Artemis

I'm a bisexual anti-capitalist, artist, & aspiring propagandist. We're not free until we're *all* free.

Guillermo del Toro fan account. Anarchist pep-talks are provided free of charge. Solidarity forever!

Profile pic & banner are images of GI Robot from Creature Commandos

#nobot

Public Key

npub1csfewy4ex8kvllh0wu9v960psleecfw9qx088c8qg8698xdery9q7vhh7f

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvgyuhz2unrmx0lmhhwzkza8sc0uuuyhzsr8nnursyraznnxu3jzspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnwv46qz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxjar5duh8qatzz2tpjx

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

relay.ditto.pub

Author Public Key

npub1csfewy4ex8kvllh0wu9v960psleecfw9qx088c8qg8698xdery9q7vhh7f

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-29 12:42:26 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…tv0c
LOL, yeah, exactly.

2026-07-28 16:11:28 UTC

- reply

I think a lot of people mainly think about the sex with a fish-man part of it, but The Shape of Water has significantly more to say about brutality & its relationship to "civilization" than Nolan's Odyssey does.
But of course in that film, we find it is the people who think they are "civilized" who are the monsters. Who among us would be sad to see such a "civilization" built upon patriarchal dominance collapsing upon itself? Who would mourn its demise?

2026-07-28 15:52:25 UTC

- reply

Not every film can or should do that. It's ok to watch things for enjoyment. It's ok to watch things that make you feel cozy & comfortable. That's not inherently bad.
My fave movie is Superman (2025). Why? Because it's bright & hopeful & comforting, & when I'm having a bad day & feeling overwhelmed, it's what I need.
It doesn't make me wince or cover my eyes, & that's fucking fine.
But if you want to really get into what's monstrous in human beings, you can't be afraid to look right at it.

2026-07-28 15:48:40 UTC

- reply

I love del Toro's films because he has such a sense for beauty but also shows immense brutality without flinching. He doesn't make horror films, but a horror element he borrows is the depiction of uncomfortable violence.
There are monsters in the world—& I mean humans, not weird creatures—who do monstrous things. That's just facts. There is a reason fascists are del Toro's recurring villains.
So do we look those monsters in the face? Do we attempt to comprehend the damage their brutality does?

2026-07-28 15:42:20 UTC

- reply

What I enjoy about the horror genre is that the discomfort horror films make you feel & dwell in can make them a perfect vehicle for exploring gnarly human emotions & experiences.
Some things are fucking uncomfortable, & if you're looking to reflect on them, you're going to have to be ok with experiencing discomfort. You're going to have to be ok with feeling disturbed or revolted. Some things simply are disturbing or revolting. Some things you will never feel comfortable with.

2026-07-24 18:30:37 UTC

- reply

But yeah, I dunno. Am I meant to believe that The Odyssey is a passion project for Nolan, that it comes out of his love for this story & the way that Homer told it?
If I am, then color me unconvinced.
If I'm not, if he isn't claiming to actually love the source, honestly, why do it? If it's not out of love, then it looks an awful lot like cynical ambition.

2026-07-24 13:53:52 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…tnp4
Yeah, the only reason I watched it is that I couldn't in good faith continue to talk shit without seeing it. And even then, I probably wouldn't have except that the theater we saw it at is part of a local nonprofit group of theaters that I am happy to support because I want them to continue to exist.
So yeah, don't. Spouse & I are kind of enjoying unpacking it together, but it's really not a love to hate or so bad it's good situation. Not worth 3 hours & 10 dollars

2026-07-21 16:56:26 UTC

- reply

That may bear thinking on some more: how does the format of someone's questions impact or not impact the answers they get from the chatbot?
Do chatbots reward the effort of carefully constructing & thinking through the questions you ask or does it feel less satisfying than asking a broader, more generic question?

2026-07-21 14:40:32 UTC

Don't get me wrong: IMAX is a cool technology. Those gigantic heavy reels of film... I'm learning a bit about the mechanics of assembling IMAX prints & IMAX projection, & I blame no one for geeking out about the amazing tech of it all. Film is fucking cool. That's just facts.

2026-07-20 13:50:01 UTC

- reply

I think one thing I haven't made clear about my feelings about Nolan is that I don't think it's bad to like his films.
They are broadly likable. This is factually true: lots of people really like his films. Many love them.
I don't really take issue with that.
I take issue with mistaking interesting brainteasers with profoundly thought-provoking art. Frankly, I don't think most people who enjoy Nolan's films make this mistake.
A portion of Hollywood worships the guy though.

