BisectedBrioche's Brilliant Bread Random Banter Bthread #243

[Jasdoif]

"I have a favorite Disney film" is a red flag? 30 year olds used to be kids too, and nostalgia leads to having favorite movies that came out when they were kids, and that's a normal thing. Watching tehse with your children isn't tedious directly BECAUSE they're designed to be enjoyable for adults and kids alike, even if the focus is on kids.

And the media children are exposed to during their brain's formative years influences the personal concept of "normal" that's going to be with them, to one degree or another, for the rest of their lives; it'd be short-sighted to dismiss as unworthy of analysis.

[Rynjin]

On the Tinder thing, that's a platform for people to meet up and have sex with each other. If one thinks that in this endeavour the most important thing that the two parties need to know about each other is what each other's favourite Disney movie is then I can't help but feel something has gone wrong somewhere along the line. Having a favourite movie is one thing; putting it front and centre on your profile something else.

Nothing "killed my joy" in watching children's entertainment. I don't do it often but I do occasionally. What bugs me is the disproportionate attention paid to kids' entertainment by apparent adults, as if it were anything more than a bit of light relief. It's not just Disney - I've asked for recommendations for new TV shows from friends before and got exclusively lists of kids' shows - but it is the most prominent manifestation by some distance.

A lot of "adult" entertainment is ****ing boring, is why. They're all shot in the exact same grey and blue color palette (when you can see anything at all) and all cover at least three of the same four subjects: "romance" (two people abusing each other and ****ing occasionally counts, right?), Very Serious Political Drama Which We Must Take Very Seriously (even though the audience doesn't care), wangst, and drug addiction.

Like what shows have even come out in the last 5 years that don't fall into that category? Every big show I hear about is exactly that, if it's not some reality tv show I couldn't give less of a **** about. Westworld? It's that with robots. The Expanse? It's that in space. Wednesday? That in a school. Banshee? It's that in a random town in the middle of nowhere. Yellowstone? It's that in a random town but the twist is - get this - they're EVEN MORE in the middle of nowhere!

All of these prestige dramas are exactly the same, because these big studios still haven't given up on making the next Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. And the few shows that AREN'T that are some Disney franchise anyway, and most of them suck for different reasons.

I miss the era of mid-budget SyFy adventure series (eg. Warehouse 13) and other random stuff I could actually watch and have fun with, but it's long gone. The ones that exist are garbage and most of the "prestige" series are pretentious, overwrought dreck that takes itself way too seriously. Of the ones I mentioned I actually liked Wednesday, but it's definitely cut of the same cloth, right down to having a forced [Insert Instrument Here] of Paint It Black (just like Westworld!) because that is yet another trope shared by all of these samey ass shows that have zero unique ideas to share between them at this point.

At least children's media can actually be fun, entertaining, and most importantly creative on occasion, so I don't blame people for retreating into that world in the slightest.

All of modern tv is overly corporatized slop, so why not watch the "light relief" instead of the ones that aren't fun and seem more concerned with pretending (but never delivering) on being "deep" and "meaningful"?

[HalfTangible]

Hell of an assumption, that.

It is very much a corner stone of the film. It's what Zero to Hero is all about. It's why Pan is a wrestling second.

Maleficent is impressive and stylish but not necessarily interesting. Ursula is entertaining as hell (also based on a drag queen). Jafar is Very Evil and voice acted well but isn't actually all that honestly? Cruella is a good example of how contrasts work (the main leads are so dull that her genuine insanity is amplified), and certainly entertaining, but again not interesting.

Not really an assumption at all so much as an opinion.

... except the film's core message has nothing to do with sports fan culture.

Yeah most "morally gray" antagonists aren't interesting either.

[LaZodiac]

On the Tinder thing, that's a platform for people to meet up and have sex with each other. If one thinks that in this endeavour the most important thing that the two parties need to know about each other is what each other's favourite Disney movie is then I can't help but feel something has gone wrong somewhere along the line. Having a favourite movie is one thing; putting it front and centre on your profile something else.

It's not just "favourite Disney movie from when we were kids", either. It's evident that people didn't just watch these films when they were age-appropriate but have continued to watch the new ones, in some cases making a point of doing so. And sure, watch them if you like, but at that point it's going beyond nostalgia.

