I'm pretty they've gone back to before the 40's internationally. But they've definitely got nothing on 70s booty shorts. It was an interesting step in sexual liberation, men got to intellectually feel like they were uplifting women while often motivated by their own sexual gratification.
They will too. People always blame the people closest to them for things they want to have control over, and blame people furthest for things they don't actually want to have to do anything about.
Please don't invite the club to the creek. Have you ever done magic at Woodstock, Coachella, Burning Man, or Joshua Tree? It's powerful but uncontrollable - Totally drains the environment of energy, in contradiction to the entire point of both nature magics and social magics.
At best.
At worst you got a reoccurrence of The Senator (Cypress) where a couple fools who won't ever understand how or why they're a Fool of a Took, ruin everything. Because they think magic is getting high and exploding wands.
Just. Go hang out with your club friends sometimes and go to the creek to help the creek be a creek other times.
I had some doubts about this community being for genuine wizards until I read this comment.
I think the universal Milkshake Theorem can be bypassed by the lich to lichen, buff to buffet handwave. The trick is to have the witches in stitches, if they can appreciate their own bitches.
Just made me realize, how often camouflaged animals must get accidentally harassed because no one saw them there. The Great Potoo looks totally perchable, and perches places anybird would consider a great perching position.
Every being should have a default right to themselves. Whether we're framing it as copyright or otherwise. To their image, identity, mind, soul, body, and genetic code.
Pretty much the definition of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", and the evils of perfectionism. Star ratings only speak to super general appeal. A higher rating is less risky to be bad... But the time and place to care about that is such a limited context. What I'm in the mood for or looking for in a moment rarely has anything to do with appealing to the masses, and it's often the kinds of writings I look for to expand my sense of experience & knowledge will lack general appeal.
There absolutely is a limit on bad representation. Eg, when it crosses over into bigotry/discrimination it has gotten way past clumsy into evil. (Minstrel shows are most evil for being the limited "representation" of the time.)
I like the nuance of your example though; Because it doesn't explore a most major facet of being deaf, does that mean the story shouldn't be told? If there are already stories about being deaf in a mostly hearing society, then a story about an entirely deaf society explores another angle of being deaf or what it could mean to be deaf. Imho I think that should still count as valuable representation. While it's fair to criticize it as not representative of the entire experience of being deaf, it's not fair to criticize it as opposition to deaf interests. You can read/watch the two side by side and get greater perspective. Yet in a vacuum, it would be bad representation.
In contrast Menwritingwomen content gives an expression of how certain men perceive of women. Many of these men being perfectly amicable and good to women in their own life while harboring these toxic/bullshit perspectives we wouldn't even know about. Despite that many even write some women well, they absolutely deserve to be criticized for opposing women's interests. Some aren't even useful for getting a perspective on how the author perceives women, being that individually they seem so normal until the overall writing reveals a pattern of bad representation.
They all absolutely ought to be reconsidered for women writing women mediocrely in the same space wherever possible. Accepted for the representation (in context) they are otherwise. Excised, canceled, buycotted only when the work functions to explore & validate the author's bigoted values.
On one side "Disney villain" has not crossed that threshold even if they aren't the female representation (some) women want, at least they're novel and diversify representation; whereas "There's one woman and she's cool and hot" has crossed the bad representation threshold even if she represents how every woman of that demographic wants to see herself.
(Sorry I'm mostly referencing women's representation in art, it's an accessible example because there's so much variety in failure for what should be statistically easy representation).
One of the hardest questions; is it better to have clumsy representation, or less representation? Because no matter what, a greater effort requirement amounts to a higher barrier of entry. We don't owe an artist anything, but at the same time should we say "If you don't understand a group of people well enough to represent them, you shouldn't be doing art."?
JRR Tolkien notoriously has very few very impressively represented women, which kind of just gets a shrug from the fandom. But you can only tolerate so much of that before you just have a small selection of archetypes on pedestals. You get the sense from so much media produced by men, that they think women only (should) make up <25% of society. If they don't matter to a male protagonist then they don't matter. I think it should be fine to clumsily represent a group, as long as it expands representation rather than restricting it. And continuation should be dependent on an expectation to grow.
Case in point; The Apu Problem. Despite Apu from The Simpsons being the worst of both worlds, by virtue of originality he was acceptable at conception. Failure to grow with the franchise's popularity, however, means that he established his own stereotype and by extension The Simpsons created it's own racism. By the boiling frog effect, The Simpsons creators just get to dismiss is it as a product of it's time "Oh you know things that weren't racist are suddenly racist now shrug what're you supposed to do?" But they've had the power to do better for a long time, if they were willing to face the problem long enough to learn and address it permanently.