2026-07-20 13:45:20 UTC

- reply

But what interests me now is that my brain was very actively involved in Nolan films, but I was not occupied with very interesting questions.
I wasn't being challenged to form a perspective on something strange & complex. I wasn't being asked to engage with something that might change me or recontextualize my world: I wasn't even being asked to thoroughly enter the emotionality of the thing, to empathize deeply & resonate on a personal, human level with something nuanced or hard to comprehend.

2026-07-20 13:45:19 UTC

- reply

But yes, I think perhaps my biggest gripe with Nolan as a filmmaker is that I have often left his films with questions I was eager to explore but they are never interrogations of the deeper themes that are implied to surround the narrative. They are always "how does that mechanically work?" & "what factually happened at that specific point or with that specific character?"
It tickles the brain pleasantly. When I did enjoy Chris Nolan, this was why. My brain felt actively involved.

2026-07-20 13:38:20 UTC

- reply

The observation should be credited to Damien Walter on YouTube.
Damien does great commentary on sci-fi media. I don't always share his perspective (though I largely do in this case), but he engages with the media of his favorite genre in such a critical & analytical way that I have to admire it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W47W6onFRMc

2026-07-20 13:34:10 UTC

- reply

That's not bad, but the only thing a Nolan film ever makes me think about is the mechanics of the premise & how it is applied to the plot.
"Did the top fall? Was he still in the dream world?" is really the least interesting question you could come away from a movie about shared, active dreaming with. A question about what factually happened to one character.
Inception doesn't invite reflection on the weirder elements of the human psyche. In fact, it avoids those elements entirely.

2026-07-17 16:23:24 UTC

- reply

Other things I'm watching for: editing, blocking & camera movement.
Given how short most of his shots are, I'm guessing I won't see a lot of interesting camera movement, but let's see if I can find how the editing serves the storytelling.

2026-07-17 16:23:24 UTC

- reply

My feeling is that his tendency to centre everything may hinder his ability to create contrast in the edit.
It allows for continuity because the eye is always in the same place, but thanks to that, transitions may not feel particularly meaningful, & he may struggle with creating visual emphasis or juxtaposing specific things through cutting from one to another.
If nearly everything is dead center, then the edit can't take advantage of the movement of your eye.

2026-07-17 15:45:37 UTC

- reply

I'm moving in from Batman Begins for a bit. I've seen enough to know that my hypothesis is worth further testing, so we'll start moving forward in his filmography to make sure I'm not hung up strictly on early work.
As I move on, perhaps I will see progression. That's how it often works. Artists mature over time.

2026-07-17 15:41:51 UTC

- reply

I'm hung up on this with Nolan because I constantly see him praised for his visual style. His films are visually "breathtaking" I have been told on many occasions.
So my question is...
Are they?
Not every filmmaker majors in aesthetics. Some are more into plot & character or establishing theme & mood. There is no one right way to make a film.
But I'm told Nolan's visual style is a big part of his greatness, so that's what I'm looking at.

2026-07-17 15:19:41 UTC

- reply

Times when Nolan's habit of centering everything feels detrimental to the storytelling:
it's kind of boring that when Ra's al Ghul is teaching Bruce about the art of distraction & deception that everything is right there in the center of the frame.
This seems like a time that would call for slightly more visual complexity. It also feels like we should just see *more*. These are just very short little insertions with a Liam Neeson voiceover in the middle of a fairly visually dull swordfight.

2026-07-17 15:10:50 UTC

- reply

If it wasn't bad enough to cast a white man to play Ra's al Ghul, Nolan had to pick a fucking violent racist.

2026-07-17 14:59:25 UTC

- reply

Frankly, a lot of what Nolan gets praised for often sounds like "It's a premium format, & I could tell it was very expensive to make." 😬

2026-07-17 14:53:31 UTC

- reply

The difficulty & expense of filming in IMAX like he does means that a film shot in this format must have fucking tons of money behind it & a huge crew to manage everything.
Sure, it can look pretty cool, but how could that possibly be the future of filmmaking?

2026-07-17 14:51:12 UTC

- reply

He talks about IMAX like it's the ultimate in filmmaking, but filming, editing, & projecting IMAX is a horribly inconvenient & expensive process.
The reels of film are so huge & heavy that they require loads of special equipment to assemble & move.
The cameras are so loud that they had to build a gigantic soundproof shell around them to film dialogue scenes. The shell around the camera was so huge that they had to use mirrors so the actors could see their scene partners around the camera.

