Your favorite cambrian shrimp stan

Turquoise-browed Motmots (Eumomota superciliosa), family Momotidae, order Coraciiformes, México

I. AM. SCREAMING. 😂

Okay. What literary criticism IS, is like taking a mechanical clock apart to see all the gears and learn how it fits together and approach your next clock with more knowledge of what makes it tick.

I was today years old. That is disgusting.

No Child Left Behind is one of the worst things to ever be incentivized in schools. It was signed into law when I was 14. Reading Rainbow was my show as a kid. LeVar Burton played a big part in why I became an avid reader to date. The joy of it. It's an adventure around the globe and through different time periods without stepping on a plane or time machine.

Children parrot behavior. In grade school, I always wanted to read the same amount of books as my teachers (50 books) and managed to double that each year. Before No Child Left Behind, book fairs and Scholastic catalogs were a serious matter like your grandma's Fingerhut catalogs. Libraries were (and still are) a wonderland.

This concentrated schools and other education programs entirely on those tests, especially schools with students who were already struggling, at the cost of art and music programs, home economics and shop type programs, and any in depth exploration of pretty much anything that wasn't on the test, which were pretty narrowly focused. Reading Rainbow was a relaxed encouragement to be imaginative and curious. It didn't teach kids the answers to questions on the test. So it didn't make the cut.

This widened the gap between public and private school educations significantly, because students in public schools learned mostly how to regurgitate information, while students in private schools learned how to understand it, analyze it, think critically about it, and apply it - in short, if you could afford to go to private school, you still got to have agency over your education. And sure, many public school teachers were dedicated and still taught their students more than the curriculum demanded, but they were under a lot of pressure and scrutiny and their hands were often tied. Many of them couldn't sustain the effort it took (and how little they got paid) and changed careers. Meanwhile basic necessarily skills disappeared when arts and non-academic budgets were slashed into oblivion - you used to be able to learn how to sew, mend, cook, budget, do woodworking, fix a car (hell, build one), paint, draw, do pottery, and so much more in elective classes. What's mostly remained is performing arts programs, which struggle to continue existing, but since you can charge admission to performances they've had a better chance than shop class and home ec.

You have no idea what it's like to have watched all that happen under the Bush administration and now see the second emerging generation of young people who were deprived of the education they deserve and don't understand critical thought or media analysis. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Bush era are frustrated, but not at all surprised to see how reductive and binary fandom discourse is, or that critical media analysis has diminished significantly and turned into fandom discourse instead (ie. that being a child during the "what you feel is more valid than facts" Bush administration has led to the second emerging generation of people who struggle to separate their personal feelings about a piece of media from the idea that fiction is social commentary, who struggle to understand nuance and are more concerned about judging others for their even slightly divergent political views than about what makes for effective activism, or that fandom has become a way for people to judge and condemn others).

You have no idea how terrifying it is to have watched No Child Left Behind unfold in your early 20s and have thought "this is going to lead to generations of kids who will be ripe for manipulation by propaganda" and to now watch how hard it is to get Gen Z and Alpha to understand the ways they're being manipulated by fascists. Believe me when I say the very real purpose of forcing education to focus on tests instead of knowledge was to create generations of people whose brains are trained at an early age to accept information unquestioningly. That's what I see when people reblog screenshots without sources and base their political opinions on tumblr funnymen.

Fictional characters are objects.

Stop telling people to encourage the cop inside their head.

How you treat fictional characters, given they are entirely objects of fiction, does NOT necessarily speak to your own character, and you do not need to be "careful".

It is not dangerous to imagine dark things happening to fictional characters. It does not mean you are secretly a bad person. It does not mean you unconsciously want to hurt people in real life. It is not a "slippery slope" to doing bad things to people in real life. You cannot damage your brain or turn yourself into a bad person by consuming "dark" fanfic.

The author and the audience are both choosing to be there and can revoke their consent at any point by putting the book down. The characters are not real, they are not being asked to make a choice because they have no ability to choose, but you do and you can leave at any time, for any reason. In most cases you as the author or audience also have context that tells you things will turn out alright in the end, or a reason to think they shouldn’t for this character. All the real people involved can expect a satisfying ending, and are not at any point being kept captive in a situation that will harm them.

With the juicy little 'I know this has good intentions' too, WOW. Passive aggressive holier-than-thou... and then their message is 'I will judge you for how you play with your building blocks' jesus christ

'passive aggressive holier-than-thou' hurts but yeah.. I truly thought I was super clever for thinking about the framing of characters while still agreeing that they cannot be objectified. This was also wrong - you can frame your characters and their interactions however you want and this does not say anything about your character.