Nothing "killed my joy" in watching children's entertainment. I don't do it often but I do occasionally. What bugs me is the disproportionate attention paid to kids' entertainment by apparent adults, as if it were anything more than a bit of light relief. It's not just Disney - I've asked for recommendations for new TV shows from friends before and got exclusively lists of kids' shows - but it is the most prominent manifestation by some distance.

Fair enough.

I'd argue trying to recapture the gentler time of your youth by watching some nice animation is also part of nostalgia, but fair.

A lot of kids shows are good and worth watching. Owl House is exceptional, and giving kids what I WISH I had, and as someone who never really got to live a happy childhood, enjoying shows like that is good. And also, truth be told, some people just don't like "adult" media. I'm not gonna force someone to watch Breaking Bad (an adult show I like) if they're just not going to jive with it. As well, considering how ****ed and brutal the world can be some times, why NOT watch something that doesn't touch on things like that, or treats it with softer hands?

And the media children are exposed to during their brain's formative years influences the personal concept of "normal" that's going to be with them, to one degree or another, for the rest of their lives; it'd be short-sighted to dismiss as unworthy of analysis.

Neat but I don't understand it's relevancy here.

A lot of "adult" entertainment is ****ing boring, is why. They're all shot in the exact same grey and blue color palette (when you can see anything at all) and all cover at least three of the same four subjects: "romance" (two people abusing each other and ****ing occasionally counts, right?), Very Serious Political Drama Which We Must Take Very Seriously (even though the audience doesn't care), wangst, and drug addiction.

Like what shows have even come out in the last 5 years that don't fall into that category? Every big show I hear about is exactly that, if it's not some reality tv show I couldn't give less of a **** about. Westworld? It's that with robots. The Expanse? It's that in space. Wednesday? That in a school. Banshee? It's that in a random town in the middle of nowhere. Yellowstone? It's that in a random town but the twist is - get this - they're EVEN MORE in the middle of nowhere!

All of these prestige dramas are exactly the same, because these big studios still haven't given up on making the next Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. And the few shows that AREN'T that are some Disney franchise anyway, and most of them suck for different reasons.

I miss the era of mid-budget SyFy adventure series (eg. Warehouse 13) and other random stuff I could actually watch and have fun with, but it's long gone. The ones that exist are garbage and most of the "prestige" series are pretentious, overwrought dreck that takes itself way too seriously. Of the ones I mentioned I actually liked Wednesday, but it's definitely cut of the same cloth, right down to having a forced [Insert Instrument Here] of Paint It Black (just like Westworld!) because that is yet another trope shared by all of these samey ass shows that have zero unique ideas to share between them at this point.

At least children's media can actually be fun, entertaining, and most importantly creative on occasion, so I don't blame people for retreating into that world in the slightest.

All of modern tv is overly corporatized slop, so why not watch the "light relief" instead of the ones that aren't fun and seem more concerned with pretending (but never delivering) on being "deep" and "meaningful"?

Hey now, The Expanse is actually really good sci-fi, but I get where you're coming from, and agree. A lot of the more adult focused media tends to skew... heavily towards stuff I could completely understand people just not being interested in.

I feel like if you're going to do a cover of Paint It Black for an Addam's Family adjacent thing, it should lean the exact opposite way. Make it distressingly upbeat and sugar-pop. Be creative with your weird ass queer baiting show damnit! Or at least let the girls kiss.

Also, on the subject of "most morally grey villains aren't interesting"... honestly just read or watch better media.

[Jasdoif]

"I have a favorite Disney film" is a red flag? 30 year olds used to be kids too, and nostalgia leads to having favorite movies that came out when they were kids, and that's a normal thing. Watching tehse with your children isn't tedious directly BECAUSE they're designed to be enjoyable for adults and kids alike, even if the focus is on kids.

And the media children are exposed to during their brain's formative years influences the personal concept of "normal" that's going to be with them, to one degree or another, for the rest of their lives; it'd be short-sighted to dismiss as unworthy of analysis.

Neat but I don't understand it's relevancy here.

I thought adding onto your post would come across less patronizingly than directly quoting

...applying serious adult brainpower to the analysis of Disney movies is at best a waste of time.

might.

[Rater202]

Whether or not a morally grey villain is interesting depends on how they're presented.

