#interesting points

This scene made me laugh a little when Owl gracefully took the mannequin and moved

“Blending the psychological intrigue of The Gift (2015) and the uncanny terror of Get Out (2017), Ma looks like it has makings to be Blumhouse’s next cultural touchstone. But it’s not simply the psycho-stalker element that has us intrigued, nor the group of rowdy teens destined to die badly. Rather, it’s the subtle suggestion that Ma may also fit within the social-thriller horror construct that Jordan Peele has carved out.

Ma not only has the distinction of being a black-led horror film, an increasingly common occurrence that will hopefully become the new norm, but it also might be tackling one of cinema’s oldest stereotypes. The mammy, a nurturing and submissive black woman who takes care of the children of white families is one of Hollywood’s oldest figures, one born of literature like Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

There are several things about Spencer’s Ma character worth noting in the trailer. The first is that when the teenagers first meet her she appears to be wearing a nurses’ smock, a comment both on Spencer’s acting history and the most prevalent image of the mammy today.

The second is the African masks we see adoring the upstairs, forbidden part of Ma’s house. Not only does this deliberately comment on the character’s blackness, in such a way that its evident that she could not be substituted with a white woman, but it also makes the upstairs an area of African-American identity.

In the past, the help was usually relegated to basements and backdoors, forbidden from being seen upstairs. So the fact that Ma keeps these white teenagers downstairs and forbids them from going upstairs seems like a reversal of that prior racial divide and hence her line “how does it feel to be on the outside looking in?”

I think everything that has happened to Gon will fully sink in, and maybe more of his deeper emotional and psychological issues will come to light. Ging’s abandonment affected Gon more than we were aware, and looking back at the very beginning of the series with the knowledge later on, you can see these in little bits and pieces before being covered up. What do you think? How do you think Gon will develop from there and how could This affect his future relationships?

Final note, I actually think it was sort of cruel for Mito to have Gon write down his experiences as a hunter. I mean, I know that the scene was meant for laughs and writing stuff down can help, but it also made me think she was being a little insensitive to Gon. It makes you realize that she is incredibly sheltered, much like Gon. Sure she’s had hardships, but she’s never had to face death in the face or experience despair before or see how cruel people can be I’m rambling at this point. 😅

[ The bold text above are the continued messages posted by @rowanshinobi. ]

This is very interesting. 

Gon is very young while experiencing these insane changes in his life, and it’s prevalent through the entire anime that the coming-of-age aspects are not being left behind psychologically. Killua receives a lot of attention in this way, since we essentially see more from his perspective and how he observes elements later in the story, especially in the Chimera Ant Arc. 

So, his perception of Gon, and the audience’s, are still primarily limited and open to interpretation on how he’s actually processing. 

There’s an undeniable fact that what happened to Gon will transpire the older he grows, and the more experiences he takes under his belt. I think it’s awesome that he’s Nenless now, since we’ll be able to see him navigate a frustrating playing field that he’s not yet familiar with. It’s essential for his growth as a character, and is meant to be individual. 

Being Nenless, Gon will be forced to commit to a path that’s sewn through solidarity. He cannot go through this journey of figuring himself out with another person guiding him. If Gon did not experience substantial changes in his maturity, intellect, and perception through this whole ordeal and the outcome, I would be very surprised. Togashi seems aware of this as well. 

Gon is also, actually, one of the more unpredictable characters in terms of how others affect him. He’s a simple person, but Ging’s impact on him seems to be more substantial than expected. I think what people mistakenly assume is that Ging’s abandoning him left zero impact on him because of how “lightly” he takes it, but I think it’s the exact opposite. 

Of course Ging’s abandonment impacted Gon. It fuels, at first, the sole reason he wishes to become a Hunter. 

He admires Ging, and respects him, and values Ging’s accomplishments and stance as a person more than him actually being there. At the end of the anime, there’s a sense of… parallelism, that exists between Gon and Ging. Father and son, very alike and very different. All that transpired with Gon, at least when it comes to Ging, appears to be worth it in those few moments. 

I could be wrong about this. I think you have a point with how it could be affecting Gon in a different way than what is commonly perceived. It would be fascinating, and a little disarming, to see if Gon’s viewpoint changes the older he grows and the more distant he becomes from his older ideals and his loss of his Nen. 

He’s a Hunter, now meant to take on purposes that aren’t revolving around Ging, so he will be latching onto a journey meant for him that lead somewhere more related to self-discovery. Throughout the anime, Gon’s achievements are centered around his desire to meet his father. And now, being Nenless, he does, as you stated, need to “return to square one.” 

This will be extremely vital for his character. How it affects his relationships is hard to tell, since I’m not sure what a Nenless, older Gon attempting to navigate a path of self-discovery that’s alien to him will be like. Which is part of why the mystery and expectations with the story are so fascinating to begin with. 

I do disagree about Mito being cruel, but that’s mostly due to personal interpretation and perception. It makes sense, to say that she is sheltered, but having Gon write down his experiences actually makes sense to me. It seemed also to be a necessary step in learning to grow. You take notes/write down your experiences and recount what you’ve learned. 

I didn’t find it cruel. Mito also knows how dangerous it would be to become a Hunter (or at least, some semblance of an idea) so why should she keep Gon from learning from his experiences? Maybe I’m a little skewed, but this seemed to make sense to me. However, I understand where you’re coming from. 

Also I highly doubt that Mito hasn’t experienced despair in some way or form. Of course we never see it explicitly in the anime (and I’m sure this is the same case for the manga as well), but she has an apparent depth of understanding with many things, including the sadder elements in life and knowing how one thing would impact Gon, versus an ulterior motive or decision.

Her being familiar with despair and knowing the harsh world of Hunters makes sense. There was a reason she was hesitant to let Gon go off, after all, aside from how much she would miss him. 

Conservative moral values arise from what I call the Strict Father Family.

In this family model, father knows best. He decides right and wrong. He has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, because what he says is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they control.

In this moral worldview, it is his moral duty to punish his children painfully when they disobey. Harsh punishment is necessary to ensure that they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world.

What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. In this conservative view, the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving while the rich deserve their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility, not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you, not society. You are responsible for yourself, not for others.

Hey hprambles, I don’t want to sound annoying, but don’t you think that by giving everyone a choice, you actually end up silencing other voices?

People come here and constantly see the same arguments and floods of content. Whether intentional or not, treating everyone the same way can actually give more power to one group. Wouldn’t it be fairer to be equitable? People can post what they want, but if they’re clearly using this blog for personal campaigns and preventing others from seeing different topics, wouldn’t it be fair to limit their power so that everyone has the same access?

I mean, I’m not taking my words out of nowhere, this is actually called the "Paradox of tolerance"