i haven't really read calvin and hobbes in gosh. . .15 years ish? I had a friend in college who had one of the books in his bathroom and i'd take some exceptional long poops just sitting there reading.
but that was when I was still pretty wet behind the years. I wonder how this version of DUE would take calvin and hobbes.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I saw Nocturnal Animals tonight and it was very good. It's an independent movie about Amy Adams, LA art curator, stuck in a floundering marriage to a formerly-wealthy businessman whose business is going down the tubes and who may be having an affair. While he's away, she gets a box in the mail: a manuscript of a novel written by her first husband, whom she hasn't heard from in decades. She begins reading the novel, which is a thriller about a man (Jake Gyllenhaal) and his family being attacked by hillbillies on a lonely drive through west Texas, and what happens next; and while reading the novel, she begins musing on her original marriage (also to Jake Gyllenhaal).
It's meditative and chilly in that art-film way - lots of locked off shots, precise blocking, long pregnant pauses and so forth - but then the film within the film is looser and noirier. Everything is gorgeously filmed and the whole atmosphere, even in the real world, brims with nameless menace. I don't know if it's a timeless classic for the ages but it's very good and reminds me a lot of the kind of atmospheric, vibe-y indie movies I enjoyed in the 90s and early 00s, before that whole Garden State/Little Miss Sunshine era of mandatory whimsy.
You'll take your whimsy and you'll fucking like it Jacobkosh!
I just need a lolrandom girl to teach me how to love again
It's a bunch of white dudes on Skype discussing conspiracy theories.
This is amazing. It's like conspiracy theory bingo! In 15 minutes, they've covered:
Free square (9/11 was an inside job)
"Lee Oswald" didn't kill Kennedy
Nobody died at Sandy Hook
"Nobody died in Boston, either."
George Soros funded Jill Stein's recount campaign to get "Killary" elected
"Army psy-ops"
That is interesting.
Is there a stated reason for the alleged Boston bombing hoax?
No, they kind of throw these out rapid-fire as if they're established facts.
Sometimes a dude will be talking and they'll put up an unrelated blog post from some conspiracy-theory website about an unrelated topic.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
i haven't really read calvin and hobbes in gosh. . .15 years ish? I had a friend in college who had one of the books in his bathroom and i'd take some exceptional long poops just sitting there reading.
but that was when I was still pretty wet behind the years. I wonder how this version of DUE would take calvin and hobbes.
like are we the dad now?
the dad was still pretty cool tho
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+2
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
It's a bunch of white dudes on Skype discussing conspiracy theories.
This is amazing. It's like conspiracy theory bingo! In 15 minutes, they've covered:
Free square (9/11 was an inside job)
"Lee Oswald" didn't kill Kennedy
Nobody died at Sandy Hook
"Nobody died in Boston, either."
George Soros funded Jill Stein's recount campaign to get "Killary" elected
"Army psy-ops"
That is interesting.
Is there a stated reason for the alleged Boston bombing hoax?
Hm yes I'd like to know what really happened to the people I know who died
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
It's a bunch of white dudes on Skype discussing conspiracy theories.
This is amazing. It's like conspiracy theory bingo! In 15 minutes, they've covered:
Free square (9/11 was an inside job)
"Lee Oswald" didn't kill Kennedy
Nobody died at Sandy Hook
"Nobody died in Boston, either."
George Soros funded Jill Stein's recount campaign to get "Killary" elected
"Army psy-ops"
That is interesting.
Is there a stated reason for the alleged Boston bombing hoax?
Hm yes I'd like to know what really happened to the people I know who died
i haven't really read calvin and hobbes in gosh. . .15 years ish? I had a friend in college who had one of the books in his bathroom and i'd take some exceptional long poops just sitting there reading.
but that was when I was still pretty wet behind the years. I wonder how this version of DUE would take calvin and hobbes.
You'd either rediscover your inner-child, full of imagination and youthful energy, or you'd throw snowballs at unsuspecting girls.
+3
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
It's a bunch of white dudes on Skype discussing conspiracy theories.