2026-07-17 14:46:40 UTC

- reply

His use of IMAX film may also encourage this sort of quick editing style.
Each reel of IMAX film is only a couple minutes long. If he had a tendency to try for lots of longer, lingering shots, using a format that requires such frequent film changes would likely become a pain in the keister.

2026-07-17 14:42:19 UTC

- reply

This tendency to have a short shot length may be part of why he didn't think the costumes for The Odyssey needed detail.
I haven't seen that film, but if it follows his other filmography, the camera probably rarely invites you to take in detail, instead moving from image to image, shot to shot, at a brisk pace.
The costumes look shit when you stop & look, but my guess would be that The Odyssey rarely does, unless it's a departure from his usual habits.

2026-07-17 14:35:48 UTC

- reply

One might suspect one reason for such quick editing is that long, lingering shots invite the audience to scan the whole frame & take it in. If he isn't interested in setting up & framing things, preferring simply to centre everything, that speed may be necessary.
If the camera lingers, there may be nothing new for the audience to take in. All that matters has already been seen.

2026-07-17 14:35:48 UTC

- reply

Nolan's editing is typically very quick.
Best I can tell from a quick look around his average shot length (ASL) hangs out in the range of 3 - 3.5 seconds, only slightly longer than Michael Bay.

2026-07-17 14:26:45 UTC

- reply

There is something about every shot being centred like this that does feel like being spoonfed as an audience-member. You are never in doubt of where to look.
Much of the time this is good (it's not better to be inscrutable), but it feels too *easy*. It requires so little visual engagement from me.

2026-07-17 14:19:10 UTC

- reply

I don't actually have that much sympathy for Thomas & Martha Wayne in this film. Their wealth is obscene.
Bruce Wayne as a character has always been wealthy, but I think Nolan takes that to the *far* upper end of the spectrum.

2026-07-17 14:15:33 UTC

- reply

12 minutes into Batman Begins: so far, so centred. (I'm spelling "centre" the UK way for Nolan).
Side note: Nolan emphasizes the Wayne's family's lavish wealth from the beginning. It's giving me the ick.

2026-07-17 13:55:50 UTC

- reply

By the way, one does not need to master every single possible artistic aspect of filmmaking to create a film that is very much worth watching & enjoying, but I think Nolan's stature & very lengthy critically & financially successful career make it reasonable to scrutinize him closely.
I am being critical of Nolan in a way I simply *would not be* of a smaller filmmaker.

2026-07-17 13:49:10 UTC

- reply

In addition to my faves, I should probably pick something else from an "auteur" that I'm not as biased towards myself.
Name a director you think creates dynamic shots that make great use of the whole frame.
It's not cheating to compare Nolan with the greats in this case, so don't hold back. Suggest a proper auteur if you want. Nolan is hailed as a visual genius as a filmmaker. Making comparisons is reasonable.

2026-07-17 13:49:09 UTC

- reply

I will, of course, have to look at some films from other directors to determine by comparison if this is actually more pronounced in Nolan's work.
I think most fair for me to make a personal aesthetic judgement would be to compare a couple films by my favorite directors, so that I can be sure I'm not criticizing something in Nolan that I would never complain of in the work of my faves.

2026-07-17 13:33:49 UTC

- reply

Again, having specific tendencies that are consistent across your filmography isn't bad by definition. Filmmakers develop their own styles.
But at some point we might ask if simply centering everything significant in every shot (if this is indeed what he does) is less a style than it is a lack of style.
It's obvious & easy. It's what you would do if you just didn't want to be bothered with certain complexities of visual storytelling.

2026-07-17 13:26:32 UTC

- reply

No wonder he prefers an aspect ratio closer to a square.
Widescreen formats don't let you *really* center everything, because the height isn't there to fill the bottom & top around whatever is centered.
To me, The Odyssey trailer looks great in its original aspect ratio, but kind of bland & cramped in any other format because he simply doesn't seem to have framed or blocked things with widescreen in mind.

2026-07-17 13:16:09 UTC

- reply

What do you think? Do you think putting everything smack dab in the middle of the frame is Nolan's default? How do you think this compares with the styles of other "auteur" filmmakers?
If you see this tendency in Nolan, how do you feel about it? Do you like it or even prefer it? Or does it put you off?
My first thoughts are that it seems safe, boring, & maybe a wee bit lazy artistically, but I dunno. A lot of people *really* like his style & think his films look incredible.