The main antagonists of Bleach, for example, Sosuke Aizen and Yhwach, aren't villains because of what they want to do.

Given the state of the universe—especially once the Light Novels reveal that the Universe isn't supposed to be like this and explain what exactly happened to make it this way—their respective goals of usurp the "Throne of Heaven" and "Kill the Soul King and return the Universe to its natural state" aren't exactly... Bad in and of themselves.

What makes them villains is that they're just complete *******s. Aizen ruined countless lives and framed other people for his crimes and Yhwach literally committed multiple genocides, including periodically ethnically cleaning his own followers, for th sake of prolonging his life long enough to have a shot at achieving his goals while also ignoring that... the universe may be broken but fixing it will require sacrificing certain things that most people probably wouldn't be willing to give up.

"You're right... But you're also a **** so we're gonna kick your ass anyway"... Kind of works as a conflict. The unambiguous villain who has a point? I think that's an interesting take on a morally grey villain.

[HalfTangible]

It's not that morally gray villains can't work and/or are never interesting, but they're usually not written well enough for their conflict to be interesting. How it usually goes is that a piece of **** ******* will be given some sad backstory where he was traumatized or manipulated into being evil and that means we're supposed to feel bad for him I guess? No thanks, I don't care if he feels bad about mass producing flaying pits just because he was bullied in school.

Also, on the subject of "most morally grey villains aren't interesting"... honestly just read or watch better media.

Not really actionable.

---

On another topic entirely, I wish more RPGs would give you a choice between multiple protags, and then have those protags be characters within the story. Octopath Traveller does this, but I never got far enough into the game to see if they did it well, and you don't need it to be that wide and varied.

Like... idea from a discussion on Persona 5 Royal from a while back: when Kasumi was revealed it was apparently speculated that she'd be the Female MC. Which would've been okay but obv that didn't end up happening, she was introduced as her own new character to connect to the third semester, and she's... fine. Not great or groundbreaking, but okay. And she gives some confidant bonuses relating to her gymnast background. Most of which you gain whether you want them or not; they're plot tickets.

Joker, meanwhile, is a very observant character. While we don't get much of a peek into his mind, his character is all about how he keeps his eyes open and pays attention to the small things. Before the game started, he looked into a problem society tells him he shouldn't have and got punished for it. His awakening is all about how he can't ignore it when people are in trouble and how he's never going to look away. Igor gives him the Third Eye ability that is, ultimately, why he's the leader: he sees paths and options nobody else does because they don't have that same third eye.

But if you pick Kasumi and Joker becomes a separate character, he could then act as his own Confidant, and give you abilities relating to the Third Eye. Meanwhile you'd start out with all of the abilities Kasumi gives you, because why wouldn't you? She teaches those abilities to Joker, she obv would know them already.

Not asking for P5R to actually do this, obv. This would require the game to be restructured quite a bit (primarily when the two meet), and if you keep their backstories as they are in the current game it'd require you make two full games on their own which is ludicrous, but I think it could be interesting and cool to do something like that with a different game.

Selecting between male and female childhood friends in the same village would be enough to get what I'm going for. Send them off together on the same adventure and you wouldn't even need to change that much between them. Give them occasional solo missions separated from each other, make some of those missions/conversations unique to the character perhaps. Maybe it's too much to ask but I think it'd be interesting.

Sooner or later I need to actually develop a game...

[TaiLiu]

And I am concerned about the way that my generation and younger seem to be almost deliberately infantilising themselves by way of their media consumption and discussion.

I get what you mean by people infantilizing themselves (gestures vaguely to how capital F Fandom has consumed so many people that Girl In Star Wars drives some people ****ing insane) but really?

What do you two mean when you say people infantilize themselves? I've read it before but I'm not totally sure what it means. It seems almost self-contradictory: isn't infantilization done by someone other than yourself? How can you infantilize yourself?

And the media children are exposed to during their brain's formative years influences the personal concept of "normal" that's going to be with them, to one degree or another, for the rest of their lives; it'd be short-sighted to dismiss as unworthy of analysis.

For sure. I used to be pretty glib about representation in popular media. But kids have limited control over the media they experience, so it does seem important to show that e.g. being gay is cool or racism is bad or whatnot in the media they're most likely to experience.