This is amazing. It's like conspiracy theory bingo! In 15 minutes, they've covered:
Free square (9/11 was an inside job)
"Lee Oswald" didn't kill Kennedy
Nobody died at Sandy Hook
"Nobody died in Boston, either."
George Soros funded Jill Stein's recount campaign to get "Killary" elected
"Army psy-ops"
That is interesting.
Is there a stated reason for the alleged Boston bombing hoax?
Hm yes I'd like to know what really happened to the people I know who died
govt moved them to the Bahamas
presumably that's also where they shipped the limbs of my friend whom must have agree to have them sawn off as part of the conspiracy
With Love and Courage
+3
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
It's a bunch of white dudes on Skype discussing conspiracy theories.
This is amazing. It's like conspiracy theory bingo! In 15 minutes, they've covered:
Free square (9/11 was an inside job)
"Lee Oswald" didn't kill Kennedy
Nobody died at Sandy Hook
"Nobody died in Boston, either."
George Soros funded Jill Stein's recount campaign to get "Killary" elected
"Army psy-ops"
That is interesting.
Is there a stated reason for the alleged Boston bombing hoax?
No, they kind of throw these out rapid-fire as if they're established facts.
Sometimes a dude will be talking and they'll put up an unrelated blog post from some conspiracy-theory website about an unrelated topic.
Wait what Boston thing didn't kill people?
Because one of my best friends survived the marathon bombing
He's now fighting to survive cancer
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It's a bunch of white dudes on Skype discussing conspiracy theories.
This is amazing. It's like conspiracy theory bingo! In 15 minutes, they've covered:
Free square (9/11 was an inside job)
"Lee Oswald" didn't kill Kennedy
Nobody died at Sandy Hook
"Nobody died in Boston, either."
George Soros funded Jill Stein's recount campaign to get "Killary" elected
"Army psy-ops"
That is interesting.
Is there a stated reason for the alleged Boston bombing hoax?
Hm yes I'd like to know what really happened to the people I know who died
(((y2jake215)))
is what they would say in response.
it's what i would say anyway
even devoid of meaningful context
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i haven't really read calvin and hobbes in gosh. . .15 years ish? I had a friend in college who had one of the books in his bathroom and i'd take some exceptional long poops just sitting there reading.
but that was when I was still pretty wet behind the years. I wonder how this version of DUE would take calvin and hobbes.
You'd either rediscover your inner-child, full of imagination and youthful energy, or you'd throw snowballs at unsuspecting girls.
why are these assumed to be mutually exclusive
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
You mean factors like being a socially awkward scrawny kid interested in nerdy things that his peers think are uncool?
an example is the Tobey Macguire movies where Flash bullies Peter for no real given reason at all
Bullies don't need a reason other than opportunity.
except that opportunity is that a person is socially vulnerable
that social vulnerability comes from somewhere
a person could be a new kid or be ESL or any number of things
but it is not, in fact, some random dice roll one day
people don't like addressing this ugly reality because it sounds remarkably close to assigning blame or fault or trying to make it sound like justifying bullying, when it's none of those things
what i'm pointing out is that Hollywood has an overwhelming tendency to present protagonists who simply... get bullied, and there's no reason why they do. They just do.
which makes their bullies look like weird, capricious forces of nature instead of people acting out social pressures and conformity standards and a bunch of other social dynamics
hence the whole stereotype in Hollywood of bullies who are bullies on account of being abused themselves which again, irl doesn't actually pan out as much as TV would have you believe
0
Options
wafflesmageeI like pancakes.Registered Userregular
an example is the Tobey Macguire movies where Flash bullies Peter for no real given reason at all
Bullies don't need a reason other than opportunity.
except that opportunity is that a person is socially vulnerable
that social vulnerability comes from somewhere
a person could be a new kid or be ESL or any number of things
but it is not, in fact, some random dice roll one day
people don't like addressing this ugly reality because it sounds remarkably close to assigning blame or fault or trying to make it sound like justifying bullying, when it's none of those things
what i'm pointing out is that Hollywood has an overwhelming tendency to present protagonists who simply... get bullied, and there's no reason why they do. They just do.
which makes their bullies look like weird, capricious forces of nature instead of people acting out social pressures and conformity standards and a bunch of other social dynamics
hence the whole stereotype in Hollywood of bullies who are bullies on account of being abused themselves which again, irl doesn't actually pan out as much as TV would have you believe
It can be pretty random what counts as a sign of weakness.
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
That is 100% the case. "They look vaguely different and/or shy and/or don't have friends" is 100% a reason.
"Whoever is nearest I can make fun of and doesn't respond the way I want them to" is absolutely a reason someone will get bullied.
Bullies don't use logic or reason to pick who they decide to marginalize.
I am literally a teacher and kids have tried to bully me for playing video games.
I haven't even told them I play video games!
Kids are shitty and many of them will be jerks. Jocks are especially encouraged to do this due to their peers and surroundings.
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
I respect you a great deal and I particularly respect your perspective on jock-shaming in nerd cultures, but on this particular scope of the debate you're not quite right.
Yes, disabilities and marginalized identities are attractive factors for bullies, but they're not necessary conditions. Rather, adolescent bullies are attracted to victims for one primary reason: their chosen victims have weaker peer connections and fewer people to take their side. The major selective factor, among all others, is that the victim is unpopular.
Disabilities and marginalized identities can put a victim in the position of being unpopular, or it can simply be that the victim is shy or the new kid in school.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
You mean factors like being a socially awkward scrawny kid interested in nerdy things that his peers think are uncool?
One does not really need to explain bullying.
The thing is, Tobey Macguire's Peter Parker isn't really especially scrawny, isn't really any more socially awkward than Tobey Macguire is by default, and doesn't really get any establishing hobbies of what a person could consider "uncool" beyond... photography?
I mean I'm saying the character is poorly developed in general really, but the larger point I'm making is the film relies on a bunch of narrative shorthand for you to jump to the conclusion that he's a mawkish nerd that is some kind of bully magnet and that this makes his interaction with Flash somehow make sense
and it... doesn't?
it's weird and poorly done
Pony on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
You mean factors like being a socially awkward scrawny kid interested in nerdy things that his peers think are uncool?
One does not really need to explain bullying.
The thing is, Tobey Macguire's Peter Parker isn't really especially scrawny, isn't really any more socially awkward than Tobey Macguire is by default, and doesn't really get any establishing hobbies of what a person could consider "uncool" beyond... photography?
I mean I'm saying the character is poorly developed in general really, but the larger point I'm making is the film relies on a bunch of narrative shorthand for you to jump to the conclusion that he's a mawkish nerd that is some kind of bully magnet and that this makes his interaction with Flash somehow make sense
and it... doesn't?
it's weird and poorly done
But it's not. You understand the shorthands at work and he is portrayed as awkward, scrawny and badly dressed. The whole point is to establish his place int he social hierarchy and a deep-dive into his and Flash's history within the high school social structure is irrelevant to the plot beyond what is established.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
I respect you a great deal and I particularly respect your perspective on jock-shaming in nerd cultures, but on this particular scope of the debate you're not quite right.
Yes, disabilities and marginalized identities are attractive factors for bullies, but they're not necessary conditions. Rather, adolescent bullies are attracted to victims for one primary reason: their chosen victims have weaker peer connections and fewer people to take their side. The major selective factor, among all others, is that the victim is unpopular.
Disabilities and marginalized identities can put a victim in the position of being unpopular, or it can simply be that the victim is shy or the new kid in school.
I literally say that exact thing, Feral.
I mean, I don't say it in the post you quote, but I literally say that bullies choose people based on social vulnerability, and that can very much include a person being ESL or the new kid or just dressing slightly differently or whatever.
But, again, what I'm saying is that film and television are bad at portraying this. Film and television portray bullies as capricious forces of nature, whose motives are unknowable and it's all kind of absurd.
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
You mean factors like being a socially awkward scrawny kid interested in nerdy things that his peers think are uncool?
