#if that is your ONLY MOTIVATION and lack thereof is a crushing blow to you | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

littlefoxwithbighat · 3 years

Text

Hi! This is talking about the plot of the dream smp in a meta sense and its a bit negative. The person behind this blog wants to remind you that you can skip if it's not for you and they still love the SMP. :)

ALL DISCUSSION IS ABOUT CHARACTERS. DON'T ATTACK CCS OR I WILL STEAL YOUR KNEECAPS.

I can't lie; I'm really annoyed and worried at the way the writers are handling Tommys character at the moment, and am increasingly concerned about it messing up the plot.

I wasn't very happy with the finale. I don't think that means all is lost, I think they can pull it back but it's going to take some work. I was worried about the way that things were handled before but the green festival was actually very well handled, so my worries were mostly assuaged. But yesterday? I don't know.

The fact nobody lost a cannon death is kind of disappointing. The weight of blowing up an entire city/ (country?) brutally is somewhat lost if there is no human loss. Nobody was hurt physically and the only people this had a big mental impact on was Tommy and Tubbo, everyone else wasn't very attached to L'manburg or had gone rogue, or were detatched from the while situation. And maybe it's the fact it's happened to them before or that they still have each other or that it seems odd/ frustrating that they still care so much about this place or that it was always a losing battle and they knew it, but I dont find myself really pitying them like I probably should. And I think that comes down to character growth or lack thereof, which I'll discuss later.

Niki and Fundy have started a villain arc, or at least a violent nihilism arc, and I actually don't mind it, in fact I'm a fan but it wasnt really foreshadowed, or really just showing them cracking as much as it should have been. I would guess this has mostly been started for both of them to tie Niki into the plot and I can't blame her for wanting that. Fundys acting is very good, and I REALLY hope the writers handle this well. For Fundy, regarding the fact that his father is going to be resurrected and that Fundy is following in his footsteps... If the writers don't realise that connection and make this a big step in Fundys narrative I will scream. Also Funboo bros are very interesting character foils and I hope their relationship is maintained so that they can play of off each other and also man I just really want them to keep being friends, it's a generally positive healthy relationship that makes both characters sympathetic and we need that right now. As for Niki, her character motivations seem to be mostly centered around Tommy and on the one hand I'm like ehhhh, because Tommy's character already gets a disproportionate amount of attention in terms of narrative, and I get it, but recently he's been a bit TOO much of the protagonist for a multi-person POV improve server... and I'm apprehensive. However on the other hand this has potential for a nice confrontation between Tommy and Niki. If that happens I want Tommy to be aware that this is going to happen and not talk over Niki, and I don't want it to be brushed over. I think it would be best if it was just the two of them. This also gives a nice chance for Tommy to examine his trauma with Dream and explain his motivations and Niki to get her anger out. I also want it to end positively, because it absolutely can and lack of communication when the viewer knows how to fix it is OK as a plot device sometimes but incredibly frustrating if it keeps happening (cough, Tommy and Techno).

Ranboo is reacting to the plot amazingly and I have as usual only praise for him, go, you funky enderman boy, go.

Wilbur is getting resurrected which is a thousand percent because Will wants the plot back and honestly I don't really mind, I think he'll do a good job. However I really hope he speaks to everybody about their characters, particularly Fundy, Ranboo and Niki because I don't want their characterisation and arcs to be thrown away.

Tubbo is doing very well, and I don't have many complaints to be honest. I hope he continues to get in with the acting with no shame, because he's an amazing VA when he wants to be, but sometimes he undercuts serious moments a little too much by laughing. Same criticism for Phil actually. But both are doing good.

On the theme of that, while I don't mind tension relievers or humour in serious moments there are sometimes too many. It was a lot worse about a month back and it was improving, but it seems to be creeping back in and ehhh. It's kind of Marvel-esque and not in a good way? I think it has a lot to do with bloopers and for some reason there are loads at the moment? Like Wilburs arc had almost none and this arc there's at least 2 every moment. Which isn't always their fault but maybe they need to take more steps to prevent them.

