thats why so many ppl get anons like “can i be a radfem and paint my nails?” idk, what do YOU think? do you personally think its compatible with radical feminism, after YOU researched it for yourself? do you even want it to be compatible? do you NEED to be a radfem? do you need an ideology to follow? if yes, it shouldnt be tumblrinas deciding what that entails, it should be you based on your readings and experiences and coming to your own conclusions.
Ya know, in this day and age I’m extraglad to be going into a field that’s all about evidence-based decision making. Until now, I never really thought about my grad focus (business analytics / data science) in the context of current events, but now that I am, it seems fitting.
My first assignment in one of my classes is all about evaluating the quality/reliability of research — a skill I began to develop in high school but lost strength in over time. I’ve almost certainly been guilty of accidentally sharing misinformation via unfounded claims and weak research studies because social media makes it too darn easy to pass info along without a second thought. All this to say that I’m glad I’ll be more equipped to hold myself accountable for thinking critically about information before passing it along to others.
“save the children” is an alt-right dogwhistle and I really need y’all to accept that
Oh so the newest dog whistle we are to view is dangerous is… “Children should be protected”
…. Do yall just stop and think? Like what can justify yourself?
The idea behind protecting children is to protect society’s most vulnerable, what then motives you? Other than to out right say that children are not as vunerable as adults of certain demographics. Certain demographics that are just able and intelligent as any other. If thats the case then you truely haved warped your prespective and then have to ask yourself, is what I believe leading me to rational conclusions?
“Won’t somebody think of the children?” is a textbook example of an appeal to emotion, one of the most blatant of logical fallacies. Specifically, it’s an appeal to emotion which relies on whichever moral panic is hip, happening and groovy at the moment. In the 50s we had (among others) the Lavender Menace and the Red Scare. In the 60s we had hippies. In the 80s we had the Satanic Panic. The 90s gave us a fresh new iteration of “gays can’t be teachers.” Now we’ve got panics over the existence of trans people and critical race theory and antifacism.
“Won’t somebody think of the children” is literally the basis of the F*urteen W*rds, you pair of wet socks on a cold day.** It is the call to action which points the white supremacist and the fascist toward queers, POC and Jews, among others.
It’s not just an alt-right dog-whistle, but it IS an alt-right dog whistle, in much the same way that the existence of green apples does not disprove the existence of red ones.
Ifyou don’t recognize and account for things like the very basic appeal to emotion fallacy, and we do, I think it’s fairly clear who is approaching things rationally here, bud, and it ain’t you.
So yeah, bud, that’s totally what is being said here. To react the way you did is to admit it’s your emotions being spoken to, because if it was your logical brain, you’d be able to go “oh, hunh, yeah, I can totally see how people would phrase their appeals that way if they were trying to get me to disregard any sort of critical thinking and jump into action at their command, therefore, when I see such an appeal I shall have to be very careful to not go off half-cocked but to instead treat these arguments much more carefully.” If you’re not aware that yes, the alt-right uses this specific appeal to emotion in order to manipulate people, and not just them but “gender crits,” pro-censorship movements of all stripes, and Q-Anon, among others, then you’re gonna get taken in by it.
It is possible to be rationally concerned for the welfare of children without using the appeal to emotion to demonize minorities and surf from election to election on moral panics like a lot of politicians do, but that’s not what this post is talking about. This post is literally talking about the fact that the alt-right does use this tactic in order to make people abandon rational thought and do what they’re told.
Sucks that you’re so vulnerable to that logical fallacy tho, that you attack someone for reminding you that it exists and is frequently used in modern politics. Best of luck with that, there, pal.
** I ain’t spelling that out and making it even vaguely searchable on my Tumblr.
“wow, so the newest dogwhistle is (insert innocuous-sounding thing here)?” yeah its almost as if thats how dogwhistles work? theyre SUPPOSED to sound completely fine to those who dont know what’s going on to provide plausible deniability, thats the entire point
Actually, I’d argue that while OP is close to the right answer, that’s not quite it. I think it’s less about the children’s media as much as it is the fact that the refuse to engage with “problematic media” - which does, indeed, lead to people only engaging with children’s media in many cases, as it’s more likely to be “clean” and free of complications.
Problematic media is deemed morally evil regardless of the actual lesson behind it. I mean, you’ve got people on here refusing to read 1984 because “it’s misogynistic”, completely disregarding what role that plays in the story, and dismissing every other detail of the book, because this one detail is so deeply offensive, the rest of the story contains nothing of value. And then there’s the “Why do we have to read old sad stuffy books?” crowd to make things worse.
My point isn’t that the only way to learn is to read classics - many of the classics we have were determined by chishet white guys. There’s sometimes very uncomfortable parts, and I understand why people can’t always sit through them. But the solution to this would be to read more books by people of color, by women, by queer people, and that’s…not happening. Even asking young queer people to read queer history can be like pulling teeth, because it’s easier to get your information off of tiktok or tumblr in nice digestible posts and short, snappy videos. And why read something that might make you question your view of the world, or at least get you thinking, when you could read that mindless enemies to lovers coffee shop au that makes you feel happy instead?
I’m all for fanfic! I’m all for comfort stories! I’m all for protesting the classics that have been determined by cishet white guys, and I’m all for finding discomfort in things like casual sexism and racism in books! But I don’t think the solution is ‘this story is inherently problematic regardless of whatever the greater message is, and I refuse to read anything but my fluffy fanfics.’
But now you’ve got a generation of kids that want a clean cut story with a nice, well defined message. The second you get into complicated issues like homophobia - even if you’re a queer author - your story becomes problematic. Better to engage with something affirming that makes you feel good, with morals that align with your world view. This is the generation of “Maybe the curtains are just blue!”, of rejecting literary analysis because it’s “ridiculous, the author didn’t have a deeper meaning.” So you’ve got kids who lack reading comprehension because they’re refusing to engage with anything that has any element to it that isn’t pre-approved. They’re not approaching anything with an open mind, they’re not going into something that might be complex, because it might conflict with their morals, and in their mind, engaging with something problematic is a reflection of your personal morals, and prove that you are a bad person.
So what you’re left with is children’s media, which often challenges greater issues at a comfortable distance, with defined “good” and “bad.” The good guys win, the bad guys learn, the message is obvious. Children’s media is the least likely to be offensive, and the least likely to be problematic. But that’s a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
“…and dismissing every other detail of the book, because this one detail is so deeply offensive, the rest of the story contains nothing of value.”
Even the word “problematic” used to be an invitation to unpack difficult narratives, now it’s a thought-stopping cliché.
I hope it’s ok for me to post your tags because you said what I was thinking exactly and I couldn’t have worded it any better myself.
Interest has been shown and the thought won’t leave my brain so I’m putting this on the table for discussion.
First let me be transparent: if allowed I will talk for ages about how people aren’t taught critical thinking and media analysis and if they are that they aren’t applying those tools where it counts. It’s something I see so frequently and I’ll get so driven up the wall about and I’ll lament for ages the way that educational systems have failed to teach these tools or how little push there actually is on a widespread scale to learn and implement them.
But over the last 24 hours with instances on several fronts and in several fandoms, an additional thought has repeatedly been popping up that I think needs to coexist with this discussion.
And that is that there is a human being behind every take you disagree with.
It’s easy to focus on the frustration and the issue and wanting to push for ways to improve the situation to the point I think sometimes it’s easy to forget the individual people.
While I don’t intend to point fingers to any one example (because again, I’ve been seeing this sort of issue in multiple fandom spaces on multiple platforms over the past day,) I feel like it’s still something to bring up. Just hear me out on this. Fandom isn’t necessarily a space where the intent is to always analyze and think critically about what we consume, but utilizing those tools can provide a more enriching experience with the source material, open up new discussions with other fans, and allow for a greater understanding of the source material and its creators and its impact(s).
But just as much as that, fandom isn’t necessarily intended for that level of engagement, at least not as a mandatory requirement. Many fans don’t consume a thing they enjoy for the sake of deeper thought and analysis, and this means that many times their opinions, headcanons, elements they enjoy, and understanding of the source material is going to differ drastically from that of a person who does those deeper dives.
And that’s fine.*
There is a caveat there and I’ll get to it, but I really would like to see this point as the main one for consideration in this discussion. Not everyone consumes movies, shows, books, podcasts, games, etc. with an automatic need or desire to analyze the media on a deeper level. Heck, even people who DO have that tendency are going to encounter things that they just engage with on a level of trying to simply enjoy it.
And that’s okay. Not everyone has had the opportunity to learn those things. Not everyone wants to always dissect everything they engage with, and trying to do that anyway is exhausting. (And if you’re trying to do that with the intent of seeking media purity, it’s doubly exhausting because you’re chasing something that cannot exist, and I would like to suggest that you reevaluate this because it WILL rob you of your ability to enjoy ANYTHING.)
And I think it’s important to remember that when we hit that point. That there’s another person. That no matter how much it may cause us frustration when we encounter people who show signs of not knowing or understanding the same things we do about something we’ve taken the time to really break down and understand, there’s still another person and we don’t know the circumstances behind why their experience is different nor are we entitled to know. I mean, YEAH, it’s frustrating when prevailing ideas about the source material within a fandom become commonplace and are either blatantly wrong/ignorant or don’t show enough analysis. But I feel like we also need to remember to be mindful of individual people even when expressing our frustrations and dislikes of ideas or attitudes that lack understanding.
Now. Here’s that *caveat.
When someone’s lack of understanding, lack of thinking, lack of being willing to go beyond the surface and understand the impacts of themes and ideas in media, lead to that someone causing harm to themselves and others, then there is a greater issue that I think should be addressed.
I’m not talking about “this person has a headcanon about this character that is ignorant of character history and I don’t like it so I’m going to get on their case about it”. I’m talking about, someone isn’t taking the time to listen and think about and do some sleuthing on any media that they’re engaging with that has real life negative consequences and impacts on other people, and they’re unlikely to stop and reevaluate their engagement and behavior unless someone who does have a better understanding of those issues says something. Additionally, do they have individual opinions of their own in their lack of understanding that they’re causing harm with, whether intentionally or unintentionally? Because I see that happen too, where something gets misconstrued or misunderstood in a harmful way and the person with that misunderstanding can go on to harm others with it.
For many, a positive change can be made by asking the question(s) “are you aware that this thing contains harmful ideas that have real-world impacts?” “Are you aware that your engagement with this material supports a creator(s) who is weaponizing their platform?” “These harmful opinions and thought processes are baked into the source of the media you’re consuming and they have real life impacts; have you been taking the time to see if it is also working its way into your opinions and treatment of others?”
When those questions get asked, it can lead to changes that are positive or it can lead to an understanding that that individual may willfully choose not to reevaluate how they may be causing harm because they won’t let go of whatever caused those harmful ideas to take root in them. And that is a different discussion entirely, but it’s important to remember that this is a caveat to consider.
But ultimately, TL;DR— I think the complaint of “none of these people are using critical thinking or analyzing media is frustrating and it needs to change” can and does need to begin coexisting with the idea “an individual person may not know how or choose to engage critically with the media they consume some or all of the time and that’s okay and I can respect and consider them even if I disagree with their takes on it.”
Someone’s always gonna have a different opinion and you can’t FORCE anyone to have the same take as you. They have a different background and different life experiences shaping the way they relate to these characters. Someone shipping a pairing you don’t like or thinks some character didn’t deserve their redemption arc are not worth picking fights over because those are harmless. Save your breath for conversations that matter. Save your breath for helping someone understand the implications and real-world consequences of irresponsible media creation. Or to help people understand what responsibly-created media is trying to open them to, the worldviews they hadn’t considered before and the issues they didn’t realize were not just fiction.
I’d also like to add a point for the people who do think critically about the content they consume and engage with their favorite stories this way, that you’re allowed to have fun, and that interacting with others—including the people you’re trying to educate—should be because you love the material itself. When someone is clearly passionate about something it makes people willing to listen (as opposed to someone coming at them with negative or even aggressive energy). Give people the benefit of the doubt that they’re not being willfully malicious. Pairing your love with something while acknowledging it’s flaws just makes your delivery more accessible.