One does not really need to explain bullying.
The thing is, Tobey Macguire's Peter Parker isn't really especially scrawny, isn't really any more socially awkward than Tobey Macguire is by default, and doesn't really get any establishing hobbies of what a person could consider "uncool" beyond... photography?
I mean I'm saying the character is poorly developed in general really, but the larger point I'm making is the film relies on a bunch of narrative shorthand for you to jump to the conclusion that he's a mawkish nerd that is some kind of bully magnet and that this makes his interaction with Flash somehow make sense
and it... doesn't?
it's weird and poorly done
Photography is seen as an uncool nerd thing here in the states quite often. Photography is definitely a nerdy hobby. Basically anything that isn't a sport is considered an uncool hobby!
And Tobey Macguire isn't on the football team like Flash. Thus, target.
Also in the movie it's clearly set up that Flash has been bullying him for a while, though we don't get to see the entire history (because that would be boring as hell)
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
Hollywood no doubt wants to stay away from labels and reasons to keep as large an audience as possible as happy as possible. A summer blockbuster getting into specifics gets the internet riled no matter which motivation the script writers give the bullies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWCi9Bxu1pk
Flash is going to beat the shit out of Peter because Peter narc'd on Flash for reckless driving and got his license revoked Peter spilled some food on Flash.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Before we went into the theater, we stopped at the Trader Joe's next door. I came out with a huge tin of "European cookies" (assorted biscuits, basically) and a bottle of rosé
Sixteen dollars to feel like king fancy isn't too bad
+10
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
edited December 2016
Yeah, I mean Cancer has had a rough go of it these last few decades. First the mill closed, and then one by one the stores in town died off, until all that's left is a tiny grocery store, a gas station, and a check cashing place. And now there's all these foreign types moving into Cancer's town. Cancer doesn't even recognize his country anymore.
So when someone comes along and tells Cancer they're going to fix all that then Cancer listens. Even if he knows in his cold rotten heart it's all bullshit.
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
i think every spiderman film i've seen has done an adequate job of suggesting peter parker doesn't have a great defense network or support system. if one of the accepted routes of bullying is established, popular person vs person without the social currency to resist, it seems to hit those marks. establishing why he doesn't have a network of loyal friends- scrawny, esl, whatever- is, i think, unnecessary.
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
I respect you a great deal and I particularly respect your perspective on jock-shaming in nerd cultures, but on this particular scope of the debate you're not quite right.
Yes, disabilities and marginalized identities are attractive factors for bullies, but they're not necessary conditions. Rather, adolescent bullies are attracted to victims for one primary reason: their chosen victims have weaker peer connections and fewer people to take their side. The major selective factor, among all others, is that the victim is unpopular.
Disabilities and marginalized identities can put a victim in the position of being unpopular, or it can simply be that the victim is shy or the new kid in school.
I literally say that exact thing, Feral.
I mean, I don't say it in the post you quote, but I literally say that bullies choose people based on social vulnerability, and that can very much include a person being ESL or the new kid or just dressing slightly differently or whatever.
But, again, what I'm saying is that film and television are bad at portraying this. Film and television portray bullies as capricious forces of nature, whose motives are unknowable and it's all kind of absurd.
Okay. We got our posts crossed, I think.
I don't totally agree with the generalization there of TV and movies, but I think we agree on the empirical matter of why bullies do, so imma drop it.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It's a culturally accepted thing, which is really shitty
I literally saw a kid get made fun of because he was reading a manga in school today
he was sitting at a table reading it and people shouted across a lunch room to mock him
because kids are assholes
It's a true stereotype because it's still super common
And still super shitty
But being a bully has nothing to do with being into sports, or even anything to do with being physically fit. SM comics reinforce the notion that they do (note that Parker, though being incredibly strong, does not participate in sporting activities & these activities are almost always framed in a negative sense).