2026-07-17 13:11:46 UTC

- reply

The first scenes of Batman Begins are doing nothing to disprove the hypothesis.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with the idea. I think some people would consider it part of Nolan's "naturalistic" style.
But if it is as unvarying as I suspect, it may grow boring over time & Nolan may miss opportunities to create dynamic images or use provocative visual storytelling.

2026-07-17 13:03:08 UTC

Listening to Christopher Nolan talk about how he didn't worry about all the different aspect ratios The Odyssey will be shown in because all of the important stuff happens in the center of the frame (or "centre" I suppose he might say), I have developed a hypothesis that needs testing.
Hypothesis: throughout Nolan's filmography whatever is most significant in the shot will be centered by the camera the vast majority of the time.

2026-07-17 13:03:08 UTC

- reply

If this appears on first blush to be true when looking at a film or two of his, I'm considering covering up the sides of my TV screen with cardboard & seeing if I'm able to watch a Nolan film that way without missing anything.
Spouse said based on scenes he can think of, he believes this hypothesis may be correct, but there is only one way to find out, right?

2026-07-16 20:31:55 UTC

I think one of the things that makes AuDHD so hard is frequently developing obsessive special interests for about a week.
You can't talk to me this week without hearing over & over about my main gripe/obsession, but in 1-2 weeks you may almost never hear me talk about it again.
Ad nauseam.

2026-07-16 18:38:33 UTC

- reply

I'm watching interviews with Christopher Nolan right now, & it is doing nothing to make me appreciate his work more, that's for sure.
He's not one of those filmmakers who radiates a love for films, ya know?

2026-07-16 18:33:13 UTC

Interviewer: how do you keep in mind all the different formats the film will be shown in when framing shots?
Nolan (paraphrasing): Oh, I don't keep that in mind. I make sure to put everything important in the center of the shot though.
Everything important will be in the center? That sounds so booooring.

2026-07-16 14:39:19 UTC

- reply

The "true" format of The Odyssey tells you who this movie is for—who the desired audience is—& it's not for most of us plebes.
I mean, what tf is that?
I'm lucky though, there's one 70mm IMAX theater under 100 miles from me (97 miles in fact). A mere 1 hour 40 minutes to be able to see this film.

2026-07-16 14:17:00 UTC

- reply

When I watch the trailer in the true aspect ratio it was filmed in, the images are pretty striking. Change it to any other ratio, though, & that unique vibe disappears entirely.
The difference is stark enough that I'm pretty sure that if you don't see this on IMAX 70mm, you're not really seeing the movie. Love it. A movie that is geographically & financially locked.

2026-07-16 11:42:33 UTC

"oh, but you have to see it in IMAX!"
If you *have* to see it in IMAX, how good of a movie is it?
I've never watched anything in IMAX & that will probably never change. Bigger does not excite me.

2026-07-15 15:13:43 UTC

- reply

I'm really tired of the idea that to make great art a filmmaker must demand inhuman levels of effort from his underlings. If that's what it takes, you're doing it wrong. That's fucking bullshit.
If all of your workers are completely exhausted & spent at the end of the day, "broken" as Pattinson put it, something has gone very wrong.
Everything else aside, that is not how you should treat your fucking employees.

2026-07-15 15:06:18 UTC

- reply

Ok, not related to production design/pre-production, I've just got to ask about this...what the HELL?
"At the end of every day people were broken".
Filming can be exhausting, but Pattinson has been in enough stuff by now that if he's remarking on this, then that hasn't been HIS normal experience at least.
I hate this. I said I like to see the love of artists in a film. This makes me worry we'll be looking at their pain instead.
https://www.gq.com/story/matt-damon-robert-pattinson-tom-holland-cover-interview-summer-2026
https://cdn.masto.host/dicecamp/media_attachments/files/116/924/611/104/654/325/original/3385e2c16d7b5f6d.png

2026-07-15 14:57:20 UTC

- reply

Not every film needs a lengthy period of pre-production, but for a piece like this I have to ask: if at the beginning of June they had not yet started "thinking practicalities", when did they approach &/or sign production designers & artists to start the process of conceptualizing this visual world of a film which they would begin filming in February of the following year?
When did concept art for this great "masterpiece" of an "epic" start getting made?

2026-07-15 14:57:19 UTC

- reply

I'm getting curious about pre-production & I found that Nolan's wife & producer, Emma Thomas, was reported as saying this in late May of 2024:
>I would say it’s very exciting. This is the moment where the possibilities are sort of limitless, we haven’t started thinking practicalities, or anything,”
Filming began in February 2025, but by June of 2024 they "hadn't started thinking practicalities."
So when did pre-production for this "epic" even fucking start?

2026-07-15 14:34:37 UTC

- reply

At what point in pre-production did costume design even begin in earnest?
For an epic "historical"/fantasy piece, it should be anticipated that costuming will be *extremely* time consuming & require a great deal of resources.
That's the nature of the beast.

2026-07-15 14:31:05 UTC

- reply

One thing I wonder is whether Nolan failed to even consider how much time & effort the costumes for a film like this would require, both the detail for the main cast & the at least passable costuming for background/extras.
The Prestige was a period piece, but even then, it's unlikely that *everything* needed to be designed & made from scratch. Oppenheimer is also technically a period piece but I am SURE they did not have to fabricate all of the costumes for that.

2026-07-15 14:16:56 UTC

- reply

She says she's "not at liberty" to say much, but she wouldn't have to give any information about the film to talk in general about the design process, what she's excited about in the costumes, what challenges they had to work around.
Based on the interviews I read/watch with costume designers who worked on films I really like, I find this fucking odd.

2026-07-15 14:14:09 UTC

- reply

I was whining yesterday about how disappointing the costumes for The Odyssey appear to be (from production images & trailers: bear in mind that I have NOT seen the film to attest to what they look like on screen).
This is from an interview with Ellen Mirojnick, the costume designer for The Odyssey. It's the only question about The Odyssey in the piece, & I have to say, I find it strange. Maybe Mirojnick just doesn't like talking about her work, but she doesn't actually talk about her work here.
https://cdn.masto.host/dicecamp/media_attachments/files/116/924/406/130/867/603/original/6bddc8e0ee575d97.png

2026-07-15 14:00:01 UTC

- reply

Movies that master both the big & epic & the small & intimate are pretty great though.
Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring comes to mind (personally, my favorite of the trilogy). There are lots of big shots that invoke awe & wonder, but it's not just those shots that look fucking amazing. The rest of the film is also a visual feast.

2026-07-15 13:57:10 UTC

- reply

But I'm really just not the audience for "epic" IMAX movies. Movies that seem to be primarily intended to look "big" are not my bag.
Making a film that looks cool & telling a visual story are not the same thing unless the visual story is "look at this; it's cool."

2026-07-15 13:50:52 UTC

- reply

I don't know that I would argue that Nolan is a bad filmmaker, but I certainly would argue that he isn't a "great" one.
Michael Bay is ALSO a master of incredible epic visuals but very few people would call him a great visionary filmmaker. Too many other things in his films are undercooked.

2026-07-15 13:44:01 UTC

- reply

Honestly, it feels to me that the shit Nolan is best at is the shit that people perceive as "singular genius."
He's not known for the performances of his actors. He's not known for detailed & creative production design. He's known for his little plot-puzzles/surprises (did the top fall? Is whats-his-name still in a dream?) & big, fancy IMAX shots.

2026-07-15 13:40:43 UTC

- reply

The praise I hear for Nolan is usually related to things that I find only secondarily important in film behind primary concerns such as (but not limited to) plot & characters.
Typically praise for Nolan centers on a few narrow aspects of the visual presentation of a film. For all the praise of his visual prowess, it's not like he's known as a master of subtle detail or creating a feeling of depth & history in his worlds.

2026-07-15 13:36:28 UTC

- reply

To me, Nolan's work—even when it is visually stunning—typically feels pretty lifeless.
Other than Ledger's Joker, which a) should be credited to Heath Ledger & b) was greatly mythologized due to the circumstances of his death, I can't really think of *characters* from Nolan's films that anyone speaks of with excitement.

2026-07-15 13:33:41 UTC

- reply

I once really liked The Prestige, but I think even in one of my more favored Nolan films, the performances are a little distant & stiff.
Inception's characters, likewise. There isn't a lot to chew on in those characters or their relationships to each other, & I don't think the actors could have saved that if they wanted to.

2026-07-15 13:29:18 UTC

- reply

He's never struck me as an "actor's director", & that's my preference in a filmmaker.
I like directors who really help the actors shape & envision their characters so that their performances are dynamic & true-to-life (at least "true-to-life" within the world of the film.
Films that look cool but aren't anchored in dynamic performances from actors who inhabit & breathe life into the film don't do it for me. In my experience Nolan is not good at getting those kinds of performances in his films.

2026-07-15 13:29:18 UTC

- reply

He is capable of interesting set-pieces, but I find his characters largely underdeveloped.
Maybe that has improved in the films since I gave up on him. The last film of his I watched was Interstellar, & I must admit that I gave up in boredom before the end, so I cannot judge the work as a whole, because I couldn't be arsed to watch it in its entirety.

2026-07-14 20:59:53 UTC

- reply

AI has been such a clarifying factor for me when it comes to art.
Human effort & creativity matter more to me than ever. I want to see the humanity in a work of art.
Polished or rough, expensive or cheap, high art or low-brow, whatever the fuck it is just let me feel how much people have put into it, please.

2026-07-14 20:53:29 UTC

- reply

Someone might say I'm judging Nolan too harshly because this is "just what movies are", but I don't care if that's how it has been.
I don't want to go on that way.
It's soulless. Heartless. I don't care that I've been watching a lot of soulless movies my whole life, I'm not going to keep doing it.

2026-07-14 13:51:55 UTC

- reply

So yeah, pardon my skepticism that—even putting ethnicity issues aside—Matt Damon is capable of embodying the character of Odysseus.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's the greatest performance of his career.
But come on.
The character of Odysseus IS the Odyssey. If you actually want to do a high-minded adaptation, it would require an absolutely magnetic performance from someone.

2026-07-14 13:41:44 UTC

- reply

The most I ever liked Matt Damon was in the Bourne films, where he was playing a character without an identity.
Which is to say...I don't find him to be great at creating fully-realized, engaging characters.

2026-07-14 13:30:22 UTC

Me: casting Matt Damon as Odysseus is ridiculous. If you're going to cast some white, definitely-not-Greek dude, you could at least cast someone who can sell the wit & charm of a trickster kind of character like this. George Clooney would be a far better Odysseus.
Me, remembering that Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? exists: oh yeahhhhh

2026-07-13 17:19:42 UTC

- reply

I should know this by now.
As an adult I found out that basically no one else in my family growing up was really aware of how much everyone else was suffering through that whole time.
So I should know by now that most people aren't looking at the same things I am. They aren't on the hunt for pain, anger, frustration, sadness, etc. in everyone's eyes. They aren't evaluating every little response to every little thing & trying to decipher the implications for peace & group cohesion.

2026-07-13 17:03:20 UTC

- reply

I think perhaps I assign an exaggerated level of intention & awareness to someone when they do something that is hurtful to me or appears to be hurtful to someone else.
I assume certain things are "obvious" because I notice them. Perhaps not.

2026-07-13 14:24:29 UTC

- reply

I know a lot of people really like Burton, & the truth is, when he is on his game, he has excellent aesthetic sensibilities that are capable of carrying narratives that are less than stellar.
Totally reasonable to admire that. Also totally reasonable that someone who felt alienated & ostracized as a young person might find something recognizable in his "outsider" narratives.
It's not bad to enjoy those qualities in Burton's work. It's more his self-image & self-mythologizing I question.

2026-07-13 14:16:23 UTC

- reply

It's fake rebellion that actually stays within & supports the system that birthed it.
It's an outlet for people who feel restricted or alienated that allows them to never actually challenge the world which restricts & alienates them.
What's truly shocking is the upset of the status quo & the overturning of established power structures & "morality". Somebody humping a grave does not qualify. That's just a little bit morbid & obscene, which is not by itself a challenge to anything at all.

2026-07-13 14:11:29 UTC

Emerald Fennell's "edginess" reminds me of Tim Burton, the suburban boy who felt like an outsider because he was kind of goth but who never had any sort of radicalization that would give him sympathy for & understanding of true alienation from society.
Fennell comes from a very classy, wealthy British family. Like Burton she goes for the tamest possible version of edginess & rebellion. No true subversion happens, because that would take the ground out from under her feet.

2026-07-08 20:49:07 UTC

- reply

I'm the fucking "reluctant leader" who only volunteers to take charge of something when I think the person who is currently trying to be in charge is being a dick to people, but it's fucking annoying as hell to be filling a "power vacuum", when I would rather just help people.
I've low-key been an anarchist all my life.

2026-07-08 20:43:56 UTC

- reply

No wonder I feel like I have to work this through with them.
I experienced someone acting controlling in a setting where I think it is extremely important that no one should be controlled (group sex).
I abhor control.
I don't own you. You don't own me. Can we be fucking nice to each other, please?