Techno is doing OK, he's quite a meta character so I'm not too mad about him undercutting serious moments but sometimes he does do it too much or in the wrong place. Like making jokes about Connor completely over the top of Tommy and Tubbos reunion, you know an event which has been foreshadowed for yoinks, prevented them from getting a proper flow going and kind of ruined it. And that made the reunion really dissapointing, which is a shame because it could have been so cool. However his characterisation is consistent and dedicated, his goals and relationships are clear and he's getting humanised more which is nice, and his monologues are great. I'm curious to see what he does now NL'M is gone but I have total faith in him.

Now Tommy. Oh Tommy. His character is such a mess at the moment, which is a shame because there were moments I saw people doubting his character choices and I was behind him.

Firstly the relationship with Techno fell apart. That was inevitable. Tommy didn't care about anarchy and Techno didn't care about the discs and both of their goals would impede the others. But the way Tommy talks about Techno is so... No? And now I understand that Tommy is going to have a biased perspective on the whole situation, and that's fine and good, but his character is so wrong about Techno it feels weird and painful? Like even from his perspective it went down differently to how he talks about it. They don't listen to each other and it's like watching two people scream at a wall.

The issue is the relationship was fairly well developed. I struggle to see Tommy saying he saw Techno as a friend but Techno never saw him as a friend because hold on, what? Techno, here's a respiration helmet because of that one of thing you told me about your trauma, a disc because those make you happy, plus top tier armour and weaponry, plus I'm going to spend time with you, calm you down from panic attacks, hide you and protect you from Dream, let you wander around L'manburg and achieve your own goals and help you plan things out Techno and Tommy didn't get ANYTHING from that? Plus after Techno opens up about his goals and his trauma, do the one thing that would hurt him the most, (use and then betray him) and then directly oppose his goals after he helped me? Ugh. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I know he would never let Tubbo get hurt and thats fine, but there were ways around that. If you're framing this character as the protagonist, then he needs to be sympathetic or at least grow and Tommy using Techno again without remorse and then refusing to listen to his perspective or show any gratitude for anything makes it difficult for viewers to empathise with him in my opinion. Have him betray Techno and then listen to Techno when he explains why Tommys betrayal hurt him and apologise, fine. Have him listen to Techno and try and find a way to keep Tubbo safe regardless, fine. Have him betray Techno but apologetically and still trying to avoid Techo getting crushed or killed, fine. But THIS? Im sympathetic towards Tommys character but this throws away so much potential character development for Tommy, where at least he saw Techno as a person, and not only that but a nice person who despite everything has set aside everything to help him? And then for him to be exactly where he was at the end of season 1, both literally, and emotionally ? I understand this is a child soldier with trauma but this is supposed to be our protagonist and if he doesn't grow, and isn't sympathetic and destroys someone we care about, how can we root for him?

Now all of this could be forgivable, not great, but forgivable, if Tommy had moved on from the discs. The Goddamn Discs™. And the worse part is all the dominoes were lined up to suggest he had! We had his moment of "he watched me" where he realised Dream was the villain and controlling him, "I've become worse than everyone I hated" good, amazing, I see where this is going, "The discs were worth more than you ever were!" and then he retracts and apologises and you think horray! Tommy has realised the discs were being used to control him and if he doesn't care about them, they hold no value! Now he's going to realise that his friends are more important and he's going to stop going after the discs. His new character motivation can be killing Dream and protecting his friends, especially Tubbo. It's clearly angled this way, and this way the plot progresses and Tommy with it. What marvellous character development. Look at him go.

And THEN, after everything that's happened he says the most important thing is the disc and I want them back!?!? EH !!? Why... Who... Who gave the OK on that writing decision? That's so static and boring and unsympathetic! And then he's back to asking people do fight for L'manburg? What?