If you’re trying to get someone to understand a book/movie/show/etc that you don’t like because of how dangerously flawed it is, you need to be passionate about the cause you’re advocating for. I aggressively abhor movies like Split that vilify DID and I tell people not to watch it. I myself do not have DID but I do have one of the other scary/evil/ugly mental illnesses, and what harms one of us harms all of us. It’s important to me that we challenge toxic representation of debilitating mental illness, and people listen to me when I talk about this because I approach them with the assumption that they barely understand what DID is or why movies like this have real-world consequences.
YES, OH MY GOD THANK YOU SPOOKY, YOU GET IT
An IRL friend I usually have these discussions with also wanted me to throw out there that there’s a level of weaponized incompetence and willful ignorance that does occur within fandom and is its own problem, and that that can often jade people who care about engaging in critical thinking and analysis to the notion that we need to be mindful about the other person we choose to speak with.
And I think they’re absolutely right, and that is most certainly an issue as well; but between their suggestion that there needs to be more gentle encouragement for the parties in a discussion in a fandom to be up front about their level of understanding (ex: two people may love Teen Titans but one may only have watched the 2003 cartoon while the other may have watched the cartoon and also read comics and articles and history wikis and videos on it) and especially your reminder that the more passionate and excited and willing to share that a fan is with someone who may not be as critically engaged can open doors and grab people’s attention…? I think that can play such a huge hugedifference in helping to open people up to the idea of further discussion and thought, especially if they can be shown that that canbe a rewarding way of engaging with the media!
Of course, there’s always going to be people who don’t want to or won’t put in that same level of effort with the same piece of media you may have in common, and that’s okay too. I won’t say that sometimes it might not be disappointing, but I think it’s okay if now and then someone has a boundary of “i just want to enjoy this and not think too hard about it”. Everything I’ve seen lately has been a good reminder that it’s okay for people to set that boundary sometimes, and it’s good for others to respect that. (Again, the previous caveat I brought up still applies, but you get my drift. As you said, give people the benefit of the doubt that they’re not being willfully malicious)
And please remember everyone, as Spooky said, critical thinking and deeper analysis of the media you engage with doesn’t mean tearing it down and finding everything wrong with it. Let it be something enriching and fulfilling because you love it. It really does have the power to change minds and open doors for discussion better than outright attacking someone or giving them the third degree for something they may not know.
Interest has been shown and the thought won’t leave my brain so I’m putting this on the table for discussion.
First let me be transparent: if allowed I will talk for ages about how people aren’t taught critical thinking and media analysis and if they are that they aren’t applying those tools where it counts. It’s something I see so frequently and I’ll get so driven up the wall about and I’ll lament for ages the way that educational systems have failed to teach these tools or how little push there actually is on a widespread scale to learn and implement them.
But over the last 24 hours with instances on several fronts and in several fandoms, an additional thought has repeatedly been popping up that I think needs to coexist with this discussion.
And that is that there is a human being behind every take you disagree with.
It’s easy to focus on the frustration and the issue and wanting to push for ways to improve the situation to the point I think sometimes it’s easy to forget the individual people.
While I don’t intend to point fingers to any one example (because again, I’ve been seeing this sort of issue in multiple fandom spaces on multiple platforms over the past day,) I feel like it’s still something to bring up. Just hear me out on this. Fandom isn’t necessarily a space where the intent is to always analyze and think critically about what we consume, but utilizing those tools can provide a more enriching experience with the source material, open up new discussions with other fans, and allow for a greater understanding of the source material and its creators and its impact(s).
But just as much as that, fandom isn’t necessarily intended for that level of engagement, at least not as a mandatory requirement. Many fans don’t consume a thing they enjoy for the sake of deeper thought and analysis, and this means that many times their opinions, headcanons, elements they enjoy, and understanding of the source material is going to differ drastically from that of a person who does those deeper dives.
And that’s fine.*
There is a caveat there and I’ll get to it, but I really would like to see this point as the main one for consideration in this discussion. Not everyone consumes movies, shows, books, podcasts, games, etc. with an automatic need or desire to analyze the media on a deeper level. Heck, even people who DO have that tendency are going to encounter things that they just engage with on a level of trying to simply enjoy it.
And that’s okay. Not everyone has had the opportunity to learn those things. Not everyone wants to always dissect everything they engage with, and trying to do that anyway is exhausting. (And if you’re trying to do that with the intent of seeking media purity, it’s doubly exhausting because you’re chasing something that cannot exist, and I would like to suggest that you reevaluate this because it WILL rob you of your ability to enjoy ANYTHING.)
And I think it’s important to remember that when we hit that point. That there’s another person. That no matter how much it may cause us frustration when we encounter people who show signs of not knowing or understanding the same things we do about something we’ve taken the time to really break down and understand, there’s still another person and we don’t know the circumstances behind why their experience is different nor are we entitled to know. I mean, YEAH, it’s frustrating when prevailing ideas about the source material within a fandom become commonplace and are either blatantly wrong/ignorant or don’t show enough analysis. But I feel like we also need to remember to be mindful of individual people even when expressing our frustrations and dislikes of ideas or attitudes that lack understanding.
Now. Here’s that *caveat.
When someone’s lack of understanding, lack of thinking, lack of being willing to go beyond the surface and understand the impacts of themes and ideas in media, lead to that someone causing harm to themselves and others, then there is a greater issue that I think should be addressed.
I’m not talking about “this person has a headcanon about this character that is ignorant of character history and I don’t like it so I’m going to get on their case about it”. I’m talking about, someone isn’t taking the time to listen and think about and do some sleuthing on any media that they’re engaging with that has real life negative consequences and impacts on other people, and they’re unlikely to stop and reevaluate their engagement and behavior unless someone who does have a better understanding of those issues says something. Additionally, do they have individual opinions of their own in their lack of understanding that they’re causing harm with, whether intentionally or unintentionally? Because I see that happen too, where something gets misconstrued or misunderstood in a harmful way and the person with that misunderstanding can go on to harm others with it.