2026-07-08 20:38:44 UTC

- reply

To me, liberation means radical equality, & one of the ways we learn to implement it is within ourselves & in our relationships.
You are worth no more than anyone else.
You are worth no LESS than anyone else also.
I think when we can really start living on these terms in our own lives, it informs how we are able to act on the larger scale.

2026-07-08 20:24:45 UTC

- reply

Heal yourself & heal the world. Neither comes before the other.
Two sides, one coin.
Liberation must happen at multiple levels or it won't happen at all.
To liberate the world, you must liberate yourself. To liberate yourself, you must liberate the world.

2026-07-08 20:16:21 UTC

- reply

I *knew* I could bring this around to talking about how we're going to topple the kyriarchy!
The personal & the political are not really separate.

2026-07-08 20:13:36 UTC

- reply

Self love & self understanding sometimes seem like a luxury or a selfish indulgence, but they aren't.
You wanna find courage? Find yourself. Love yourself. Stand up for yourself.
Loving others is equally important imo, but if you don't love & trust yourself, you will struggle to stand up for other people, because your doubts will get in the way.
If you aren't careful, you will talk yourself out of something you *know* is right, because you just can't take that step of acknowledging it.

2026-07-08 20:03:22 UTC

- reply

How do you counter authoritarianism, which encourages people to run to someone else—some "strong" person—to answer every question & decide every outcome?
I have to think it involves learning to listen to ourselves (& teaching others).
It's extremely hard to stand up to "authority" if you don't trust yourself. Your doubts can consume you.
You have to have some sense of "here's what I know in my gut, what I can't deny or ignore, what I will not give up on."

2026-07-08 19:57:01 UTC

- reply

When I look at the times I've actually stood up & held my ground at personal cost to myself, it's either because I couldn't tolerate something for myself or I had no intention of tolerating it happening to someone else.
That's what I mean when I say it makes us ungovernable. When you're ready to dig in & insist "this isn't right. I know this isn't right," even when you are being pressured to sit down & shut up, you become a problem for authoritarians.
So love yourself & spit in their faces.

2026-07-08 19:49:34 UTC

- reply

It's not that you can't understand, love, trust, & accept yourself.
It's that abusers & oppressors on all levels want to avoid that outcome at all costs.
Self love is revolutionary. When we love ourselves & we love each other, we become ungovernable.
It's not your fucking fault that the abusive systems around you have ripped you away from yourself. It's not a personal failing. People—whether knowingly or not (& it varies)—took something from you, took you away from yourself.

2026-07-08 19:44:04 UTC

- reply

Sometimes I'm like "why don't people get curious about themselves & explore what's going on?"
And then I think, "Well, among other things they don't fucking teach this in school. Duh."
I write all this stuff like it's obvious, but it's not, & in fact most of us have been socialized not to get in the weeds & go deep with ourselves. Many of us are taught to fear that more than anything!
You are supposed to be alienated from yourself, because oppressive systems rely on this.

2026-07-08 19:37:12 UTC

- reply

It may be corny to say "the answer was inside of you all along," buuuut
The answer was inside of you all along.
You know you better than anyone else in the whole world does. You just need to fucking give yourself space to observe & share what you know with yourself.
Be honest but also be kind. Think critically but remain curious & open.

2026-07-08 19:32:03 UTC

- reply

Hearing yourself & trusting yourself is hard for a lot of us.
For instance, with my religious background I was gaslit about everything I felt. Emotions were "deceitful" & truth came from "above".
That's a big part of my damage that keeps me from trusting myself, but there are a million different ways this happens.
Look: you aren't perfect or infallible, but you know much more than you realize, & until you get in the habit of listening to yourself, you are going to struggle to access that.

2026-07-08 19:32:03 UTC

- reply

Here's the real secret to making difficult decisions: listen to yourself.
Ask yourself questions. What do you feel? Why? What do you expect will happen? What outcome do you want? What are you hoping for? What are you afraid of? What is acceptable to you in a relationship with a person? What isn't? What's most fair to them? What's most fair to you? How will your actions affect other people? How will they affect YOU?

2026-07-08 19:32:03 UTC

- reply

Question yourself often, but make sure you're asking those questions with curiosity rather than judgment.
Instead of asking questions that undermine your sense of self (like "what is wrong with me?"), ask questions that will help you learn something about yourself.
It's ok to be curious about what's inside of you. It won't all be pretty—that's true of everyone—but there is more to you than you even know. Get to know yourself! You're really cool.

