• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Post your searing hot takes

they made orange juice conflict with toothpaste how it does to troll the world tryna have some breakfast after a shower/brush teeth etc.

(i say this after laughing at my sister this morning, like "how didn't you know that?" lol)
 
GF should remove the "x of Ruin" abilities and replace them with something else. (Replace the ones that lower defensive stats with Adaptability, mostly, as I feel it would still be a strong boost, but manageable. For the ones that lower offensive stats, I'm still thinking on that.)
 
Last edited:
the death of media literacy doesn't just entail people being utterly unable to understand subtext, but people being completely unable to understand the very text that is presented to them

a lot of discourse on Dune is very telling on that, but I've seen people unironically "theorize" that King Boo wrote the letter to Luigi in Luigi's Manison. Despite King Boo having outright said that he wrote the letter. Like directly in a textbox, there's nothing to misunderstand here

Similarily, people genuinenly glorifying Homelander and being unable to understand the satire in his character. Or people seeing Evangelion 3.0+1.0 as debunking the loop theory, despite the movie outright, directly stating that the loop is happening. Or people saying that One piece isn't political. Like yeah man sure, the funny pirate comic where the main villains are the World Government, where almost every bad guy is authoritarian, racist, greedy or warmongering, where there's a whole arc about how privatized healthcare is evil and where there's another arc that says that racism is bad

And there's also a growing number of people who somehow see author's opinion in characters varying views. Somehow, Rohrschach in Watchmen is supposed to represent everything Alan Moore hates. In what way? Like, why does the Comedian exist then? What is he supposed to represent? And why is Rohrschach consistently depicted as somewhat reasonable, despite his extreme views?

I don't get it man. I think political commentators (aka grifters) trying to make everything they like be an agreement to their views and everything they dislike be confirmation of them are responsible for that
 
the death of media literacy doesn't just entail people being utterly unable to understand subtext, but people being completely unable to understand the very text that is presented to them

a lot of discourse on Dune is very telling on that, but I've seen people unironically "theorize" that King Boo wrote the letter to Luigi in Luigi's Manison. Despite King Boo having outright said that he wrote the letter. Like directly in a textbox, there's nothing to misunderstand here

Similarily, people genuinenly glorifying Homelander and being unable to understand the satire in his character. Or people seeing Evangelion 3.0+1.0 as debunking the loop theory, despite the movie outright, directly stating that the loop is happening. Or people saying that One piece isn't political. Like yeah man sure, the funny pirate comic where the main villains are the World Government, where almost every bad guy is authoritarian, racist, greedy or warmongering, where there's a whole arc about how privatized healthcare is evil and where there's another arc that says that racism is bad

And there's also a growing number of people who somehow see author's opinion in characters varying views. Somehow, Rohrschach in Watchmen is supposed to represent everything Alan Moore hates. In what way? Like, why does the Comedian exist then? What is he supposed to represent? And why is Rohrschach consistently depicted as somewhat reasonable, despite his extreme views?

I don't get it man. I think political commentators (aka grifters) trying to make everything they like be an agreement to their views and everything they dislike be confirmation of them are responsible for that
I'm not convinced that any of this is really recent. The depths of human misunderstanding are endless, and the Internet magnifies the very worst of it.
 
I'm not convinced that any of this is really recent. The depths of human misunderstanding are endless, and the Internet magnifies the very worst of it.
sure but in recent years, it's gotten so much worse

I think it's people's attention spans getting worse from the internet and everything being politicized. If you like something, it'll confirm your values. If you don't like it, it will play into your values. If you like it but it goes against your values, it's not political. You'd have never read about people misunderstanding Rage Against The Machine. Now you do consistently

It's kinda comparable to people misunderstanding the new testament. The NT was always abused for political purposes and it's interpretation was massively bastardized through it. The same thing that was done to it is now being done to popular media
 
sure but in recent years, it's gotten so much worse

I think it's people's attention spans getting worse from the internet and everything being politicized. If you like something, it'll confirm your values. If you don't like it, it will play into your values. If you like it but it goes against your values, it's not political. You'd have never read about people misunderstanding Rage Against The Machine. Now you do consistently

It's kinda comparable to people misunderstanding the new testament. The NT was always abused for political purposes and it's interpretation was massively bastardized through it. The same thing that was done to it is now being done to popular media
It's funny that you should cite people misunderstanding Rage Against the Machine as an example because there was a whole thing in 2012 about Paul Ryan, a Republican politician, being a big Rage fan. More recently, there was a big hubbub about Donald Trump, who dodged the Vietnam draft, playing "Fortunate Son" at his campaign rallies in 2020. Willful misunderstanding has always been a thing, though it's definitely possible that recent shifts in the digital landscape have exacerbated things.
 
It's funny that you should cite people misunderstanding Rage Against the Machine as an example because there was a whole thing in 2012 about Paul Ryan, a Republican politician, being a big Rage fan. More recently, there was a big hubbub about Donald Trump, who dodged the Vietnam draft, playing "Fortunate Son" at his campaign rallies in 2020. Willful misunderstanding has always been a thing, though it's definitely possible that recent shifts in the digital landscape have exacerbated things.
I didn't know that about Paul Ryan. That said, again, I haven't seen the amount of misinterpretation and inability to understand both surface and subtext in media to the degree it's been for the last 5-10 years. There were always media illiterate people, but in this day and age, it has become the norm. When people came out of Avatar, people saw it as a simple action movie with a somewhat naturalist message that parallels the colonialization of the Americas. Nowadays, I can asure you that there'll be people defending the humans and/or thinking it's some movie about anti-wokeness or that it shows white supremacy or some bullshit political take. Or they'll just deny that the movie had any message, which I mean fine, it's some action movie, but again, completely denying the text of the movie also shows media illiteracy

What if the whole thing is people thinking that it's that deep, when in reality, it's not that deep?
nah

Most art has meaning. Not all, and it doesn't have to, like Doom doesn't need to be a commentary on the 2008 housing crisis, but most of art has some meaning at least. For people to be told into their faces the exact message a piece of art wants to tell without any ambiguity and to still (un)willfully misunderstanding it, that's just dumb, gives breeding ground to grifters and, despite seeming not that big of a thing, is damaging to society
 
I heard that someone, after being told by their English teacher that It had some deep meaning, asked Steven King himself why he wrote it, and he basically said "clown scary"
I am not to familiar with It but King admitted that he has no memory of writing It as he was coked out to the gills. He read it himself, admitted it was a good book and felt it was unfortunate that he had no memory of writing it. Apparently it was also written in a couple of nights?

I also wrote my bachelor's thesis in the span of a few days. I wasn't on any substance, just sleep deprivation and hunger, and I also have no memory of having ever written my thesis
 
Back
Top