[LaZodiac]

What do you two mean when you say people infantilize themselves? I've read it before but I'm not totally sure what it means. It seems almost self-contradictory: isn't infantilization done by someone other than yourself? How can you infantilize yourself?


For sure. I used to be pretty glib about representation in popular media. But kids have limited control over the media they experience, so it does seem important to show that e.g. being gay is cool or racism is bad or whatnot in the media they're most likely to experience.

There's this idea, legitimate or not, that some people are just... willingly allowing themselves to be made adult children, because they're not engaging with anything that matters. Just going so with the flow that they're "coddled" or some such. Not asking responsible when you could. I don't fully get it myself, but I get it enough to get it.

Oh I get it now he was agreeing with me. Okay. Had trouble parsing that

[TaiLiu]

There's this idea, legitimate or not, that some people are just... willingly allowing themselves to be made adult children, because they're not engaging with anything that matters. Just going so with the flow that they're "coddled" or some such. Not asking responsible when you could. I don't fully get it myself, but I get it enough to get it.

Thanks for clarifying! I think I kinda understand a little bit. Like... choosing to be irresponsible? Like an absent parent who abandons their kids. But then I'm not sure what Disney movies or Star Wars have to do with it.

Oh I get it now he was agreeing with me. Okay. Had trouble parsing that

I can relate. Sometimes sentences just don't make sense.

[LaZodiac]

Thanks for clarifying! I think I kinda understand a little bit. Like... choosing to be irresponsible? Like an absent parent who abandons their kids. But then I'm not sure what Disney movies or Star Wars have to do with it.


I can relate. Sometimes sentences just don't make sense.

The base conceit here is that watching the "lowest common denominator" media and just kinda gulging your brain on it makes you a brain-dead child. Feels a little reductive to me imo.

[Batcathat]

While different movies and shows are obviously geared towards different demographics, I don't really get why I should care about something being age-appropriate on an individual level. I didn't want to only watch stuff for kids when I was a kid and I don't want to only watch stuff for adults now that I'm an adult. Something is interesting and entertaining or it's not, that's pretty much all I care about.

It's not that morally gray villains can't work and/or are never interesting, but they're usually not written well enough for their conflict to be interesting. How it usually goes is that a piece of **** ******* will be given some sad backstory where he was traumatized or manipulated into being evil and that means we're supposed to feel bad for him I guess? No thanks, I don't care if he feels bad about mass producing flaying pits just because he was bullied in school.

Sure, I agree that taking a two-dimensional mustache-twirling villain and adding a two-dimensional tragic background rarely makes for an interesting character, I'm talking more about a villain whose goals and motivations are understandable and maybe even sympathetic even if something (usually their methods) creates conflict with the heroes.

Like what shows have even come out in the last 5 years that don't fall into that category?

Considering the width of examples you mention, it does seem like a very broad category (including several shows I like a lot, but that's beside the point) and saying they're all basically the same seems unfair. Maybe you're right in the proportions between light-hearted and more serious shows have shifted, but if that means I get more shows like the Expanse at the cost of more shows like Warehouse 13, I'm alright with that. (And I really liked Warehouse 13, just not as much as I love the Expanse).

[Metastachydium]

I tend not to express my opinion vis-a-vis Disney movies around here because I know it'll be unpopular, but my view is that, ultimately, they're for kids. There is obviously stuff in them for adults to appreciate so that their brains don't leak out of their ears during the inevitable viewing with their kids in the way that they do with, say, Paw Patrol, but the core audience for these movies - and the market for whom they are targetted - is children under the age of, say, twelve.

Children can be quite discerning, but their expectations of media and appreciatoin of what they're seeing are nevertheless very different to those of adults. (There may also be a sense that Disney movies ought to be kind of "edutainment" in terms of the messages they deliver, which might be one of the reasons why I gather recent movies haven't had designated villains in the same way.)

Al-right. Let's clarify a few things, then. I mostly did not so much watch Disney stuff of my own volition as I was exposed to them, and while I can't say much about Paw Patrol (is that something like the song about sharks used to torture people?), I found most of them stupid well before I hit legal adulthood.

Now, let's see Hunchback once again. For starters, I must ask once more, why? Why was it even picked for dumbing down in the first place when that took just so much chainsaw sculpting? Further, what "edutaiment" value, exactly, does it provide? "Dumbass racist racism is bad"? Well, wow. Did they find the perfect vehicle for that message. Or: the authorities are all corrupt monsters or mindless cruel mooks except the odd handsome one? An eminently useful message;

Spoiler: Is this a spoiler?

Show

Book!Esmeralda made very good use of that "truth", in that it helped her immensely in dying a cruel and untimely death which makes this especially jarring.

But hey. I've likewise mentioned the silver bounty thing. Kids might not get it (so why is it there?) and if they do, it's cringe.

Also: Disney seems to think children have a very curious mind, then. A mind that cannot process stuff like "pretty face=/=outstanding morals" or "good people might end up doing really bad things and it's sad", so these bits need to be ditched, but kid-friendly stuff such as "immoral creepy obsessive sexual lust" are okay and might as well stay. Same goes for pouring molten lead on people. By the good guys. That's okay too.

I don't have anything against adults watching kids' movies, per se, but I feel like it should be part of a balanced diet and in the same way that there's not much point analysing a Big Mac, tasty as it might be, applying serious adult brainpower to the analysis of Disney movies is at best a waste of time. And I am concerned about the way that my generation and younger seem to be almost deliberately infantilising themselves by way of their media consumption and discussion. I feel uncomfortable that people in their 30s have their "favourite Disney movie" (or a request for yours) as the main feature on their Tinder profile. I am frustrated at the quantity of virtual ink expended by adults discussing the relative merits of films made for children without acknowledging that elephant in the room. The way that they're talked about often makes me think that the people discussing them would be much happier, or at least, the discussions would be less of a waste of time, if they were watching films made for, you know, adults, and discussing them instead.

I tend to agree with much of this (although I do hope the Tinder thing is an exaggeration), but I resent the implication that my fuming over what I perceive as bad stuff being funnel-fed to children, to put it a bit bluntly, is somehow tantamount to "infantilising myself". Note that the movie I brought up was Atlantis, a work that I find more appropriate and enjoyable a watch for folks older than twelve.

(also most of the people getting mad at children's movies tend to be getting mad at it for good things they do, foaming at the mouth because there's one(1) scene of a lesbian in the Buzz Lightyear movie no one watched or whatever. I doubt they'd actually enjoy discussing good adult films like The Man From Earth as well!)

I like to believe that this is not supposed to be about me, but in the off chance: see above. My gripe with Mulan is likewise the portrayal of conflict between "Good" settled populations and "Always Chaotic Evil barbarian" nomads.

[Rynjin]

Considering the width of examples you mention, it does seem like a very broad category (including several shows I like a lot, but that's beside the point) and saying they're all basically the same seems unfair. Maybe you're right in the proportions between light-hearted and more serious shows have shifted, but if that means I get more shows like the Expanse at the cost of more shows like Warehouse 13, I'm alright with that. (And I really liked Warehouse 13, just not as much as I love the Expanse).

The width is kind of the point. Everything I mentioned includes basically ALL of those things. I shouldn't be able to point to 3-4 fairly narrow tropes and find them in every single show. Most of these series' have zero visual identity of their own, and little narrative identity either. Even the best are just aping shows that came before without really thinking about WHY that series may have looked the way it did.

Did The Expanse REALLY need to look exactly like Battlestar Galactica (but with more blue, I guess), or was it just a subtle nostalgia bait? I don't know, but I sure was already bored of that visual style years ago.

[enderlord99]

I don't care if he feels bad about mass producing flaying pits just because he was bullied in school.

Dunking on Rater, I see{.}

[Batcathat]

The width is kind of the point. Everything I mentioned includes basically ALL of those things. I shouldn't be able to point to 3-4 fairly narrow tropes and find them in every single show. Most of these series' have zero visual identity of their own, and little narrative identity either. Even the best are just aping shows that came before without really thinking about WHY that series may have looked the way it did.

Did The Expanse REALLY need to look exactly like Battlestar Galactica (but with more blue, I guess), or was it just a subtle nostalgia bait? I don't know, but I sure was already bored of that visual style years ago.

I don't think any of the tropes you mentioned were very narrow, aside from maybe drug addiction but that one's also the least omnipresent of them, nor do I think the visual styles are particularly narrow (at least no more than in any other type of media, there are always trends that become popular).

And I do think you're throwing rocks in glass houses, because I don't think the kind of show you're being nostalgic for is any more diverse in their styles, whether narratively or visually. Nor do they have any more "unique ideas" as far as I've noticed.

[HalfTangible]

Dunking on Rater, I see{.}

Referencing a fanwork, actually. Although to be fair mass producing flaying pits isn't out of the question for Konrad Curze...

[Rater202]

Dunking on Rater, I see{.}

I do not fantasize about violence.

Seriously, no matter how many times I state, clearly, that I have no intent to actually inflict harm on people, that I only want people to be reluctant to inflict harm on me, people seem to read "rater wants to be a dragon so he can chew up and spit out his highschool bullies" and no.

I want to be a dragon becuase I want to be a dragon.

If show up at my 20-year high school reunion, and my bullies are still ****heads as adults, and seeing that I am now a majestic magical creature that shall only grow stronger with age while they are but mortal men who are already well over the hill and it makes them think "well ****" then that's just a bonus.

Not that I'd necessarily care at that point, because I'd be a dragon. Kind of, by definition, beyond the concerns of petty mortals.

(Reminder, I prefer the 'eldritch force of nature interpretation of dragons.)

[Keltest]

I do not fantasize about violence.

Seriously, no matter how many times I state, clearly, that I have no intent to actually inflict harm on people, that I only want people to be reluctant to inflict harm on me, people seem to read "rater wants to be a dragon so he can chew up and spit out his highschool bullies" and no.

I want to be a dragon becuase I want to be a dragon.

If show up at my 20-year high school reunion, and my bullies are still ****heads as adults, and seeing that I am now a majestic magical creature that shall only grow stronger with age while they are but mortal men who are already well over the hill and it makes them think "well ****" then that's just a bonus.

Not that I'd necessarily care at that point, because I'd be a dragon. Kind of, by definition, beyond the concerns of petty mortals.

(Reminder, I prefer the 'eldritch force of nature interpretation of dragons.)

Most of us see less distinction between "I want the capacity to do violence" and "I want to do violence" than you apparently do.

One of the first rules of firearms is to never point it at something you arent prepared to shoot, and even if you arent fantasizing about pulling the trigger, even just pointing a metaphorical gun at somebody is incredibly menacing, and it kind of alarms me that you don't quite seem to get that.

[Peelee]

I do not fantasize about violence.

Seriously, no matter how many times I state, clearly, that I have no intent to actually inflict harm on people, that I only want people to be reluctant to inflict harm on me, people seem to read "rater wants to be a dragon so he can chew up and spit out his highschool bullies" and no.

I want to be a dragon becuase I want to be a dragon.

If show up at my 20-year high school reunion, and my bullies are still ****heads as adults, and seeing that I am now a majestic magical creature that shall only grow stronger with age while they are but mortal men who are already well over the hill and it makes them think "well ****" then that's just a bonus.

Not that I'd necessarily care at that point, because I'd be a dragon. Kind of, by definition, beyond the concerns of petty mortals.

(Reminder, I prefer the 'eldritch force of nature interpretation of dragons.)

You cultivate a very different impression, though. You often provide hypothetical scenarios you wish would be the case in which people are damaged inordinately, sometimes for no reason other than because you would like it that way.

If you want to give off the impression that you do not fantasize about hurting people, then the first step would ideally be to not put out treaties that fantasize about hurting people.

[Rynjin]

I don't think any of the tropes you mentioned were very narrow, aside from maybe drug addiction but that one's also the least omnipresent of them, nor do I think the visual styles are particularly narrow (at least no more than in any other type of media, there are always trends that become popular).

And I do think you're throwing rocks in glass houses, because I don't think the kind of show you're being nostalgic for is any more diverse in their styles, whether narratively or visually. Nor do they have any more "unique ideas" as far as I've noticed.

The shows I'm nostalgic for were not diverse among their genre, but the point is that there were multiple genres with different visual and narrative styles.

These prestige dramas all feel the same, and hit largely the same character beats, despite the four I mentioned being from an array of different genres.

The problem, as I see it, is that "prestige drama" has become less a distinct genre of its own and instead its DNA has infected basically everything on tv.

[Rater202]

Most of us see less distinction between "I want the capacity to do violence" and "I want to do violence" than you apparently do.