2026-07-08 17:08:25 UTC

- reply

I have always struggled with maintaining those boundaries, but I think I'm getting better over time.
I'm a fucking softie. I'd *like* to be fucking nice to everyone.
Not everyone is nice.
Sometimes even people who are generally nice are not currently being very nice to you or someone else. That ain't cool!

2026-07-08 17:08:25 UTC

- reply

With trusted people it's often good to talk to them about it & give them a chance to do something differently. With some people, you may find it's better to just say "ok, I'm not dealing with you anymore."
Making this choice (deal with it with them or just move on) depends on a lot of other factors too. It's certainly good to ask yourself, do you currently have the capacity to actually deal with this or are you too burnt out?

2026-07-08 16:31:20 UTC

- reply

Self love is not fully distinct from loving others.
You are just a person, like every other person.
You need to feel acceptance. You need to feel whole.
Give to others the kindness & acceptance you want to feel, & then give yourself the same. Approach yourself with curiosity & kindness. Ask yourself what you need & then honor that the way you would honor the needs of your dearest loved ones.

2026-07-06 13:28:50 UTC

- reply

My path is obviously not the only path to that (please don't think I'm saying "all older siblings are bad people" or something like that! That'd be an awful thing to imply), but it was one path to get there.
Aside from bullying, being a younger sibling in a big fam can give you an opportunity to develop more perspective on the concept of "other people", I think. From birth, you're thrown into a complex world where everyone else has a headstart. You have to be a student of people to survive.

2026-07-06 13:22:40 UTC

- reply

My older sister never thought about how what she did would impact other people (I was going to say "almost never," but when she was a child, it really was never). Lucky me, I got to be the primary person affected by that (until I left for college while she still lived at home, & Apollo got promoted to her main victim).

2026-07-06 13:22:40 UTC

- reply

That fucking sucked, & my parents should have fucking intervened, but it was a "sin" to react in anger, even when deserved, so I got punished when she hurt me. I'm still mad about that.
But I got to learn something she didn't. I learned that even the "little things" hurt. I learned that it fucking sucks to hurt someone & not take responsibility. I (unfortunately) got to see & experience everything I didn't want to be.
It certainly shaped my sense of justice & encouraged me to practice empathy.

2026-07-06 13:16:09 UTC

- reply

Our older siblings were dicks to us a bunch of the time. We were obstacles. We were obnoxious. They didn't like that we 'stole' parental attention away from them. And so on.
That experience sucked, & them being older allowed them to cause us pain.
But when it comes to being able to make actual choices about who we wanted to be, I think we younger kids had a distinct advantage. I think one of our advantages was just simply knowing that: that who we were was a CHOICE we could make.

2026-07-06 13:10:36 UTC

Just said in a reply to someone:
>I think our older sister being kind of a bully & never acknowledging that is a big part of how Apollo (aka Lil Bro) & I ended up being so personally committed to trying to do what's right. She really managed to set the example of everything we didn't want to be.
It's a weird fucking thing about being a younger kid in a big family, I think. Younger kids have the opportunity to sort of see "possible futures" in their older siblings.

2026-07-05 14:27:41 UTC

Watching Creature Commandos: why is Rick Flagg making all these terrible decisions?
Watching Peacemaker Season 2: Oh, because he's an arrogant dumbass! Got it.

2026-07-05 13:59:01 UTC

Reading a long series of interactions of several people with a reply guy in someone else's replies, & it's amazing that this person is telling everyone that they missed their point.
Bud, if everyone is "misunderstanding" you it's likely that either a) you are not communicating your point in a way other people can understand or b) (more likely) YOU don't understand the point you're making & think it has merit & makes sense, & it doesn't
Or c) you're just full of shit. That one's very common.

2026-07-02 14:35:34 UTC

- reply

I'm half joking, but...I really don't think it's a bad idea to get the smart birds who can recognize faces (true story. Crows can do this.) to see me as a friend.

2026-07-02 14:33:40 UTC

- reply

Also I want to befriend the Corvids NOW because I think the bird wars are coming.
There are a lot of animals that are far smarter than we give them credit for, & I just don't think that continuing to be their enemies is a good idea.

2026-07-02 14:12:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…eeh7
You mean, you don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on surveillance glasses & then pay $20/month for very limited use of a fairly common technology? Wild.

2026-07-02 13:04:06 UTC

"You can feed 4 people on $300 a month. In this video, I will show you how to make a thin rice gruel..."
(The first sentence is really from a real person. The second is what I assume came next)