Contrast that with the way that, say, Calvin & Hobbes (since this comic that I like more was mentioned!) presents the same problems & similar situations: Calvin is a sympathetic protagonist that the reader can identify with but isn't romanced the same way that Parker was. In the comics where C&H deal explicitly with bullying, the author tells the reader that, yup, sometimes the world is shitty & full of shitty people and you'll just have to deal with that in a more or less powerless capacity.
Old SM creates a morality play by demonizing a large body of people & cultural interest with a stereotype & assigning virtue to nerd awkwardness (again, new SM doesn't do this, etc etc). I don't like that.
Posts
but that was when I was still pretty wet behind the years. I wonder how this version of DUE would take calvin and hobbes.
it's almost like
good santa?
Jocks still bully nerds a lot
It's a culturally accepted thing, which is really shitty
I literally saw a kid get made fun of because he was reading a manga in school today
he was sitting at a table reading it and people shouted across a lunch room to mock him
because kids are assholes
It's a true stereotype because it's still super common
And still super shitty
I just need a lolrandom girl to teach me how to love again
No, they kind of throw these out rapid-fire as if they're established facts.
Sometimes a dude will be talking and they'll put up an unrelated blog post from some conspiracy-theory website about an unrelated topic.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
if you liked that then you'll love Bad Santa 2: Bad 2 Da Bone
like are we the dad now?
the dad was still pretty cool tho
Hm yes I'd like to know what really happened to the people I know who died
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
irl people are bullied for a myriad of reasons, most of the time because they're not conforming to some expected social or behavioral standard
like a lot of nerds who get bullied are also, irrespective of being nerds, people who are also struggling with say, depression or anxiety or neuro-atypicality or speech impediments any number of other things going on in their life
and asshole kids leap upon on that divergence and go YOU, DIFFERENT PERSON, BE MOCKED UPON
Tobey Macguire's Spider-Man didn't have like... anything?
He just existed
And while it might be comforting to some to think that bullies will target random kids for bullying for no reason and that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they were chosen
that's not really the case?
people who are bullied are bullied because of factors that lead to them being chosen to be so
factors that aren't necessarily their fault and aren't at all fair
but also ones that Hollywood isn't super good at portraying in any character who tends to get bullied
(((y2jake215)))
is what they would say in response.
You'd either rediscover your inner-child, full of imagination and youthful energy, or you'd throw snowballs at unsuspecting girls.
The only bad part of bad Santa is that it spawned bad teacher and bad moms and bad Santa 2
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
govt moved them to the Bahamas
presumably that's also where they shipped the limbs of my friend whom must have agree to have them sawn off as part of the conspiracy
Wait what Boston thing didn't kill people?
Because one of my best friends survived the marathon bombing
He's now fighting to survive cancer
it's what i would say anyway
even devoid of meaningful context
why are these assumed to be mutually exclusive
You mean factors like being a socially awkward scrawny kid interested in nerdy things that his peers think are uncool?
One does not really need to explain bullying.
except that opportunity is that a person is socially vulnerable
that social vulnerability comes from somewhere
a person could be a new kid or be ESL or any number of things
but it is not, in fact, some random dice roll one day
people don't like addressing this ugly reality because it sounds remarkably close to assigning blame or fault or trying to make it sound like justifying bullying, when it's none of those things
what i'm pointing out is that Hollywood has an overwhelming tendency to present protagonists who simply... get bullied, and there's no reason why they do. They just do.
which makes their bullies look like weird, capricious forces of nature instead of people acting out social pressures and conformity standards and a bunch of other social dynamics
hence the whole stereotype in Hollywood of bullies who are bullies on account of being abused themselves which again, irl doesn't actually pan out as much as TV would have you believe
It can be pretty random what counts as a sign of weakness.
That is 100% the case. "They look vaguely different and/or shy and/or don't have friends" is 100% a reason.
"Whoever is nearest I can make fun of and doesn't respond the way I want them to" is absolutely a reason someone will get bullied.
Bullies don't use logic or reason to pick who they decide to marginalize.
I am literally a teacher and kids have tried to bully me for playing video games.
I haven't even told them I play video games!
