#basic media literacy

[witchharebit]

Stranger Things will be our generation’s Star Wars; inevitably there will come the time that we must show the future generations. And like our forebears kept from us the forbidden knowledge of Luke Skywalker’s lineage, we must not prepare them for the Byler kiss.

The Oracle has spoken.

aka; byler endgame might not be immediately obvious for someone watching for the first time without consuming additional Stranger Things media (i.e. YouTube theories and Byler proofs). Don’t give them any hints, don’t point out every time Mike looks at Will’s lips, and I genuinely think the payoff will be similar to finding out Darth Vader is Luke’s Father.

[mscaseys]

quite a lot of the severance discourse stemming from the idea that some people can't fathom female characters having nuance or any agency outside of their relationships... like no that is helly r in the finale not helena, "helly was never cruel" still applies because she helped to save gemma despite knowing that her own future was uncertain if mark completed cold harbor. she was memorising irving's directions to try and save gemma herself!! cruelty would be leaving gemma to die down there.

gemma knew that wasn't her mark!! she's not screaming because she thinks mark moved on with someone and has a daughter with them, she's screaming because the mark that was kissing her in the elevator 2 seconds ago isn't escaping from the building where she has been held prisoner for 2 years!! she doesn't know the context of what's going on but she's intelligent enough to piece together what is in front of her, at that moment she's just trying to break through to mark's subconscious.

also while we're here, helena knows what is happening to gemma, it's shown that she has knowledge of what cold harbor is, her line to mark about how she owns the company and knows what goes on. and even, even if she didn't know what was happening to gemma at first, after 2x01, don't you think she would've tried to find out anyway? it's why she brings up gemma in 2x06, it's how she even knows the specifics of how gemma 'died'. and frankly, i think it's way more interesting to talk about how much agency helena has even under lumon. we know her severing was a pr stunt, but how much of it really was her wanting to sever vs how much she wanted her father's approval? she's also not this powerless person either, she basically orders a hit on irving in 2x09, and has enough power to go down to the severed floor as her outie in the beginning of s2. we see she's trapped in some way in 2x09, but at the same time she's complicit in keeping every innie and gemma prisoner at lumon.

[hotgayfurryuwu]

My friend started streaming helldivers 2 in discord and my capitalism brain poisoned friend said “this is like the most pro america game ever” after watching 5 seconds of some of the most blatant critisim of capitalism/inperialism/US hegemony ive ever seen

[thethunderbirdrising]

What show are these mfers watching where they see an emotional, climactic scene triggered by a character giving a speech about how "all life is precious" and then two seasons later they complain about how the heroes didn't let the military dictator abandon half his population to their deaths?

[junesees27]

I think people need to stop making straw men altogether. I'm not talking about the actual straw man fallacy but idk the word for it. The actual straw man fallacy is like when you say "Well there are reasons to dislike oranges, here's why: " and someone comes under it and says "this person HATES oranges." It's a misrepresentation of your argument. You never said you hated oranges, you never even said an opinion on oranges, you said that there are reasons someone could dislike oranges. People do the straw man fallacy all the time, believe me, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when people create a fictional opponent to get mad at. Like an out-of-context, entirely triggered by the person posting it, "us orange lovers get told x, but then later we get told y." These posts hurt far more than they help. Show screenshots of someone telling you x and then switching up and saying y, I beg of you. Just saying that something happens doesn't mean it is, and now you're possibly just tilting at windmills. You need to have somebody say the one thing and then say the other thing, and have them all in context. It's basic media responsibility. Also, don't make up an argument unless it is an extremely common catchphrase you don't need to cite. You don't have to cite the phrase "trans rights are human rights" as everyone has seen someone saying that. You do need to cite where someone said(I'm coming up with a batshit example here) "I believe that trans rights matter more than basic rights to food and water" because who says that? You can't just say "I've seen some people say this", you need to say "this person said this, at this time, on this account, this date, etc.", because otherwise you and the reader may be getting pissed at someone who doesn't exist and conflating someone who does exist with said nonexistent person.

TL;DR: when discussing what you believe is a common argument, thoroughly cite someone specifically using that argument, unless it is a catchphrase.