I'll be honest I was kind go hoping either Tommy or Tubbo would die with L'manburg. I didn't mind it they didn't, there are a thousand ways to make the plot work without them dying, but this was not a great one.

PLEASE let Tommy have some growth. Yes he's had some from not caring about L'manburg to fighting for it in season one, but that was ages ago and he doesnt seem to have changed since then in any way that really counts. And I know this is harsh and he's traumatised but you have to understand I am talking about this in a sense of characters and narrative and NOT in terms of real life. Tommy needs to be better and dynamic because he is a charcacter and I want him to be a good one.

Having said all that, here are my thoughts on the future of the SMP.

Firstly, I am worried that becuse it is such a good source of content, especially for Tommy that they will never ever kill his character and leave him fighting with Dream for eternity. And I love the Dream SMP but I've seen stories that get dragged out for plot or content, and however much you think you want it to never end, let me tell you, yes you do. It will get stale and repetitive and I want the dream smp, or at least Tommys arc to go out with a beautiful and brilliant and fabulous plot ending instead of being dragged into the dirt. And then maybe new characters take the spotlight. Just please god give it a goode ending.

I also really hope they don't throw other things away to make Tommy the centre of attention, especially if it's destructive to the plot, or kind of weird and obnoxious.

Secondly, I am intrigued about the prison and Schlatts book to Dream and Technos favour and the egg and what that entails and I hope they really think through those plot points carefully and make them work, and don't forget them or throw them away.

Thirdly, I am intrigued for Wilburs return and hope that he manages to fix it cohesively without too crazy a change of pace and style and keeping characters (especially Ranboo and Fundy and Niki) consistent.

I hope they prep for the future and think things thought and communicate with each other.

It might be interesting to see other countries finally discussed but I don't know how much that would intefere with other plot points so we'll see.

That's all! Reminder that this is about characters and plot and this is just a few criticisms. I love the dream smp, but there are somethings I wanted to get of my chest. Please be respectful and feel free to discuss in the notes. Also, again, no hate to any CCs!

#mcyt #mcytumblr #dream smp theories #dream smp analysis #dream smp #dream smp spoilers #dream smp meta #tommy mcyt #negativity #negativity tw #dream smp plot

34 notes · View notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years

Link

Democratic optimism about the 2018 midterms reached crescendo levels this winter after improbable wins in special elections in Alabama and western Pennsylvania. Liberals began to predict a “blue wave” — a sweeping series of electoral victories comparable to the GOP’s 2010 successes — that would vindicate the resistance and check Donald Trump’s power.

But now Trump’s approval ratings are ticking up. The “generic ballot” polls are tightening. And Senate races across the country are shaping up to be much more competitive than Democrats had hoped in states like West Virginia, North Dakota, and Indiana. Even safer-looking Democratic senators like Bill Nelson in Florida and Sherrod Brown in Ohio are facing extremely well-funded opponents with solid statewide name recognition.

The question for many liberals, then, is: Did the wave peak too soon only to dissipate in the face of a strengthening economy?

Great night for Republicans! Congratulations to John Cox on a really big number in California. He can win. Even Fake News CNN said the Trump impact was really big, much bigger than they ever thought possible. So much for the big Blue Wave, it may be a big Red Wave. Working hard!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2018

Though it feels like the odds for liberals have gone from overwhelmingly positive to desperate quickly, the reality is a bit duller. As a country, we have, in many ways, failed to process some of the key lessons of the 2016 campaign. Modest-size polling errors are common; events are important to politics, and they are inherently unpredictable. But Democrats retain an edge in the polls, and the results from California continue to suggest that Democrats are modest favorites to win a House majority.

Back in the final week of 2017, Democrats held a generic ballot polling advantage that averaged 13 points or more. The numbers have bounced up and down since then, but the general trend has been in Republicans’ favor; Democrats now have an advantage of roughly 5.5 points.