Kids are shitty and many of them will be jerks. Jocks are especially encouraged to do this due to their peers and surroundings.
I respect you a great deal and I particularly respect your perspective on jock-shaming in nerd cultures, but on this particular scope of the debate you're not quite right.
Yes, disabilities and marginalized identities are attractive factors for bullies, but they're not necessary conditions. Rather, adolescent bullies are attracted to victims for one primary reason: their chosen victims have weaker peer connections and fewer people to take their side. The major selective factor, among all others, is that the victim is unpopular.
Disabilities and marginalized identities can put a victim in the position of being unpopular, or it can simply be that the victim is shy or the new kid in school.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The thing is, Tobey Macguire's Peter Parker isn't really especially scrawny, isn't really any more socially awkward than Tobey Macguire is by default, and doesn't really get any establishing hobbies of what a person could consider "uncool" beyond... photography?
I mean I'm saying the character is poorly developed in general really, but the larger point I'm making is the film relies on a bunch of narrative shorthand for you to jump to the conclusion that he's a mawkish nerd that is some kind of bully magnet and that this makes his interaction with Flash somehow make sense
and it... doesn't?
it's weird and poorly done
i dunno has anyone ever considered what cancer thinks?
as a cancer,
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Plus being nearly 30 and still being in high school would, I assume, elicit some comments
But it's not. You understand the shorthands at work and he is portrayed as awkward, scrawny and badly dressed. The whole point is to establish his place int he social hierarchy and a deep-dive into his and Flash's history within the high school social structure is irrelevant to the plot beyond what is established.
i mean
he is a total nerd
I literally say that exact thing, Feral.
I mean, I don't say it in the post you quote, but I literally say that bullies choose people based on social vulnerability, and that can very much include a person being ESL or the new kid or just dressing slightly differently or whatever.
But, again, what I'm saying is that film and television are bad at portraying this. Film and television portray bullies as capricious forces of nature, whose motives are unknowable and it's all kind of absurd.
Photography is seen as an uncool nerd thing here in the states quite often. Photography is definitely a nerdy hobby. Basically anything that isn't a sport is considered an uncool hobby!
And Tobey Macguire isn't on the football team like Flash. Thus, target.
Also in the movie it's clearly set up that Flash has been bullying him for a while, though we don't get to see the entire history (because that would be boring as hell)
Hollywood no doubt wants to stay away from labels and reasons to keep as large an audience as possible as happy as possible. A summer blockbuster getting into specifics gets the internet riled no matter which motivation the script writers give the bullies.
Flash is going to beat the shit out of Peter because Peter narc'd on Flash for reckless driving and got his license revoked Peter spilled some food on Flash.
Sixteen dollars to feel like king fancy isn't too bad
So when someone comes along and tells Cancer they're going to fix all that then Cancer listens. Even if he knows in his cold rotten heart it's all bullshit.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
nevermind
I am surprised at how cheesy that whole clip looks
Okay. We got our posts crossed, I think.
I don't totally agree with the generalization there of TV and movies, but I think we agree on the empirical matter of why bullies do, so imma drop it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
hot take: The Tobey Macguire Spider-Man movies are bad and cheesy and always have been
our standards for super-hero movies was super low back in those days
also the first X-Men movie was fucking garbo
But being a bully has nothing to do with being into sports, or even anything to do with being physically fit. SM comics reinforce the notion that they do (note that Parker, though being incredibly strong, does not participate in sporting activities & these activities are almost always framed in a negative sense).
Contrast that with the way that, say, Calvin & Hobbes (since this comic that I like more was mentioned!) presents the same problems & similar situations: Calvin is a sympathetic protagonist that the reader can identify with but isn't romanced the same way that Parker was. In the comics where C&H deal explicitly with bullying, the author tells the reader that, yup, sometimes the world is shitty & full of shitty people and you'll just have to deal with that in a more or less powerless capacity.
Old SM creates a morality play by demonizing a large body of people & cultural interest with a stereotype & assigning virtue to nerd awkwardness (again, new SM doesn't do this, etc etc). I don't like that.