The Mary Sue

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://archive.is/XrtmX
"What a patronizing thing to say"
>Spend the rest of the article patronizing "LGBTQ" people as if all "queer folks" agree with ScarJo getting the sack
:story: She's basically angry at the dude for describing how the film industry works despite the fact that he said that trans actors were unfairly treated.

(Sidenote: the author is wrong about the upcoming Keira Knightley film being the first biopic about Colette. There was a film called Becoming Colette which came out in 1991)
 
iafiv said:
Wait a second monsters in monster movies should not treat women badly?What the hell are they talking about?Because having a sexual pervert in a monster movie is bad for some reason?They do realise that if you're the kind of person that identifies with the 'monster' in those movies and wants to act the same way they act that means you're pretty much Ted Bundy?Or maybe the writers at TMS assume that normal people are educated only through movies so when they go out in the real world they'll assume the real world is the same way?Actually that last part is plausible they might actually believe that.
Click to expand...

I love watching the Nightmare on Elm Street movies because I, too, wish I could murder children in their dreams.
 
My biggest issues is why are they so focused on rebooting Buffy?Isn't the vampire genre kind of dead and buried?Twilight killed it and there's no going back.Unless someone wants to go back to the roots of the genre and actually make vampires trully creepy(great) again.Buffy would not do that.Also reviving the Angels?How about some new and better ideas instead of making the angels trans-bi-whatevers.
 
So when an asian person says racist things towards whites its just a joke/trolling you know laughs.Who actually owns this website?Who started the operation since i doubt a bunch 20 something hipsters is all there is to it.
 
iafiv said:
Or maybe the writers at TMS assume that normal people are educated only through movies so when they go out in the real world they'll assume the real world is the same way?
Click to expand...
I think you hit the nail in the head with that one. The Mary Sue writers tend to be upper middle class/rich young women with a severe lack of interaction with others specially outside of their own race. This lead to a constant pursuit of approbation by others, opposed to a genuine emotional growth.
All they know is media, all they can think is media and that media they watched and enjoyed does reflect their ignorant past.
 
There is a truth that the things you behold and contemplate, especially if they're framed in terms of enjoyment, can influence your opinions; allowing yourself to go down certain trains of thought can quite literally reshape your physical brain and form habits. And if you aren't aware of the manipulation tactics or in the habit of fixing on hard truths that are impervious to wishful thinking, you can be swayed even without realizing it. It's what Hollywood has been doing for decades, after all.

So they're not entirely wrong. The message of a piece of media and its assumptions are pretty important.

The Mary Sue isn't crying out for an end to the manipulation, though; they're crying out for ideological purity, because despite the leftist insistence that "it's just fiction, it's just entertainment", they really do regard everything as didactic. Not for nothing is the cry "everything is political".
 
Vorhtbame said:
There is a truth that the things you behold and contemplate, especially if they're framed in terms of enjoyment, can influence your opinions; allowing yourself to go down certain trains of thought can quite literally reshape your physical brain and form habits. And if you aren't aware of the manipulation tactics or in the habit of fixing on hard truths that are impervious to wishful thinking, you can be swayed even without realizing it. It's what Hollywood has been doing for decades, after all.

So they're not entirely wrong. The message of a piece of media and its assumptions are pretty important.
Click to expand...

They are entirely wrong, and giving any sort of credence to these bullshit arguments is unwise.

People who think that movies and TV shows - fictional movies and TV shows, mind you - can influence your opinions (and usually talk about how the message will brainwash the people watching it) generally reveal themselves to think that people do not have agency; they are so braindead they accept anything uncritically.

This isn't the way things work, and anyone who can tell that fiction is fiction knows this.

(What you really need to beware of is non-fictional media; the news, documentaries, etc. I have seen more people get misguided opinions from things like that than from any work of fiction, but that's another story...)
 
Steamboat_Bill said:
They are entirely wrong, and giving any sort of credence to these bullshit arguments is unwise.

People who think that movies and TV shows - fictional movies and TV shows, mind you - can influence your opinions (and usually talk about how the message will brainwash the people watching it) generally reveal themselves to think that people do not have agency; they are so braindead they accept anything uncritically.