For many, a positive change can be made by asking the question(s) “are you aware that this thing contains harmful ideas that have real-world impacts?” “Are you aware that your engagement with this material supports a creator(s) who is weaponizing their platform?” “These harmful opinions and thought processes are baked into the source of the media you’re consuming and they have real life impacts; have you been taking the time to see if it is also working its way into your opinions and treatment of others?”
When those questions get asked, it can lead to changes that are positive or it can lead to an understanding that that individual may willfully choose not to reevaluate how they may be causing harm because they won’t let go of whatever caused those harmful ideas to take root in them. And that is a different discussion entirely, but it’s important to remember that this is a caveat to consider.
But ultimately, TL;DR— I think the complaint of “none of these people are using critical thinking or analyzing media is frustrating and it needs to change” can and does need to begin coexisting with the idea “an individual person may not know how or choose to engage critically with the media they consume some or all of the time and that’s okay and I can respect and consider them even if I disagree with their takes on it.”
Somehow, on this blog, I’ve gotten it into my head to write reviews and suggestions on witchcraft books, but I don’t think I’ve ever explained my method or criteria when I read a book. I am hesitant to label this as a “how to”, as everyone reader will be looking at their own criteria, but consider this an example on what to look for when analyzing a book for use in your own practice.
There are good witchcraft books, abysmal witchcraft books, and everything in between. Whether or not a witchcraft book may actually help you is not the same as deciding if a book is a book is “good” or “bad”; it depends on why you’re reading, and what you’re reading it for.
There was a time—I’m talking of the 1990s, so almost of prehistory—when every bad decision that people made was attributed to lack of self-esteem, rather than to such human phenomena as, say, weakness, folly, cowardice, laziness, or even fear or duress, the first four of which were dismissed as being incurably judgmental and therefore useless as scientific explanation.
The problem with self-esteem is that it is entirely egotistical and self-regarding, unlike self-respect, which is a social virtue and imposes discipline and obligations upon the person who has, or wishes to have, it.
By contrast, self-esteem is like a medal that one pins to one’s own chest merely by virtue of existing. I am, therefore I esteem myself, and I demand that you esteem me too.
Curiously enough, at the height of self-esteem’s popularity most people knew, or at least had some inkling, that the whole idea was completely bogus. Sometimes when patients would say to me, “I have low self-esteem, doctor,” I would reply (admittedly not in every last case), “Well, at least you’ve got one thing right, then.”
Far from becoming angry, they started to laugh, as if they had been caught out in a naughty game that they had been playing. It came to them almost as a relief: they didn’t have to pretend to believe an evident absurdity any more, and then they could begin to examine the real causes of the devastation of their lives, some internal and some external
I keep seeing people say they “don’t see”Dracula’s antisemitism (and racism, but as I am a white Jew, this post is about antisemitism - there are other, better analyses about the racism present in the text, which are written by people who are not me, some of which I have reblogged if you care to find them)
like okay! so you can read about an Eastern European man, famous for drinking blood, being compared to a lizard and plotting to invade Western spaces, repelled by a symbol of Christianity — and not see it? it is a privilege to be able to read this book without immediately seeing the antisemitism in it.
it is no one’s fault for not being trained to pick up on these stereotypes/dogwhistles. if you have read this book before without spotting the antisemitism, that is NOT a moral failing. but if you have seen/heard Jewish people calling out the antisemitism in this book, it is pretty fucking rich to remain ignorant of where that is present in the text. do your research or stop posting about not getting it.
this being tumblr, there’s obviously been an emphasis on homoerotic readings of the text, which makes it worth noting here the ways in which homophobia and antisemitism overlap in the character of Dracula himself, considering the history of both Jewish and gay men being emasculated/feminized. this is an instance where intersectionality is crucial as an analytic lens, to fully understand the social and historical context of the text.
you do not need to center your readings of a text on its bigotries. but if you do not at least understand where they are present, you run the risk of perpetuating them yourself.
At face value, this is a ridiculous headline. But the article then says his managers berated and insulted him for leaving the party after an anxiety attack, and the company then fired him for taking days off work for “unsafe work practices,” due to having anxiety?
Seems like pretty often headlines that paint a lawsuit as frivolous and ridiculous seem a little more rational after some digging
A pretty useful rule of thumb for reading headlines: If an individual won a seemingly frivolous case against a company, then it probably wasn’t that frivolous. If they won the case then it means a bunch of other people have already assessed all the evidence and decided it was sensible.
If it was frivolous or stupid it would have been thrown out of court or they’d have lost the case. Obviously judgements aren’t always fair but generally, you gotta think: if it was as silly as it sounds, then why did they win?
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: it’s more important to know and understand fully why something is harmful than it is to drop everything deemed problematic. It’s performative and does nothing. People wonder why nobody has critical thinking skills and this is part of it because no one knows how to simousltansly critique and consume media. You need to use discernment.
This is ultimately why propaganda is going to work on you. Because you never learned how to think for yourself and the actual ideology behind things. You simply rely on group think and the bare minimum explanations to tell you what’s good and bad.
Sawthis article linked on twitter yesterday and…. yeah. YEAH.
Anon wrote: Isfj. Recently found out that a colleague is anti vax & doesn’t believe in sci. I feel rlly conflicted now. I like her, she’s not rlly harming anyone + if I step in her shoes I can sorta get why she thinks like that. But every time she’s anti research/sci, I get v irritated. I don’t like superstitions & dislike when things aren’t based on facts. She has a lot of privilege and implies that she’s victimized & oppressed over sth she herself chose.
I and my social circle have also always been anti anti-vaxx. I guess I realized I made it my identity to be ‘liberal’, open-minded, critical thinking, accepting (which ironically includes being anti anti-vaxx). But turns out I’m a lot more judgmental and black and white than I thought. And ok I guess I judge her for her privilege. But I have a lot of privilege too. Idk. Everything I judge her for, I have a counter point for too. My thoughts are a mess. Advice?