The USA still hasn't had a (official) female president despite multiple opportunities, because women in America don't want "that kind of representation". Society can keep representation from slacking, without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I always hold out hope for a comeback. If they can pull Palapatine super clone planet "it was really still Palapatine all along" plotline, they can do the same better with Darth Binks. They just need to have the goal in line of sight from the first episode, but never revealed until the third so it can be foreshadowed properly. Palpatine was always too eager to hold power directly, and that was his downfall.
And the potential to handle that with the grey Jedi concept they've been inching towards since forever (since the force ghosts), the possibilities are limitless.
Well you see, we need windows so we can see all the grey and tan boxes outside. How could we live without the starless night sky? Or the ten minutes of sun through your window by the time you get home from work?
But in all seriousness, You need jobs first and foremost because otherwise everyone would just rather live rurally. You wouldn't want it to become a company town nor ghost city, so there would have to be a heavy investment by dense congregation of successful businesses. You'd basically have to decide how deep you're going to go, then tunnel massive amounts of sewer type systems beneath that. The biggest thing imo is dealing with heavy gasses. That is a lot of expensive infrastructure to prepare very deep, before anyone can even start thinking about living spaces. Beyond that, I don't think the challenges outweigh the challenges we face now and in the near future. We've adapted to those, we could adapt to more, but it'd be a lot of expensive learning experiences in the mean time.
It might help to frame it as living under a park, or living within walking distance of businesses that necessitate or benefit directly from being outside. Like cheap food from small farms maybe.
Termites massively out-number humans by mass, but they seem to make a pretty good go of it without devastating their ecologies.
You exist to be silly, your place in existence is to be challenged. The grief and reality is here to challenge your silly. You know you're doing it right if you're a sad clown at your grandpa's funeral, when he (a) hated clowns, and/or (b) loved clowns. (Your family will despite you for a year, then never stop laughing about it.)
cocks shotgun "I'm not a monster, imma let ya finish first."
Every other thing they say is sane, out of context.
I'm pretty they've gone back to before the 40's internationally. But they've definitely got nothing on 70s booty shorts. It was an interesting step in sexual liberation, men got to intellectually feel like they were uplifting women while often motivated by their own sexual gratification.
I shouldn't be this shocked people still consider these real defenses after WW2 & the Banality of Evil.
Then again if they weren't, there wouldn't be so much push back against ubi & free education.
They will too. People always blame the people closest to them for things they want to have control over, and blame people furthest for things they don't actually want to have to do anything about.
Even against all evidence and logic.
They're the Visagoths of the North Sea. And for good reason, but it's taboo to speak of so we just say "Walrus".
Please don't invite the club to the creek. Have you ever done magic at Woodstock, Coachella, Burning Man, or Joshua Tree? It's powerful but uncontrollable - Totally drains the environment of energy, in contradiction to the entire point of both nature magics and social magics.
At best.
At worst you got a reoccurrence of The Senator (Cypress) where a couple fools who won't ever understand how or why they're a Fool of a Took, ruin everything. Because they think magic is getting high and exploding wands.
Just. Go hang out with your club friends sometimes and go to the creek to help the creek be a creek other times.
I had some doubts about this community being for genuine wizards until I read this comment.
I think the universal Milkshake Theorem can be bypassed by the lich to lichen, buff to buffet handwave. The trick is to have the witches in stitches, if they can appreciate their own bitches.
How to hang loose and let fly.
Just made me realize, how often camouflaged animals must get accidentally harassed because no one saw them there. The Great Potoo looks totally perchable, and perches places anybird would consider a great perching position.
Every being should have a default right to themselves. Whether we're framing it as copyright or otherwise. To their image, identity, mind, soul, body, and genetic code.
Pretty much the definition of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", and the evils of perfectionism. Star ratings only speak to super general appeal. A higher rating is less risky to be bad... But the time and place to care about that is such a limited context. What I'm in the mood for or looking for in a moment rarely has anything to do with appealing to the masses, and it's often the kinds of writings I look for to expand my sense of experience & knowledge will lack general appeal.
There absolutely is a limit on bad representation. Eg, when it crosses over into bigotry/discrimination it has gotten way past clumsy into evil. (Minstrel shows are most evil for being the limited "representation" of the time.)
