#reddit rants

[moonstarphoenix]

The way the Reddit subreddit for Avatar posts not only about Spider but the movie in general reminds me why I haven't been a part of a fandom since the shitshow that was the MCU before, during and after Endgame.

And it's my own fault. I was not big into Avatar until WOTW and fell in love with the movies after it but I kind of enjoyed it in my own way. I wasn't on reddit, didn't see anything on TT, followed the actors and James Cameron but didn't really interact, didn't read comments, didn't follow fan accounts. But then this year, in my excitement for FAA, I started visiting the subreddit and for the most part it was harmless. It was still quiet with fanart, theories about the movie, calm and quiet.

And then the movie hit, and holy mother of Earth, what an absolute shitshow. Same questions being asked over and over, disparaging remarks against characters and actors, love for actual villains as if they are the heroes of the movie, opinions being stated as fact. There's one poster that I swear every time he comments has to state how much he hates Spider and how shitty Jack's acting is (which it's not). He even stated he was "tired of talking about the character" and makes snide remarks about getting downvoted every time he posts like he's trying to get the whole group on his side. and not realizing that maybe it's because people don't agree with him. I swear, the character lives rent free in this person's head. I mean, I've literally seen people that defend Spider be called a cult.

And the hatred for Spider. It's absolutely disgusting the comments I've seen. Now before people freak out, I very obviously don't expect everyone to love him or the actor but if you look, you can trace the sheeplike assertion that Jack is a bad actor to a redditor who saw the movie during the press preview and stating, without naming him, that one actor was simply awful. Everyone just assumed it was Jack. I actually had no idea people hated the character that much but it seemed like everyone just decided it was him and when the movie came out, piled on. The amount of people that said he took them out of "the immersion of the movie" is bordering on ridiculous. Earlier today, I actually saw someone comment that "Jack seems nice, but he should hang it up", never mind that it was his first role, and his latest movies show marked improvement. Someone posted a thread about him and it had over 300 replies just ripping the character and the actor apart. It was sickening. Criticism is fine but the echo chamber of hate is nauseating (it's all the same complaints too). And every few days there is a new thread ripping the character apart.

Now for Jack, I've seen a lot of people saying his acting is wooden and I think that particular criticism is subjective and mere opinions. Opinions on acting and the character are not fact, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. It doesn't make them in a cult or anything. It just makes them see things differently. He's fine to me and I've seen worse, but where it crosses a line is people actually questioning James Cameron about his casting. It is quite obvious that Cameron adores Jack and thinks the world of him. But personal affections aside, there is a reason he was chosen. A reason we may not be aware of or know and it's frankly none of our business. Cameron wanted him in the role and he worked closely with Jack for years. The constant questioning of why he was chosen and the comments about there had to be better kid actors is frankly quite annoying and disregarding the fact that while yes there might be better kid actors, Jack had something that Cameron wanted for the character.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are legitimate criticisms for the movie, some of the lines are clunky and simple changing some phrasing would smooth it out and the constant 'bro' and 'cuz' does annoy me even though I get why it's there (you got a problem with it, don't let me catch you saying 'bestie' or 'mate'). Jack literally has an interview where he talks about the 'bro' thing (link).

But my god, if I see one more person talk about how he wasn't crying during that scene, I swear I'm going to spend hours screenshotting each and every frame where there are tears! Someone even posted that they wanted him to have a full on breakdown, snot running down his face and everything. Here's the thing, and I've said it before, not everyone reacts that way. We've become so used to finally seeing men show those types of emotions in things like Supernatural, etc that we've actually gone the other end of the spectrum and have forgotten that not everyone reacts that way. Jack himself has admitted that he's not a big crier and when he does it's more a lump in his throat than anything. It didn't fit the character for him to be ugly crying, the way Lo'ak's reaction against Jake was more in character.

I've also seen people say the character is useless when Cameron himself has said that he tried to cut the character and couldn't because he plays an important part of the story, especially the fight between Jake and Quaritch. It adds the personal stakes of two fathers fighting over a son and a layer to Spider of being conflicted. While his writing is not perfect, I trust that Cameron knows where he wants to go with the story and the significance of certain characters, especially characters that play a role in the story. Spider is not a Macgruffin, he's a main character with ties to several others that add layers to their actions and motivations.I have so many other points that I could point out about the character that I feel like people miss but this rant is getting too long.

I think the moral of the story is I've been in enough fandoms to know that most of the time, I should just enjoy the thing my own way, write my fanfiction, make my gifs, etc and rarely really get involved in the fandom/read comments but I wanted to enjoy the release with other fans and get some news/photos/etc. and I made the mistake of thinking that reddit and tik tok would have similar fans. You would think I knew better by now. So I'm just going to go back to my little corner and enjoy what I love about the movies. I would love to connect to other similar thinking fans. Remind me please that those idiots on reddit are a minority. I do have some observations about some things I'm going to post that I would love to discuss as well.

[roguekhajiit]

A debate I had on Reddit about abortion rights.

The person I'm arguing with is an active participant of the Mensa subreddit, so they already fancy themselves a genius to some extent.

Me:

No arms, no legs, no heart, no brain. Just a blood vessel pumping blood from the host to the clump of cells.

And the "But there's a heartbeat" excuse is a lie. You're only hearing the host's blood pumping into cells cause the heart isn't fully formed until 10 weeks. Additionally, the brain isn't even fully developed until 24 weeks. No heart organ, no brain, it's not a viable life outside its host body.