——————-
I don’t think you fully understand what it means to be judgmental. You seem to be confusing “critical thinking” and “critical judgmentalness”. The two are not the same. It’s good that you’re sensing a problem here, as that produces an opportunity to learn and grow.
- Critical thinking involves respecting factual information, weighing information objectively, and making decisions impartially. If you are the kind of person who values the truth and acting in accordance with the truth, then you will take on the duty to clarify the facts, be fair-minded in your evaluations, and correct bad decisions that were biased or prejudiced in some way. Does this duty extend to others? Only in cases where harm is being done, and you would certainly need to justify that the moral harm is severe enough to warrant interfering with someone else’s autonomy and agency.
- Judgmentalness involves being critical for egotistical reasons, meaning that the criticism is usually unwarranted, excessive, or ultimately pointless. Usually, judgmentalness is a means to cover up a psychological problem such as an inferiority complex, helplessness, or chronic resentment. Being judgmental means you cherry-pick “facts”, you manipulate information to suit a narrative of your liking, and you make decisions that favor yourself at the expense of others. If you are a judgmental person, you don’t value truth as a high ideal, rather, you only value your own version of the truth and ignore everything else. The main goal is to ensure that you don’t have to confront the truth of your underlying psychological problem.
Full disclosure, I’m on your side of this issue, so I can sympathize. However, it’s important to acknowledge that controversial issues are confusing because there’s a lot going on that needs sorting out, which makes them open for debate. If you were in possession of the “Absolute Final Truth”, shouldn’t you and everyone automatically bow down to the power of it, because there would be no grounds whatsoever to object to it? But that’s not the case, because the issue is not as clear cut as you believe.
In other words, when it comes to debating, both sides usually have some important points to make, regardless of how poorly the participants are communicating them. This is not to say that you must relent, submit, or be friends with people you disagree with. It means that the only way forward is to acknowledge that there might be some merit in what they’re saying, even as you disagree with their approach or their final conclusions.
In your situation, you are coming from the standpoint of someone who respects critical thinking and the truth… at first. However, whenever you meet someone you strongly disagree with, you easily spiral into judgmentalness, and then start engaging in social status games. Why? Because you, yourself, equate your beliefs with your identity. This reveals something about your ego development.
This habit of identifying with beliefs creates the problem of being unable to address false beliefs without feeling personally attacked and/or using personal attacks during what should be a calm and reasonable debate. It makes communication very difficult. Being wrong is not the same as being bad, so you can call out falsity without attacking people personally, can’t you? Is it not possible to separate a person from their beliefs or behaviors?
Stepping back to be objective isn’t easy, because we each have an ego that wants what it wants and leads us to obfuscate the truth. But objectivity is necessary for developing the ability to influence and persuade people in the right way. Additionally, lack of objectivity often reveals a lack of humility that enables arrogance in your own beliefs. Walking around thinking that your beliefs are superior, you’ll often find yourself locked into resentments, warfare, or stalemates, with lots of hard feelings to go around. It’s not great for your Fe development, is it?
Anon wrote: Hi! I´m esfp, 19. Last summer I worked at a place for elderlys who need physical care and live there. I was just in the kitchen, cleaning and was their company. That kind of work is only in the summer, only for age 17-19 and no experience needed. It was the best place I have been at in my whole life kind of. They said I would fit to work there for real and that was the plan this summer. I was there 4 days to learn, it was a lot to learn, and the boss said they thought I would not make it so I did not get the job. Now I can´t move on because I loved it so much. And I want to go back there later but then I have to make a decision to not move to a bigger city with my family.
Now I hope I get another elderly healthcare job this summer. Then I would like to go back to the old place once I can say I have experience and will make it. The problem is the moving, I don´t know what to choose. Even when I didn´t knew I wouldn´t get the job, I wanted to work there longer and therefore said to my classmates I consider to stay for like a year and not move with my family directly (I didn´t say that the reason was the work). They all think moving is much better choice and my family also says that. They say “move, it´s much better to see something new, good opportunity”.
I have some things I think about when making the decision. It is kind of already decided that of course I will move, I also said it to everyone there when I was there the 4 days. But my feelings says I want to stay and I find that place so treasurable.
First thing I think about is that I can find other similar places that help me grow, but the problem is I don´t know if this kind of place with inspiring people and funny elderlys and warm atmosphere is rare, maybe it´s hard to find so why should I not take this chance when I know this is the ideal place I will search for if I choose to search for something new.
Second is that I love the relations I already had with them and I love THEM and a similar place won´t help with that.
Third is that if I move and try to find other good places to work at I maybe find friends at the new city that I otherwise would not in that half year/year. But also life is pretty long and to stay one year can´t matter so much.
Fourth is that if I choose myself I would stay, but I will be a bit ashamed by that, a bit shameful that I need to find a home here and not take a good opportunity ONLY for the work. Feels a bit desperate and I don’t like feeling desperate because always when I try more than what is available I kind of sacrifice myself and become not the best version of me/take care of me kind of and it’s seldom good for me to be desperate I have learned.
I loved the place so much that I for a year have thought about it when I can´t sleep and then fall asleep. I grew as a person there because it´s a warm place with a lot of communication all the time while in the other part of my life I mostly sit on a chair and study, am doing an individual sport, not a lot of friends, I have a hard time finding/being myself for some reason. The atmosphere at that work is very warm, kind, everyone is just funny and easy to talk with. It´s not hard to find myself there. I get inspired by the people there, like for example if they joke or talk in a way that I think seem fun to do and also want to try just because it feels good for me, I can get inspired to try and I learn who I am. Some of the working people there is my role models, they are also good friends with each other - I don´t think this can be found everywhere.
Now when I am tired I think about the place like I will soon be back and I dream at night about it, when I am not tired my brain understands that I will never be back and then I have stomach pain all the time!! Thinking I will stay to try again would also help me right now to not have stomach pain all the time. But idk what is the best. Another doubt is that even if I think I was “liked” there, maybe they will not want me even if I have more experience, or they don’t need more people even though I have got the perception they always need.
I literally read two books about health care for elderlys after I had been there the 4 days because I thought I would get more learning days and wanted to be prepared. Then the boss said I will not get more learning days, and it didn’t helped when I said I had read the books. I think I would be able to work there like even without more learning days, and they need people, so it’s sad that I can’t.
I know you don’t make choices for people, but maybe could help me with any more perspective of thinking? Otherwise it was just helpful to write it and helpful that someone will read it. Thanks, and thanks for the blog!!!
—————–
This is quite the dilemma. But it sounds to me like your heart already knows what it wants. You just don’t know whether you should listen to your heart or whether you should be more “practical”. Hearing you talk with such passion about this line of work is really quite inspiring. Personally, I’ve never encountered a care home that wasn’t understaffed, so it’s a bit of a mystery as to why they won’t consider you. Seems like there’s missing information. If I were in charge of things, I’d certainly give you a chance, which makes me wonder whether there is some other factor at play in this situation that you’re not aware of.
It sounds like you were trying to move up from working in the kitchen, is that correct? If the new position requires you to do more direct, hands-on work in caring for client health and well-being, then perhaps four days is really not enough training, considering your youth and lack of experience. If something is worth doing, then it’s worth doing the right way, even though it may be the harder way. Is there some kind of certificate, diploma, apprenticeship, or internship you could do to prove that you deserve to be given a chance?
Yes, there are care homes everywhere, and they’re not all the same. Different management teams create different work environments. Different clients create different friendships. If the relationships you’ve already built have touched you so deeply and meant so much to you, they are worth fighting for, aren’t they?
Fighting for something worthwhile isn’t the same as being desperate. Desperation comes in when you’re not accepting the reality that something is over/lost. It remains unclear whether this opportunity has been fully exhausted and is thus really over/lost. If the situation is closed, then, yes, it’s time to move on. If there remains some potential for the situation to go your way, it’s hard to give up on it, right?
Uncertainty is what makes this decision difficult for you, so you have to get to the truth of the matter, one way or another. Give the situation one more go to make sure that you’re in possession of all the facts, think critically about your options, and make a well-informed decision. If I were in your shoes, I’d go to management and request a meeting with them and do two things:
1) You said “the boss didn’t think I would make it”, which is too vague. Instead of begging for a chance, ask them for brutal honesty. Figure out the exactreason why the boss came to their conclusion, so that you at least know what you need to do differently, what behavior you need to correct, what mistake you need to make up for, what else you need to learn, etc. You require truthful feedback to improve your chances of landing a permanent job in the field. If there’s a problem that hurt your chances this time around and you’re not aware of it, it might continue to hurt your chances in the future. This should help you understand the situation better.
2) Tell them what you just told me about your experience working there and how you would love to continue working there. Show them your passion and dedication, rather than your desperation. Tell them you understand that while you may not be ready at this minute to work there, you are willing to do whatever it takes to get ready. Then ask them for advice and suggestions about how to get ready. Then ask them whether they’d be willing to give you a chance if you followed their advice and suggestions. If they say yes, it is confirmation that the situation remains open to you. If they say no, then you’re better off focusing on getting the education/training you need for a future in the career. This should make it easier to decide whether to move with your family.
The most important thing to remember is that this decision isn’t life-or-death, as most decisions aren’t, and it’s certainly not worth the stomach pains and sleepless nights. Yeah, 19 is young and one year goes by fast. You’ve got plenty of time to figure things out, and taking a year to explore can be very valuable for your personal growth. Whether you move now or a year later isn’t really a big deal in the grand scheme of things, is it? Sometimes, taking a bigger picture perspective is necessary for taking yourself less seriously.
When you trust your heart to lead you in a good direction, and you trust in the world to eventually reward your dedication and hard work, and you trust that life will always present a new path to you even when you hit a dead end, there is no need to fret, is there? All you have to do is keep your eyes peeled to see where you’re needed, keep your mind present to do your tasks well, keep your hands ready to grab at opportunities, and everything will unfold as it should.
, The United States is going through an out of control wave of booking banning. The top reasons books end up challenged or banned are:
Unsuited to age (this usually means that a book has foul language or sex in it – this includes legit sexual education books) Religious viewpoint (translated: “anti-Christian” or pro-something-other-than-Christian) LGBTQ+ content Racism – I really don’t think this…
One thing about fandom culture is that it sort of trains you to interact with and analyze media in a very specific way. Not a BAD way, just a SPECIFIC way.
And the kind of media that attracts fandoms lends itself well (normally) to those kinds of analysis. Mainly, you’re supposed to LIKE and AGREE with the main characters. Themes are built around agreeing with the protagonists and condemning the antagonists, and taking the protagonists at their word.
Which is fine if you’re looking at, like, 99% of popular anime and YA fiction and Marvel movies.
But it can completely fall apart with certain kinds of media. If someone who has only ever analyzed media this way is all of a sudden handed Lolita or 1984 or Gatsby, which deal in shitty unreliable narrators; or even books like Beloved or Catcher in the Rye (VERY different books) that have narrators dealing with and reacting to challenging situations- well… that’s how you get some hilariously bad literary analysis.
I dont know what my point here is, really, except…like…I find it very funny when people are like “ugh. I hate Gatsby and Catcher because all the characters are shitty” which like….isnt….the point. Lololol you arent supposed to kin Gatsby.
I would definitely argue that it’s specifically a bad way….a very bad way.
Depending on the piece of media, it could be the intended way to interpret it and thus very effective. When I watch Sailor Moon, I know at the end of the day that Usagi is a hero. She is right, and her choices are good. She and the Sailor Scouts may make mistakes, and those mistakes can have consequences, but by presuming the goodness of the protagonists, I can accurately describe what actions and values the story is presenting as good. (Fighting evil by moonlight. Winning love by daylight. Never running from a real fight. Etc etc)
If I sit around and hem and haw about whether or not Usagi is actually the villain because she is destined to reinstate a magical absolute monarchy on Earth in the future, then I’m not interpreting it correctly. I can write a cool fanfic about it, but it wont be a successful analysis of the original work.
But like I said, that doesnt work for all pieces of media, and being able to assess how a piece of media should be analyzed is a skill in itself.
I was an English major. One of our required classes was Theory & Criticism, and I ended up hating it specifically because of the teacher and the way she taught it, but the actual T&C part of it was interesting. And one of the things we learned about was all the different ways of reading/interpreting/criticizing media - not just books, ANY form of media.
Specifically, I remember when we read The Turn of the Screw, by Henry James. We had special editions of the book where the first half of it was the novel itself, and the last half was like five or six different critical analyses of the book from different schools of theory. The two I remember specifically were a Marxist interpretation and a feminist interpretation. I remember reading both of those and thinking “wow, these people are really reaching for some of this”, but the more I read into the analysis and the history of those schools of thought, the more I got it. So for my final paper for that class, I wrote an essay that basically had the thesis of “when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”. If you have trained yourself to view every piece of media through a single specific critical lens - well, you’re going to be only viewing it through that lens, and that means you’re going to read or watch it in such a way that you’re looking for the themes you’ve trained yourself to look for.
My teacher didn’t like that, by the way; she’d wanted each of us to pick one of these schools of thought we’d been learning about and make it “our” school of thought. She wanted us to grab the a hammer, or a screwdriver, or a spanner, and carry that with us for the rest of our lives. She somehow didn’t expect me to pack a toolbox.
My point is: Like OP said, sometimes the tool you need is a hammer. Sometimes you need a screwdriver. Sometimes you can make a hammer work where what you need is a screwdriver, but you’re going to end up stripping the screw; sometimes you can use a screwdriver in place of a hammer, but it’s going to take a lot more effort and brute force and you risk breaking the screwdriver. Sometimes you need a wrench and trying to use a hammer or screwdriver is going to make you declare that the bolt is problematic and should never be used by anyone. Sometimes what you really need is a hand saw, and trying to use any of the others…well, you can, but it’s going to make a mess and you might not be able to salvage the pieces left over.
These skills aren’t being taught in school anymore and you can see it in the way high school aged kids act about media and stuff.
They wouldn’t survive something like Lolita because I swear they’re being taught to turn their brains OFF and be spoon fed all their thoughts by someone else.
It’s really creepy.
I promise these skills are taught in school. I’m an English teacher. In a school. Who teaches them.
Now, Lolita is generally reserved for college classes. But a lot of the rationale behind continuing to teach the “classics” in high school (beyond the belief that a shared literary foundation promotes a better understanding of allusions and references) is that a lot of the classics are built on these kinds of complex readings and unreliable narrators and using historical and cultural context helps in their analysis. (I do think that we should be incorporating more diverse and modern lit into these classes, please understand)
Do all schools or individual teachers do this *well*? No, of course not. Do all students always really apply themselves to the development of deep critical thinking skills when their teacher pulls out A Tale of Two Cities? Also no.
But this isnt a “public school is failing / evil ” problem. Being able to engage in multiple forms and styles of analysis is a really high level skill, and my post was just about how a very common one doesnt always work well with different kinds of stories.
OP, why do you describe analyzing Sailor Moon in a different way than (you assume) the author intended as “hemming and hawing?” I would argue there’s a lot of value in approaching texts at a different angle.
Because ignoring context, tone, and intent when analyzing media is going to lead to conclusions are aren’t consistently supported by the text you are looking at.
“Usagi is a villain because she’s a queen and I think absolute monarchy is bad” ignores the way that Usagi, the moon kingdom, and basically all aspects of the lore are actually framed within the story. None of the characters’ actions or motivations make consistent sense if we start from the assumptions that “Usagi = monarchist=evil” and it would cause you to over look all the themes and interpretations that DO make consistent sense.
At some point you have to take a work at face value and see what it is trying to say.
Is the breakdown of monarchy actually relevant to the themes and messages presented in Sailor Moon? No, not really.
So focusing on the Moon Kingdom monarchy and the ethics there of is sort of… besides the point. The Moon Kingdom is a fairy tale, not a reflection of reality.
I’m not actually interested in the tax policy of the Moon Kingdom, you know?
Now, is it *cool* to look at works in various ways? Sure! Are some people interested in the tax policy of the Moon Kingdom and want to explore what that would look like? Sure! And honestly if you want to explore the ramifications of idyllic fairy tale monarchies on the real world, then that’s really cool too!
But if you are looking at a work to understand what it is trying to say with the text itself, then you need to take some of its premises at face value. Usagi and the Sailor Scouts being the Good Guys is one of those premises.
And really the “Usagi is secretly a princess from the moon” is just a part of the escapist fantasy for most little kids watching more than it has anything to do with actual themes of monarchy.
There is a lot of value in being able to look at a text from various angles. And it’s perfectly okay to use a text and concept as a jumping off point for other explorations.
But the problem comes when people say that Usagi was definitively a villain in Sailor Moon, or that say Steven Universe with themes of family and conflict resolution is excusing genocide by not destroying the Diamonds. It misses the point of the fantasy. It misses the important themes, the lessons and point of the show to look at it like that.
Basically: reinterpretations are cool, but you gotta know how to take a work on its own premises too.
Exactly. Like, magical princess that shows how monarchies (or the idea of princesses in general) is broken or toxic? Utena and Star vs The Forces of Evil are right there.
The idea of a cute talking cat granting girls magical powers to turn them into warriors against evil and getting them killed being evil? Not a good take on Luna, but Kyuubei in Madoka? Exactly this. That’s like, the point of Kyuubei- to riff on the trope that Luna, and Kero, and Mokona represent.
Media can raise all sorts of interesting conversations and discussions and ideas. But there’s a very real difference between trying to awkwardly force those readings on a work where the tone and framing and context don’t support it and acting like the media is actually supporting those messages, and using those ideas to explore it in a different work or to analyze the trope across the genre more broadly.
Moral and pure does not a protagonist make, and fandom is rife with that exclusive interpretation of storytelling. OP makes really good points; this thread is one of the best analyses I’ve read about lit crit on this site lately.
Stories aren’t made in a vacuum– every trope/theme/character archetype comes from somewhere and (general) you do yourself a disservice by viewing everything as whether it’s morally uncorrupted or not.
“Immature people crave and demand moral certainty: This is bad, this is good. Kids and adolescents struggle to find a sure moral foothold in this bewildering world; they long to feel they’re on the winning side, or at least a member of the team. To them, heroic fantasy may offer a vision of moral clarity. Unfortunately, the pretended Battle Between (unquestioned) Good and (unexamined) Evil obscures instead of clarifying, serving as a mere excuse for violence — as brainless, useless, and base as aggressive war in the real world.”
Ursula K Le Guin at it again, being right as always
people on this website be like “it’s actually school’s fault that i don’t know how to read because i wanted to write my essay on the divergent trilogy and that BITCH mrs. clarkson made us study 1984 instead. anyway here’s a 10 tweet thread of easily disproven misinformation about a 3 year old news story and btw, who is toni morrison?”
i KNOW most of y’all are lying about being in the gifted program as children because none of you could pass the basic reading comprehension assessment they give third graders today
this post is mean and I never read divergent or whatever the fuck but 1984 sucks and is rape apologism so if somebody wanted to write about divergent or whatever good for them
this reply is like literally exactly what op is talking about lol. like firstly ops point isn’t “1984 is good”, ops point is that analysing complex stories teaches you how to form opinions and think for yourself. and like secondly in 1984 you’re supposed to think damn it’s fucked up that he’s thinking that way about her, i wonder if this ties in with the central theme of “a society like this will fuck you in the head”? (this is the thinking for yourself part). like do you think orwell just put that in for fun? do you think that just because winston is the protagonist you’re supposed to agree with everything he does?
You know I feel like this post just gave me an epiphany for what is wrong with how Tumblr Fandom/Internet Fandom responds to media-or not *wrong* but makes it very hard to respond to anything but a morally correct, and heroic protagonist.
When an English teacher, or reader, taught or picked up 1984, it wasn’t with the intention they were going to love the protagonist. They picked it up with the intention of reading a whole story and trying to grasp the theme or catharsis from the story. If the protagonist was a *shitty* person it played into the the themes or the story, because it wasn’t about morally judging the book or *liking* or feeling attachment to the protagonist. Sometimes and often times, books were just about gaining another perspective.
No one read Lolita expecting to endear, or like, or be inspired by Humbert. You are supposed to be upset by his behavior, you don’t read Lolita with the intention of being inspired. You read it to learn more about what the fuck is going on inside someone’s head when they behave like that. How children get sucked into abusive situations. Or read “The Great Gatsby” not because they want to fall in love with Gatsby or Nick, but to better understand and analyze the experience of the 1920s or destitution of the American Dream.
A lot of internet and fandom culture has changed that though. When we say something like “I love the Great Gatsby” it comes with the idea or association that means you must *love* or relate to one of the characters. And maybe you do, but the first assumption is not longer about the quality of the work or themes, or cathartic impact-it’s about character admiration. And with that character admiration, in tumblr stan culture, or kin culture, or exalting characters with fanart/romance/so on you don’t just ‘admire’ or find that character ‘compelling’ it now translates to ‘you LOVE that character’ or you ‘DIRECTLY relate to that character.’
You can’t say “I love how Humbert is written, it’s so fascinating and dark”, without it directly translating you somehow relate to a child abuser or condone his actions. Taking in media has become an act of worship and connection. We no longer watch meant to just see the story as a whole, we watch expecting to connect to a character and if we offer them our “worship” as it’s become, as opposed to just attention or interest study as it traditionally was, it means we are condoning the character or saying we directly empathize with all their actions.
I think that’s why there is often now so much fuss over *toxic* characters or not. Or whether that classical novel is showing good or bad things anymore. We’re treating the characters as people we should love or want to draw or write about. Sometimes a story is just about getting the the theme or catharsis or learning another perspective. We don’t NEED to like the character. Or we don’t HAVE to like a character to be impressed by how they’re written or intrigued by their behavior.
I think if internet culture could learn to view stories as small insights into other lives or single takes of one perspective instead of purposeful moral inspirations we’d be a lot less worried about how toxic or not toxic they are.
Seriously!
And this is where “unhealthy relationships” in fiction come in too. Well-written, complex stories of bad relationships aren’t supposed to be good and healthy examples. If it’s held up that way (Twilight), then the issue is the writing and the writer. Unhealthy relationships in, say, Anna Karenina are obviously unhealthy but they are, to misquote James Joyce “portals to discovery.” You can know that a fictional relationships is seriously bad and still find it interesting. Psychology! Complexity!
Also I want to add that some characters (Humbert Humbert is a good one) are written so that if and when you find yourself sympathizing or saying “Yeah, I know that feeling” you’re supposed to stop and consider that. Not in terms of “I am a sick individual and deserve to die.” but more like “is it possible to have compassion for terrible people?” and “what is it in our culture or my upbringing that makes me think like I do?”
I’ve heard way too many people say “I will never read Lolita because of what it encourages” and I just…you’re missing the point? Completely? Like, you’re so missing the point that it’s almost meta? You’re not supposed to like Humbert??? You’re supposed to either be like “wow, gross, dude” or “oh fuck, wait, why do I have even 1 thing in common with this guy?” Nabokov is not going to be straightforward with you!
It’s like the jokes about being mad at your teacher for asking why the sky is blue in a certain book. Maybe there really is a reason. Did you think of that? For a bunch of people who’ll write thesis-length defenses of your favorite ships and trace down one instance in one minute of one episode of the 15 season show to prove that you’re right, it concerns me that you’re not as willing to look at a lot of other things with any depth. To say nothing of multi-chapter fanfic.
If you surround yourself with only good and pure and wholesome media approved by the purity-culture police, then you just don’t get to do a lot of introspection and I think that’s kind of a shame. I feel like it really limits your view of the world.
I dunno. There’s a weird kind of anti-intellectualism disguised as protection and good intent sometimes. Or it feels like the kind of prudishness that labels some books “dirty” and the people who read them equally disgusting, but just relies on social ostracism to enforce the labels. You know, “Think of the children!!”
Anyway, I’m going to go read some dirty, dirty literature now. Like 1984.