I like the nuance of your example though; Because it doesn't explore a most major facet of being deaf, does that mean the story shouldn't be told? If there are already stories about being deaf in a mostly hearing society, then a story about an entirely deaf society explores another angle of being deaf or what it could mean to be deaf. Imho I think that should still count as valuable representation. While it's fair to criticize it as not representative of the entire experience of being deaf, it's not fair to criticize it as opposition to deaf interests. You can read/watch the two side by side and get greater perspective. Yet in a vacuum, it would be bad representation.
In contrast Menwritingwomen content gives an expression of how certain men perceive of women. Many of these men being perfectly amicable and good to women in their own life while harboring these toxic/bullshit perspectives we wouldn't even know about. Despite that many even write some women well, they absolutely deserve to be criticized for opposing women's interests. Some aren't even useful for getting a perspective on how the author perceives women, being that individually they seem so normal until the overall writing reveals a pattern of bad representation. They all absolutely ought to be reconsidered for women writing women mediocrely in the same space wherever possible. Accepted for the representation (in context) they are otherwise. Excised, canceled, buycotted only when the work functions to explore & validate the author's bigoted values.
On one side "Disney villain" has not crossed that threshold even if they aren't the female representation (some) women want, at least they're novel and diversify representation; whereas "There's one woman and she's cool and hot" has crossed the bad representation threshold even if she represents how every woman of that demographic wants to see herself. (Sorry I'm mostly referencing women's representation in art, it's an accessible example because there's so much variety in failure for what should be statistically easy representation).
One of the hardest questions; is it better to have clumsy representation, or less representation? Because no matter what, a greater effort requirement amounts to a higher barrier of entry. We don't owe an artist anything, but at the same time should we say "If you don't understand a group of people well enough to represent them, you shouldn't be doing art."?
JRR Tolkien notoriously has very few very impressively represented women, which kind of just gets a shrug from the fandom. But you can only tolerate so much of that before you just have a small selection of archetypes on pedestals. You get the sense from so much media produced by men, that they think women only (should) make up <25% of society. If they don't matter to a male protagonist then they don't matter. I think it should be fine to clumsily represent a group, as long as it expands representation rather than restricting it. And continuation should be dependent on an expectation to grow.
Case in point; The Apu Problem. Despite Apu from The Simpsons being the worst of both worlds, by virtue of originality he was acceptable at conception. Failure to grow with the franchise's popularity, however, means that he established his own stereotype and by extension The Simpsons created it's own racism. By the boiling frog effect, The Simpsons creators just get to dismiss is it as a product of it's time "Oh you know things that weren't racist are suddenly racist now shrug what're you supposed to do?" But they've had the power to do better for a long time, if they were willing to face the problem long enough to learn and address it permanently.
The USA still hasn't had a (official) female president despite multiple opportunities, because women in America don't want "that kind of representation". Society can keep representation from slacking, without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I always hold out hope for a comeback. If they can pull Palapatine super clone planet "it was really still Palapatine all along" plotline, they can do the same better with Darth Binks. They just need to have the goal in line of sight from the first episode, but never revealed until the third so it can be foreshadowed properly. Palpatine was always too eager to hold power directly, and that was his downfall.
And the potential to handle that with the grey Jedi concept they've been inching towards since forever (since the force ghosts), the possibilities are limitless.
Well you see, we need windows so we can see all the grey and tan boxes outside. How could we live without the starless night sky? Or the ten minutes of sun through your window by the time you get home from work?
But in all seriousness, You need jobs first and foremost because otherwise everyone would just rather live rurally. You wouldn't want it to become a company town nor ghost city, so there would have to be a heavy investment by dense congregation of successful businesses. You'd basically have to decide how deep you're going to go, then tunnel massive amounts of sewer type systems beneath that. The biggest thing imo is dealing with heavy gasses. That is a lot of expensive infrastructure to prepare very deep, before anyone can even start thinking about living spaces. Beyond that, I don't think the challenges outweigh the challenges we face now and in the near future. We've adapted to those, we could adapt to more, but it'd be a lot of expensive learning experiences in the mean time.
It might help to frame it as living under a park, or living within walking distance of businesses that necessitate or benefit directly from being outside. Like cheap food from small farms maybe. Termites massively out-number humans by mass, but they seem to make a pretty good go of it without devastating their ecologies.
It's all fun and games until they poop on your bed or eat your other pet.
Draconic reward?
You exist to be silly, your place in existence is to be challenged. The grief and reality is here to challenge your silly. You know you're doing it right if you're a sad clown at your grandpa's funeral, when he (a) hated clowns, and/or (b) loved clowns. (Your family will despite you for a year, then never stop laughing about it.)
Idk