Them:

Yeah that's an empirical argument to deny ontology. That's not convincing to anyone who thinks there is an essence to being human that isn't tied to having arms and legs.

Me:

I'm sorry, but are you trying to use philosophy to argue whether or not someone is capable of living without a heart, brain, and lungs?

Them:

How do you determine what is human and what is not? Arms and legs? What do you call someone without arms and legs? Or a mechanic heart? You can't answer the question 'what is human' based on physical qualities only. So yes, logically you cannot answer the question without philosophy.

Me:

I think you are confusing personhood with the human species.

A person is someone who can think, breathe, and exist on their own. They have a personality and their own opinions on subjects like abortion.

A human being or homo sapiens is a species on earth that evolved enough to form social groups and cultures and, therefore, are capable of personhood. Some other more complex animals might be capable of personhood, like Koko the Gorilla. She was intelligent, learned to communicate using sign language, and even had her own pet.

I'm not discussing this subject in terms of personhood. A fetus isn't developed enough to form a sense of personhood if it can't even survive on its own at 2 months gestation.

Them:

I'm talking about the essence of what makes one a living human. As long as pregnant women before the 3rd month believe they're carrying a child, which is all of them who want to *keep* the child, I am not appealed by the argument that it's suddenly no longer a child but rather a fetus for biological/scientific/empirical reasons when there are various financial and social advantages of it being so.

The points you mention are even still different from mine.

Me:

>The points you mention are even still different from mine.

Correct because again, you fail to see the point of the argument.

You yourself say;

>As long as pregnant women before the 3rd month believe they're carrying a child, which is all of them who want to *keep* the child,

That's all fine and dandy cause it's her *choice* to do so, not yours and not the government's. But it's not yours or anyone else's place to force your philosophical or religious views on an entire nation and bully us all into following them by making your opinions a law.

Them:

It's a choice to recognise a human as a human, you're saying? So where's the end to that travesty of logic? A cat is a dog, a man is a woman, that dog is a man and that man is a dog. That's a wild world you're living in. I don't see the world that way, it defeats both logic and common sense. But it surely makes a way to justify doing whatever the hell you like doing. I won't force morality on you, but I'll tell you when it's absent.

Me:

Again, you're trying to use philosophy to argue science, and that gets us nowhere. I already stated I'm not talking from a philosophical standpoint.

You can see the world however you want. Your morals aren't always going to line up with your neighbors morals. Your neighbor might think it's immoral to eat any kind of meat. Are you gonna give up that steak dinner cause they can smell it in their living room? How would you feel if the entire government decided eating meat is a crime and, therefore, it's banned and you go to jail just for eating a hamburger. Kinda sucks when other people force their philosophy and religion on you by passing laws to get their way.

Now I know you're gonna be like, "But you can't compare pregnancies to diets!" But you're already equating philosophy with science. So, let me give you another scenario.

Do you like eggs? Eggs are just undeveloped chickens who were denied the ability to develop and hatch. Will you give up your eggs and bacon just because your vegan neighbor says it's immoral?

Since to you personhood and human are one and the same. Say aliens decide to visit earth; they have arms and legs and a brain, can speak, express emotions, and have their own culture. Are they human? Do we give them the same rights as you and me even though they weren't born on earth and are basically invading our planet? Or are they just displaying personhood?

If you say yes, they are human and deserve the same rights as you and me, then you also need to give those same rights to the "illegal aliens" that cross the border.

Why are undeveloped fetuses given more rights to life than families with children who are trying to seek a better life? Why do we value a fetus over the actual baby? Once it's born, if the mother says she needs help, she's scorned and looked down on for asking for WIC, foodstamps, and cash benefits to help feed and cloth her baby. She should have thought of that before deciding to have a baby, right? But if she decides she's unable to afford a baby, and she can't afford to take time off because the pregnancy is making it hard for her to work, she's called a murderer for seeking an abortion.

To pro-life advocates, a fetus is more important before it's born than after it's born. And you won't convince me otherwise. The same people pushing for abortion bans, banning mifepristone (a drug that's also necessary to help with incomplete miscarriages), and even simple birth control are the same people who vote to cut funding to welfare programs, free lunch programs, and to entire school districts. That's not very pro-life of them now, is it?

-------

They gave up the argument after that.

I could have converted this into a rant solely from my perspective, but I felt it would be better just to copy it as a script.

Pro-lifers are not actually pro-life. They are just anti-women and anti-choice. If they actually cared about the fetus, they would care about it after its born by passing laws and regulations that would ensure the child has the best quality of life possible and every chance to succeed. Instead, time and again, they vote against those laws.

They don't care about the fetus once it's born. Why is that? Could it be that their true goal all along is to force women back into submission because they romanticize the bygone era of the 1800s and early 1900s when women didn't hold jobs, didn't vote, and couldn't do anything without their husband's explicit permission?

I dunno, that's just the vibe I get from the anti-choice supporters. Why else would they say things like, "Stop riding dick if you can't take accountability." But then start foaming at the mouth when you remind them accountability goes both ways. When's the last time they made a child support payment?

[nrv4w78o7stuyawjhtgiufd]

if I see one more fucking post or reblog about this supposed fucking ufo sighting I’m going to flip my shit

[bachinblaque]

I'll see you melt sandwich folks in hell.