This isn't the way things work, and anyone who can tell that fiction is fiction knows this.
Click to expand...

I rated you optimistic because it's clear you've never heard of advertising.

Thought is not a series of snapshots or an internal monologue; it's a series of impressions and influences that rattle past faster than language can properly express. And everyone, absolutely everyone is subject to being influenced by past observations and especially the emotional connotations attached thereto. Not all to the same degree, but to insist that most people are completely immune is to be in denial.

People are apt to believe whatever they're made to feel comfortable believing, and nothing makes you more comfortable with an idea than seeing it portrayed positively. Thus, advertising--and to a lesser extent, storytelling.

This doesn't mean that you're going to believe that you can wave a stick and turn someone into a newt because you saw it on TV, but it does mean that you might begin to assume that, say, gay men are charming, sophisticated, delightful individuals with good taste in shoes and ready to real-talk their female friends about relationships. Or that atheists are always educated, socially brilliant people who are just too smart for that religion foolishness.

And especially when someone suggests to the contrary, you're going to immediately, instinctively resist because you already figure you know what you're talking about. Sure, you can override it, but you can override the urge for a cigarette despite having a smoking habit. That doesn't make it less of a habit--or less of an influence. Agency exists regardless of influence.

Humans are delightfully complicated, often irrational, sometimes keenly perceptive, sometimes wildly self-unaware. But we're all susceptible to influence to some degree, and we're none of us immune to being manipulated. It's not contempt of people to believe so--unless, of course, one excludes oneself from that, which is usually a tacit announcement that one is secretly a reptilian.
 
Vorhtbame said:
Thought is not a series of snapshots or an internal monologue; it's a series of impressions and influences that rattle past faster than language can properly express. And everyone, absolutely everyone is subject to being influenced by past observations and especially the emotional connotations attached thereto.
Click to expand...
It's worse than that even, the reality is we don't actually make any decisions unless we actively take the time to decide on something - 90% of our actions are done through instinct and reflex, and we rationalise them after the fact.
 
Vorhtbame said:
I rated you optimistic because it's clear you've never heard of advertising.

Thought is not a series of snapshots or an internal monologue; it's a series of impressions and influences that rattle past faster than language can properly express. And everyone, absolutely everyone is subject to being influenced by past observations and especially the emotional connotations attached thereto. Not all to the same degree, but to insist that most people are completely immune is to be in denial.

People are apt to believe whatever they're made to feel comfortable believing, and nothing makes you more comfortable with an idea than seeing it portrayed positively. Thus, advertising--and to a lesser extent, storytelling.

This doesn't mean that you're going to believe that you can wave a stick and turn someone into a newt because you saw it on TV, but it does mean that you might begin to assume that, say, gay men are charming, sophisticated, delightful individuals with good taste in shoes and ready to real-talk their female friends about relationships. Or that atheists are always educated, socially brilliant people who are just too smart for that religion foolishness.

And especially when someone suggests to the contrary, you're going to immediately, instinctively resist because you already figure you know what you're talking about. Sure, you can override it, but you can override the urge for a cigarette despite having a smoking habit. That doesn't make it less of a habit--or less of an influence. Agency exists regardless of influence.

Humans are delightfully complicated, often irrational, sometimes keenly perceptive, sometimes wildly self-unaware. But we're all susceptible to influence to some degree, and we're none of us immune to being manipulated. It's not contempt of people to believe so--unless, of course, one excludes oneself from that, which is usually a tacit announcement that one is secretly a reptilian.
Click to expand...

Advertising is not fiction, though. People will believe what an advertisement tells them, sure, because it's trying to sell you something. Things like ads, alongside very much non-fictional stuff like news, documentaries, etc. - those are things we can talk about the influence on people and not sound crazy, because they do influence people.

What people like those at the Mary Sue get upset over is the messages in fictional TV shows and movies, which is what I was talking about.
 
Last edited:
Emperor Julian said:
Can you imagine being so deeply boring that you over-analyze a book for children and upset that they don't articulate contempory political issues?
It's probably worth noting that Rowling is british the racial issues she's exposed to are subtly differant anyway.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the books were set in the mid-90's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom