Out of the Evo folks when Grian dissappeared in the End who:
Turned around for a second or two and when they turned back he was gone. Not unusual for Grian, but he didn't show up again.
Saw him dissappear in the corner of their eye. Thinking their eyes fooled them, that he just ended up in a blind spot of their vision... But when they looked around he was just gone.
Looked directly at him (maybe even talked with him) as he dissappeared. Their brain taking a second to register he's not there anymore. One sec he was there and the next he's not. It being completely incomprehensible.
Related to this post where it wasn't the Watchers that took Grian. (although some rumours spread that it was.)
11 notes
·
View notes
glass onion tidbit (spoilers)
before I do this, know that this is a down and dirty quick splash of an idea that’s been knocking around my head since watching it. particular wording I know needs work and if I were writing up a paper this would be much more thought out and particular words would be very considered. in short, there are a few phrases I use here which could be picked at to undermine the entire argument and that’s not the sort of feedback I want to engage with. consider the vibe rather than the exact phrasing
thesis: Blanc’s character can point out what’s wrong but will not take the necessary corrective actions. a perfect allegory of liberal American politics that just wants to be correct, not do the correct thing
antithesis: it wasn’t Blanc’s action to take. he’s not some sort of white savior. he helped create the situation by exposing the truth but then left the shot at justice in the hands of the one person who deserved it, Brand
synthesis: Netflix workshopped and focus grouped a fun film targeted at a specific audience one might describe as “woke maskers” -- no offense intended to fellow politically motivated mask wearers. the film works very hard to create a situation where you can feel good that the Mona Lisa gets destroyed while of course the Mona Lisa doesn’t get destroyed irl. one of the first things it does is make up a fantasy mouth spray so that you don’t have to hand wring about Blanc and the others not wearing masks during their Covid party. our antagonist/villain is a guy just as insufferable as everyone else you want to punch on the screen, with the exception that we’re given some good reasons you’d actually punch him, whereas the social norms (the status quo we wouldn’t dare disrupt) say we can’t do that to the others
it’s a film about feeling good when the stars align and some rich asshole gets justice but not actually rocking the boat enough to do it for real. it’s about ignoring systemic issues to focus instead on intensely personal ones. the system is unimpeachable. you can only lash out at individual actors within the system when they commit some personal crime. like the “disruptors” in the film, the work’s final act of disruption and the good feelings it brings the audience are ultimately the false catharsis of a bourgeois placebo intended to placate its target audience. you know you’re good because you consumed a good film. there’s no need to do more (and you’re good: good people wouldn’t burn the Mona Lisa)
8 notes
·
View notes
I think people have confused the fact that it's definitely possible to go "look this magical guy told me these are the rules so now you all have to obey" with believing that religion is intrinsically just that. and it's like they just discount the possibility that anyone has ever earnestly believed in a higher authority or genuinely had a mystical experience or whatever. the thing is if you actually observe how religious people behave, especially if you look outside of like evangelical megachurch pastors who are clearly just grifting, it immediately becomes pretty hard to ignore that.
for every example of religion maintaining inequality u have muslim charities successfully preventing FGM by informing muslim communities who perpetrate it that it's haram, sikhs opposing casteism, early christians fighting gender inequality etc etc etc + on an individual level literally countless people who have fought against poverty and oppression on the basis of religious belief. like... IS it really something specific about religion or is it the fact that hegemony will naturally pick up and spread whatever supports it and suppress whatever doesn't?because the same can also be said of like... music... so are u going to say music is just a tool of the elite or whatever? bc it definitely can be. but it's equally a tool for resisting oppression and also just a significant part of the human experience.
aren't we meant to be postmodernists now like i think maybe things sometimes do just happen sometimes. what Society does with it after the fact is another question, but if you look at the history of religion I'm surprised if you don't come away with some awareness that genuine belief in some sort of authority or mechanism which is outside of human control can be something very transformative. like the fundamental innovation of the torah was to say that every human life is equal to every other human life in opposition to the code of hammurabi which said that some people's life = other people's pocket change. only a power which comes from somewhere outside human society would be able to ensure that law was applied fairly and equally to all rather than manipulated on the whim of the human with the most power to enforce it. if the "abrahamic" religions can be said to have anything in common at all, it's probably a call to humbleness and the value of every human being. much to think about!!!!
3 notes
·
View notes
I've gone a little deeper about Emily's past in my fic 'Unrequited' and 'As It Was'. I'm just obsessed with her character and the backstory both she and Hotch have. And I just finish reading the little backstory you did about Emily and I loved it!!
i’m really not much of a jemily fan (partly because i think fanon characterizations of jj are completely delusional, partly because i think fanon characterizations of emily are beyond insulting, and mostly because i cannot fucking fathom what anyone could possibly like about jj), but i went ahead and read those two pieces because i figured you came into my inbox already knowing that. it’s just… not how i see either of those characters. not even necessarily the shipping aspect, even ignoring my reservations about jj, but because of the way i think emily approaches relationships
this sounds hypocritical after writing about emily + family, but i feel like emily doesn’t really care about her biological family anymore. at least i’d like to. i’d like to think she’s accepted that she’ll never be what her mother wants and that she’ll never get what she wants from her mother. she’s 36 when she joins the bau—surely that’s enough time to realize she can’t hold onto those childish fantasies anymore. not that i disagree with what i wrote, i just think it's given her a complex ab family rather than it actually being something she truly craves. it was a setup for her life: she wasn't meant to be with others, which is something she eventually tries to change about herself
i’m a big fan of low-empathy emily, so i feel like she has to put active effort into caring about relationships. as a child raised by an extremely distant parent, she probably chalked it up to never having connections growing up, so she never learned how to make connections in the future. it’s easier to assume she’s broken, and it’s easier to blame her mom for it
but really, i don’t think there’s anything wrong with her, she’s just different. at some point i think she had to wrestle with that: it’s hard to think she fell into the job best suited for her personality just by coincidence. being a spy requires that cold, calculating observation and analysis of relationship dynamics. she can view things objectively because she isn’t naturally inclined to get emotionally attached. she can witness unfathomable horrors without a flinch—things that would rock jj to her core, things that would perturb the unflappable hotch. she knows she’s better equipped to handle those types of experiences because having empathy was never really a priority. (it's part of why i think she was the only one who could've walked through hotch's apartment that day: she wouldn't get distracted)
that being said, i don’t think connections are impossible for her. the bau proves that, declan proves that. but i think that was a conscious choice on her part: she had seen enough—caused enough—pain and grief to realize that she should feel guilty for it. so i think she wakes up every day and decides to care. she decides to be a good person. eventually she confronts that she's tired of living a life she doesn't feel like she could be proud of
she’s not heartless, by any means. she just doesn’t become emotionally involved until she comes to the logical conclusion to do so. she has a soft spot for kids because they haven’t had a chance to truly know themselves and the world they live in. she loves the team because of how deeply connected they are to each other. so, when push comes to shove, she’s always willing to leave if it means keeping them together. it’s easy to make that choice because she loves them: in season 3 when the choice is between her and hotch and she knows hotch’s loss will devastate them; in season 6 when she’s making them potential targets for doyle’s vendetta; in season 7 when she feels the tension that never quite settled upon her return. i don’t know if any of the others would’ve made those decisions as easily, even if it was the best choice for them as a whole. not even hotch, who is terrified that his proximity is enough to hurt people he cares about. she’s detached in a way that can separate her from others, but she’s able to turn that into her strength: whether that means manipulating her way into terrorist organizations or walking away from the only chance at a family she's ever had just to keep them safe
i have my bits and pieces of evidence for it that i can scrounge into a semi-believable character analysis, but ultimately i think it’s so i can enjoy more of her character without getting irked by aspects of the archetypes she could fit that would typically annoy me. i’d like to think she’s above some of that: she’s too cool to have mommy issues, too badass to spend years pining over relationships, too self assured to be insecure about her decisions, too smart to let anyone see through her.
i say all this as a hotch fan, who has traits very similar to these. but it suits him. it makes him more interesting, to know that there’s a vulnerability behind his stoic appearance. but with emily i think it’s far more admirable for her to choose to suffer because she wants to care. minimal loss is the perfect example of that: she makes the logical choice to put herself at risk because she wants to protect reid. she’s not running away from who she is anymore, and she’s not really fighting it either. she chooses to be a good person, not out of guilt or even love, but because it’s something she values.
for me, emily is the cool brooding hero who could be a villain so easily. maybe, in an earlier time in her life, she was. but she’s done being selfish. she’s willing to make sacrifices for others because she decided that living by a code is better than living for nothing at all, even if it causes her pain. guilt and love—two burning sensations that were so opposite yet so intrinsically linked—were burdens she chose to bear so she wouldn’t feel so hollow anymore. and it does cause her pain. so, so much pain. to me, it makes her endlessly more fascinating. i’d rather her be a knife that dulls its edges than something soft chiseled to a jagged point.
12 notes
·
View notes
With the language speaking poll, it varies from country (and state/county in the US)
In my area you're required 2 years of a language course
Most kids take it but do the bare minimum or just don't remember it. Usually you grow up knowing that language/being taught it young. Sometimes we learn jt in school and remember enough to keep taking to learn and remember. We usually offer use it or lose it languages, which most kids don't use it and then they lose it and then no one speaks other languages
Huh! That makes sense, actually, i feel like 2 years is not nearly enough to retain enough knowledge, and not even enough to learn a lot. I think when i started studying italian in 4th grade, we didn't even get to subjunctives by the time i was 8th grade, and subjunctives are a surprisingly common form. At least to the way I speak. And even among those who took the elective third language, i know a lot of folks who don't remember a thing about it, i'm assuming because even four years of a once-per-week class isn't enough for retention.
Well, it's sad, at least to me who is linguistically inclined. Quot linguas calles tot homines vales is something i take personally lololol but right! I guess it's the sort of inertion that happens to speakers of a lingua franca, there's no "need" to learn a foreign language, so even those who are talented for languages might never find out :/
Well, I hope thanks to globalisation, at least those who like foreign languages can find ways to learn even outside of formal schooling :>
3 notes
·
View notes