This narrowing has been happening for some time and is not a sudden news event. Two months ago, for example, Democrats were 8 points ahead — meaningfully better than their current numbers but also far worse than the December numbers. It’s worth saying that by the time of Conor Lamb’s surprise victory in the PA-18 special election, the Democratic lead was already down to “only” 8.5 points. Most of the narrowing, in other words, happened before Democrats’ most impressive special election victory rather than representing a recent deterioration.

A glance at Trump’s approval ratings, however, does make it clear that the shift in the news environment since 2017 has been advantageous to his cause.

Back in 2017, there was a lot of scandal news and coverage of Trump antics, but there was also intensive coverage of ongoing congressional debates on health care and taxes where Republicans took unpopular positions. That unpopularity helped contribute to Doug Jones winning a special election in Alabama in December. Jones’s victory, combined with John McCain’s poor health, have largely prevented Republicans from advancing a contentious legislative agenda in 2018.

A news climate dominated by Trump scandals and culture war stuff isn’t exactly amazing for Republicans, but it’s more favorable than one dominated by Trump scandals and unpopular Republican legislation.

Interestingly, Democrats’ odds of capturing the House have not declined nearly as much since November as their poll numbers.

G. Elliott Morris’s statistical model, for example, gives Democrats a 63 percent chance of taking the House in November, which is down only about 4 or 5 points from its high. Gamblers are a bit more pessimistic than Morris (whose model believes, based on history, that the opposition party is more likely to gain in the polls than decline) but similarly see a fairly modest change.

Per betting markets, Democrats’ chances of winning the House have decreased from ~66% to ~58% over the past few months. It’s a change worth noticing if you’re an electoral junkie I guess? But either way the uncertainty remains super high. Polling isn’t too precise in House races.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 4, 2018

One key issue here is simply the passage of time. Your odds of winning on Election Day are a function of both how large your polling lead is and how far away the election is, since the more time until Election Day, the more time there is for things to change. Democrats’ June polling lead is a lot smaller than their December polling lead, but the June lead is more valuable.

The other really significant factor is the change in Pennsylvania’s congressional map from one highly gerrymandered to favor the GOP to one that’s about proportional in its partisan lean. The overall map still has a strong pro-Republican tilt, but Pennsylvania is a big state. That change meaningfully altered the overall slant in a way that’s boosted Democrats’ fortunes.

Similarly, while final results are not yet in from California, the votes counted so far strongly suggest Democrats successfully avoided getting locked out of the general election by the Golden State’s weird “top two” primary system, greatly improving their odds of winning some of these seats in November.

Democrats can also take solace in the fact that recent election outcomes have been better for their party than the polls.

You may recall that last November, there was an extraordinary level of hand-wringing in Democratic circles about Ralph Northam’s extremely narrow polling lead over GOP nominee Ed Gillespie. Was the party about to blow it again, but this time in a clearly blue-leaning state where Donald Trump fared poorly in 2016?

It turns out that, no, polling errors can happen in both directions. While Republican candidates moderately outperformed their poll numbers in 2016, Democrats outperformed their poll numbers in 2017.

Northam didn’t beat Gillespie narrowly, as the polls suggested he would — he beat him solidly. And Democrats picked up a ton of House of Delegates seats. Phil Murphy romped to victory in New Jersey as well. And then in the Alabama special election, Doug Jones outperformed his poll numbers, winning narrowly when the polls said he would lose narrowly.

After polls moderately overrated Democrats in the 2016 and 2014 cycles, people with short memories grew accustomed to the idea that maybe pollsters systematically underrate the GOP. But in the 2012 cycle, polling error favored Republicans. And so far in the Trump era, the same has been true with Democrats, who are performing, on average, 2.3 points better than their polling.

By the same token, we haven’t yet had much polling that focuses on the question of who is likely to vote in 2018. But the evidence we have so far suggests that Democrats will have a turnout advantage.