Just like the food you eat affects your body, the entertainment you choose affects your mind. It’s dangerous to think you can eat anything and it not affect your body in some way, whether it’s healthy or unhealthy. There could be a food others are fine with but you’re allergic to, so you might be more susceptible to certain subjects more than others. Like food to your body, everything you mentally consume will have an effect on your mind.

This is what the anti-porn movement looks like when it’s trying to pretend to care about people. Don’t take this kind of thing seriously.

Is there violent porn? Yup. Do some people have porn watching habits that interfere with their day to day life? Yup. And that’s their issue to deal with, not mine.

To use the fatphobic food example you used, I don’t think we should ban “junk food” just because fat people exist. I’m technically overweight. Do you think I should be barred from eating pizza? Do you think we should BAN PIZZA for EVERYONE because I’m fat? This isn’t hyperbole. Some folks who are really fatphobic and obsessed with thinness do actually think we should ban “junk food”.

Imagine dehumanizing sex workers so hard you think of them and drawings as the same thing so much you don't even realize someone talking about one isn't talking about the other.

all those warnings for people not to base their expectations on porn bc that's not how real world works, and now suddenly.... it's real?? wtf???

porn is as real as any live action show or movie, sure there are real people involved but I promise you Sean Bean did not get his actual head chopped off when he was on game of thrones. yes there's room to talk about the industry and safety measures and exploitation of actors, but this is not abt that. this post is abt fictional characters not being real.

Porn features real people really doing a real thing (sex) in the real world.

That is not the same thing as make-believe never-real play pretend blorbos bopping up against each other. A real person and the bunny from Zootopia everyone's hot for are not the same.

Also, uh, what porn are you watching? Because when I see a video of someone masturbating or two people banging, I don't think, "Ah yes, my blorbos, Jeff, Jessica and Julie, back to complete their character arcs! Excellent, I wanted closure on their narrative!" I think, "that is a man masturbating. That is an amateur couple who turned on a camera whilst banging."

A real person putting on a performance is still a real person.

A cartoon is not a real person.

you are the one bringing up sex workers into this conversation and i don't get why. do i need to say it to make you feel better? yes sex workers are people, yes they should have rights and be respected. yes sex work should be legal and protected by the law. and so what? how does that affect the point that - in words of the op:

How you treat fictional characters, given they are entirely objects of fiction, does NOT necessarily speak to your own character, and you do not need to be "careful".

It is not dangerous to imagine dark things happening to fictional characters. It does not mean you are secretly a bad person. It does not mean you unconsciously want to hurt people in real life. It is not a "slippery slope" to doing bad things to people in real life. You cannot damage your brain or turn yourself into a bad person by consuming "dark" fanfic.

it was you who balked at people acting "as if porn = fiction". it was you who started talking about sex workers.

you know that fiction depicts a thing people did not do, right?

what if fiction can be abt things people do? what then?

fiction can be about elves and dragons, and it can be abt car thieves. or it can be abt being hot and bothered about the milk man. some of these also happen to coincide with what exists irl and i think that's where the miscommunication comes from.

you are adamant abt bringing real people into the conversation abt fiction so eh. an actor wearing a historically accurate costume or a prosthetic to make them look like an alien had to walk around on set and wave a sword around or whatever. somebody DID THAT. if that is an actor in their birthday suit in bedroom, that to me changes little. actors kiss. there are sex scenes outside of porn too and yes they were acted out by real people making noises and thrusting hips and shit - it's still not real.

The Dungeons & Dragons movie is not a documentary.

porn isn't either.

Porn features real people really doing a real thing (sex) in the real world.

beg to differ here. it's a performance. i don't assume shit abt the person im watching. they may seem excited and what not but that doesn't tell me shit what the actual person, the actor is excited by (in fact i don't want to know bc it's none of my business). that's kinda the point of acting. did you watch any interviews abt shooting sex scenes? abt shooting actual porn films? that's them putting on a performance and not how they do things irl.

if i pay a real life person to fuck me and we go to a restaurant as part of the agreed experience i am not naive enough to think they give a shit abt me. and i am fine with that. it would be shitty of me to expect anything like that from them and *then* that would be a problem.

similarly, a person putting a tiktok up of how they are so cute as they sleepily roll out of bed is not doing real things, they stage it. they put on a show. like, there is a difference? can you not see that? that is also fiction. yes we have beds and shit irl, and you and i also roll out of our beds and maybe the line is more clear when it's a story abt kings and dragons.... but it's still fiction. it's curated to appeal.

I don't think, "Ah yes, my blorbos, Jeff, Jessica and Julie, back to complete their character arcs! Excellent, I wanted closure on their narrative!" I think, "that is a man masturbating. That is an amateur couple who turned on a camera whilst banging."

i don't expect porn to have that level of depth (lol) and a lot of sfw shows and movies these days don't bother with satisfying closure to their narratives. yes i know you were absurd on purpose but like, please. nobody is arguing that.

i don't get the appeal of somebody filming themself and putting it online but to each their own *shrugs* but i refer you to the above abt staging. porn is a fantasy. whether it's a pizza delivery opening line or somebody licking toilets for clicks.

A real person putting on a performance is still a real person.

performance is fiction.

and what is this post abt again? it's abt us doing whatever we want with a fictional characters and it not reflecting who we are as people. because they are fiction.

A cartoon is not a real person.

guess what, a real person is voicing that character. now what?

to wrap this up: it says absolutely nothing abt how im going to treat real people if i enjoy gore and mutilating my blorbos until they are sobbing bloody messes. i may enjoy rape fantasies and even watch porn with that. that tells you nothing on whether or not i will say good morning to a cashier or punch a homeless person.

bringing up sex workers starts an entirely separate conversation bc as much as i would hate to hear that there were no safety measures when actors were filming a car crash scene or something else dangerous, the same way i wouldn't want the porn i happen to watch to in fact involve human trafficking victims. but i would hope we can all see how those are two very different conversations to have, right?

and just a side note:

Also, uh, what porn are you watching?

Cartoons are not real people.

If a real person voices them, they do not become a person. They are not real. If I do a funny voice and say, "Whee, I'm Jiffjeffjoff the Giraffe", Jiffjeffjoff is not a person. He has no rights. He is not a registered a citizen of the US. He does not have thoughts or feelings or a Social Security Number.

If voice determined personhood, mute people would not be people. Thankfully, no one else but you uses that as a metric of realness or personhood.

Porn actors are human beings. Not make-believe, I mean real people, really here, in the real, physical world. You can make up creepy headcanons that the dude jerking off for a camera is being human trafficked or the couple who make amateur porn in their own house is being held at gunpoint and forced to, but that's in your head, not a proven fact you have evidence for and also, they are still people. They are still different from fiction.

Sex workers are people. Cartoons are not.

"But if voice, then real???" is the most media illiterate take I've seen in my entire life and that is genuinely impressive considering it's tumblr.

And no, you can't "beg to differ" on if porn actors having sex is doing a real thing. It is a real person sexually interacting with another person. That is real. You can dislike it, you can say you don't want to view it as The One True Sex Between Man And Woman In Holy Matrimony or whatever, but it's still sex. Sex is not only two people you approve of having it in the right context under the right circumstances. Sex is people having sex, even if you don't approve of the circumstances that led there - otherwise we wouldn't have sex crime laws, or have a word for the concept of rape.

"What if fiction could be about things real people do? What then?" IT STILL WOULDN'T MAKE FICTION REAL OR REAL ACTS FICTIONAL!

I cannot state this clearly enough: something happening in both fiction and reality doesn't make it more fictional or more real. Make believe play pretend not real non-existent imaginary scenarios and the world around you are different!

The fact that people genuinely cannot understand that fiction and reality are different realms is baffling. "What then?" is being asked as if there is some powerful statement being made but there just isn't. "What if fiction reflected a lived experience? What if it had voices?" It wouldn't be real. No matter how much realism fiction aims for, it is fake.

A real genital really being touched by a real person is not fake.

The person who has that genitalia is a real person.

Pikachu is not.

I can't tell if "you, not the person comparing porn to fiction, are bringing real people into this" is a joke or if you genuinely cannot understand that porn actors are human beings who live in the real world.

Tonight I woke up from a nap and accidentally took my morning meds, so I'm going to be up for a few hours because of the meth. In place of sleep, I'll try to roughly sum up some basic ideas proposed by the research the book is based on:

That traits of "narcissism" like entitlement, grandiosity, and feeling special are not inherently toxic. There are times and places they are appropriate and beneficial. If you show up at a hospital with a gunshot wound to the chest, you should not sit and wait to be seen after people with earaches and coughs. (Actually, medical systems are designed to prioritize people with more urgent needs, and you qualify under that system. You are special and are deserving of different treatment than those others, which is why making your needs known, even insisting on it if you're not listened to appropriately the first time, is an extremely good idea. It keeps you from bleeding to death on the floor, and keeps the hospital from getting its pants sued off by your heirs.)

It is more useful to view "narcissism" not as an inherent immutable personality trait, but as a cluster of coping mechanisms. As previously stated, there are times they are exactly the right coping mechanism for the job. However, people we call "narcissists" tend to cling to these ones even when they become detrimental to themselves and others, often because they lack other ways of regulating their emotions and getting their needs met. And that is something they can change, if a person is willing to put in sincere and difficult work. It is not usually fast change; it's a matter of years, not weeks. But a skillbuilding approach turned Borderline Personality Disorder from an immutable curse to a fully treatable (though not quickly treatable) condition, and there's a lot of hope that it can do the same for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Meanwhile, there's an opposite end to the narcissism spectrum, and it is also pathological and destructive to hang out there all the time. It's an aversion, or even a resistance, to expecting yourself or other people to treat your own feelings, thoughts, ideas, needs, or preferences as important. For Greek mythology reasons, its proposed name is Echoism.

Unfortunately, because most of the damage echoism does is, by its very nature, localized to its sufferer and their own personal relationships, its downsides aren't often talked about. In fact, it's often seen as an ideal moral state, a kind of altruism or saintliness everyone should strive for. As a pathological coping mechanism a person is trapped in, though, it's often more a fear-based reflex than a conscious and deliberate attempt to achieve some real and specific good. It's not actually as beneficial as being able to recognize your needs, desires, positive aspects, and areas of competence or excellence, and bring them forward in your relationships with other people and yourself.

To me this has all been a cross between a gut-punch and a cool, sweet drink of water. There have been other ways to describe echoism over the years, but this feels like the most concise and useful one I've seen in ages.

It specifically puts its pin down in the middle of the moral debate a lot of people struggle with—"What right do I have to put myself forward? What hope do I have of being seen and accepted? Isn't it better not to burden anybody else?"—and says that the problem is not feeling in touch with either side of the equation, but specifically, the inability to move from one part of the spectrum to another when it's merited by circumstances.

When I was a child, I thought Echoism was the answer. It was my ideal. I thought it was what would get me the love and acceptance I wanted, and would keep me safe from the pain of rejection or not being understood. I had no idea it would actually, in fact, be the primary cause of alienation and loneliness for the rest of my life.

Now I'm so deeply thankful I couldn't fully achieve it, in practical terms. As hard as I tried to erase myself, there were always things I loved too much to suppress. I still found ways to express and discover myself in the books I read, the stories I wrote, the intellectual work of school and the experience of pursuing hobbies I loved, my ambitions to be helpful even when they demanded I stop being selfless, and the relationships where I felt safe enough to experience love and acceptance even if I didn't think I deserved them.

See, LOTR is set in, essentially, mythological time. But it's extrapolated from European lore, and in Europe--as in most cultures of the world--you had two basic genders: Man, who went out and farmed\hunted\fought, and Woman, who ruled the home.

You'll notice that Woman's list is a summary there. That's because the Men are expendable. In this society, your house is basically a fortress, and Women are actually the ones in charge of it.

Most of your protein came from the geese, doves, and pigs the Women raised. Making cloth was the time-sink of history, and Women did that. Your valuables were in the house; your elders and children were in the house; anyone doing specialized work was in the house--guess who their boss was?

Officially, the king ruled. But you know why Eowyn is on-screen and no one else is? Because her job, like every other woman's, is to grab all the civilians and what society needs to start over, and get everyone the fuck behind big-ass walls. Because sure, the men are the first line of defense...but during the Battle of Helm's Deep, the men are elderly and children, because the big brawny farmwives who can kill an Orc with one punch?

They're in the caves, because if the line is breached, they're going to protect the ones who absolutely can't fight.

So LOTR featured almost no women, because women weren't fucking expendable. The Fellowship? They die, well, that's sad...but there's Women who will pick up and carry on. Historically, that was really damn common, and women actually WERE trained in warfare and fighting if they were nobility (and often even in lower classes) because of it.

However, very few people who made LOTR-based fantasy actually bothered looking a damn thing up. So they decided what GRRM decided: Clearly, history is sexist, women were chattel, and women don't belong in fantasy.

Which leaves you, in the modern day, with this knowledge:

If there's only men in the RPG, yeah, the writers are sexist. We know this. They're stupid. But if there's only women?