One of the first rules of firearms is to never point it at something you arent prepared to shoot, and even if you arent fantasizing about pulling the trigger, even just pointing a metaphorical gun at somebody is incredibly menacing, and it kind of alarms me that you don't quite seem to get that.

And it kind of alarms me that you equate the desire to be strong or the desire to be something other than human with the desire to point guns at people.

[Peelee]

One of the first rules of firearms is to never point it at something you arent prepared to shoot, and even if you arent fantasizing about pulling the trigger, even just pointing a metaphorical gun at somebody is incredibly menacing

For the love of everything, yes. I have guns. Every thing I hear someone say "I wish someone would break into my house, I just dare them to" or the like, i know immediately that that person should not have a gun. That person fantasizes about killing people, and if they haven't yet, the only impediment to that is the they haven't been given the chance to do so without repurcussion.

[Keltest]

And it kind of alarms me that you equate the desire to be strong or the desire to be something other than human with the desire to point guns at people.

Its not the part where you want to be strong, its the part where you go "So that I can use my power to threaten all these groups of people I don't like in case they do something I dont like." afterwards.

[Rater202]

Its not the part where you want to be strong, its the part where you go "So that I can use my power to threaten all these groups of people I don't like in case they do something I dont like." afterwards.

It alarms me that you consider "I want to be strong enough that people will not consider a valid target for assault or harassment" to be the same as going around preemptively threatening people.

[Keltest]

It alarms me that you consider "I want to be strong enough that people will not consider a valid target for assault or harassment" to be the same as going around preemptively threatening people.

In what way is that not what it is? You want to be so outwardly threatening people think twice before even interacting with you.

[Batcathat]

The shows I'm nostalgic for were not diverse among their genre, but the point is that there were multiple genres with different visual and narrative styles.

These prestige dramas all feel the same, and hit largely the same character beats, despite the four I mentioned being from an array of different genres.

The problem, as I see it, is that "prestige drama" has become less a distinct genre of its own and instead its DNA has infected basically everything on tv.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, though I do think you seem to have much higher standards for the shows you don't like than the ones you do (because if any two of the shows you mention can be said to have the same visual and narrative styles, that's true of pretty much any two shows in general).

[Peelee]

It alarms me that you consider "I want to be strong enough that people will not consider a valid target for assault or harassment" to be the same as going around preemptively threatening people.

It rarely stops there, though.

You are familiar with Death of Author, yes? That was designed specifically because sometimes people will say ome thing, and think they are saying only that one thing, but may actually be imparting more things or different things in their text, which the author did not consciously realize. If you find it distressingly common that people interpret what you say to mean that you fantasize about violence, then maybe people aren't misunderstanding you. Maybe people are reading into what you're saying things you aren't consciously aware of.

Or, more simply, if one person says you're a duck, they're crazy. If two prople day you're a duck, they're crazy. If everyone you meet says you're a duck, you should probably think about finding a nice pond.

[Bartmanhomer]

Hey everyone. Today I was watching the news about the Olympics banning transgender athletes from their sports and I was very upset about it. This is pure discrimination at its finest.

[Rater202]

In what way is that not what it is? You want to be so outwardly threatening people think twice before even interacting with you.

"Outwordy threatening" is inherently subjective.

According to some people, I'm already outwardly threatening. I have gotten in trouble because people felt that my mere presence was enough of a threat to be concerned but not enough of a threat to think "maybe I shouldn't ambush him after class and threaten his academic future without so much as hearing his side of the story." I had to sign a document, I have a record with that university, becuase a professor felt that my frustration with her refusal to accommodate my request for clearer instructions was justification to have someone sneak into the next class, observe me, and discover... What, that minding my own business and trying to do the class work to the best of my ability made me a danger to the rest of the class?

Becuase "potential threat" does not, in fact, equal, "not an easy target." They saw me as a threat, but they also saw me as someone they could push around.

There was another incident, though this one has some extenuating circumstances in that apparently the women's shelter didn't tell the new girl that they used a share ride program for transport rather than in-house drivers, but having someone have a panic attack because of your mere presence where you're just sitting there minding your own business isn't exactly a pleasant experience.

I don't want to appear as a threat. Brother, I already appear as a threat according to some people.

I just don't want people to look at me and see a target.