Some of this is psychological, with the “out” party naturally more motivated to vote in the midterms. But some of it is demographic. Trump has made the GOP more popular with working-class white voters but less popular with white college-educated professionals. That’s a geographically efficient swap in terms of the Electoral College, giving up useless or superfluous votes in Texas and California in exchange for valuable ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania. But it’s a bad deal in terms of turnout, since educated voters have a higher propensity to vote than working-class ones.

Of course, this all may be no more than wishful thinking. At the end of the day, the most important thing to know about the November midterms is that they won’t be happening until November. Events in the rest of the summer and fall will likely change things, and it’s perhaps not productive to spend too much time worrying about the inherently unpredictable nature of events when we can actually speak more authoritatively about the policy stakes.

It’s become common in recent years to speak about certain elections — 2006 for the Democrats, 2010 for Republicans — as representing metaphorical “waves.” A lot of 2018 commentary has ended up focusing on this metaphor.

That, in turn, has tended to devolve into a kind of semantic quibbling over what a wave is. If Democrats secure a narrow one-seat majority in the House, is that really a wave? Does it matter that due to gerrymandering, securing a narrow majority would almost certainly entail a large 6- or 7-point win in the popular vote? If Democrats carry the popular vote by 5 points and pick up 22 House seats and one Senate seat despite a very unfavorable map, is that a non-wave just because it would leave the GOP in possession of razor-thin majorities in both bodies?

Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report says that wave-ness (or lack thereof) actually has nothing to do with the magnitude of the electoral win.

A lot of people think a wave election means one party crushes the other party by big margins in lots of seats. What really happens is that margin of error races break overwhelmingly for one party.

— amy walter (@amyewalter) June 4, 2018

These complexities suggest that we have reached a point in history where the metaphor is doing more to induce confusion than to explicate things. There is a sense in which the 2016 election was a “wave” for Republicans; they systematically overperformed their polls, narrowly prevailing in both a presidential election and Senate races in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that they seemed poised to lose.

And there’s a sense in which it very much wasn’t. After all, Trump lost the popular vote by 2 points and the GOP lost two Senate seats and a half-dozen House seats.

What really matters about 2016, however, is that Trump became president, and the GOP’s congressional majorities, though diminished, were sufficient to enact a passel of legislation and to largely shield the Trump administration from oversight.

What looks clear about 2018 is that Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to win more House votes than the GOP and overwhelmingly favored to gain House seats. It is also overwhelmingly likely that the 116th House of Representatives will be closely divided, with whichever party holds the majority holding only a narrow one. What’s not at all clear is whether it will be a narrow Democratic majority or a narrow Republican one, and there’s a big substantive difference between the two.

It’s impossible to say for sure what the policy consequences of different midterm outcomes will be, but we can genuinely predict this with a good deal more certainty than we can forecast election outcomes.

If Republicans stay in control of the House and gain ground in the Senate, they will almost certainly make further attempts to chip away at the Affordable Care Act and/or Medicaid. And they will keep pushing for something along the lines of the nutrition assistance cuts that were in the House farm bill.

Democrats, conversely, will use even a very narrow majority to try to aggressively investigate Trump administration scandals while trying to force the administration to moderate its course on immigration and health care.

A Senate that continues in Republican hands will keep confirming federal judges at a record pace and substantially reshape the federal judiciary, whereas a Democratic-held Senate will slow confirmations down and force compromises on some key selections.

A Democratic Congress will try to raise the minimum wage, and Trump may well agree. A Republican Congress will not.

Details are unpredictable, but the basic shape of policy change isn’t. By the same token, though we don’t know exactly who will win in November, we do know that the House will be closely divided and Democrats will either gain or lose a seat or two on net in the Senate.

We also know that even though 220 seats and 216 seats are similar numbers, the difference between a small majority and a large minority is very consequential in somewhat predictable ways. And people would almost certainly be better off spending time debating those differences’ pros and cons than speculating about the odds.

Original Source -> The outlook for a blue wave, explained

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes