What's new

Other Random question of the day

The Dreamer of the Lore

Greetings from the chatty scissors.
Random question of the day:

Is fear of rejection truly worse than rejection?
No. Fear is simple, is primal, it exists and is part of life. Fear is a natural reaction that tries to protect you from harm. It will never be bad to feel fear. Rejection is something different. Rejection is something that will change things, but everything change things. So I dont believe either is worse than the other.
 
Random question of the day:

Do you feel like that Nintendo was forced by the fans to create a chronological timeline for The Legend of Zelda?

(If I have asked this question already, let me know, because then I will ask a different question.)
 
Somewhat. At some point, having a sort of organization/timeline is beneficial because it can help you have a basis for the next content (game in this case). I think eventually they would have at least laid out some games in context of one another regardless of fan input, as now we see that a lot of players prefer story-driven games instead of blind combat and more arcade-style games. Having the games tied together makes more of this story structure and people may be more likely to go back and play the previous games. So in a way...forced to in retrospect by the fans and forced to by the anticipation of future fans wanting more of a story to be told.
 

Merciless Medic

Walking Pokemon Dictionary
It's the whole idea of toxic fanbases, but instead with something you'd see from anime or video games, apply it to a "celebrity" in the eyes of the internet masses. Many Youtubers talk about their lives to get their audience closer to them. However, if they don't cultivate their own fans' behaviors, their fans can start hating on others the YouTuber disagrees with, attacking them on social media platforms until their YouTuber wins.

This is really dangerous. People do this because they feel empowered, like an army. Keyboard warriors are already a thing, and this just gives them more of an excuse to start typing up insults and become toxic to everybody else but then put their YouTuber on a pedestal, thinking they can do no wrong because they have gone through so much. Sadly, it is because the people themselves have brainwashed themselves into thinking that their idol can do no wrong, when that isn't true. I don't use the term brainwash lightly. If we enjoy someone's content and get so sucked into these people's lives and start trying to incorporate our own selves into these lives, we'll end up getting lost ourselves and becoming nothing more than an assimilated guardian made by the masses of those who have also gotten lost idolizing someone and protecting them from harm. You start to see these people as love interests or best friends and that may be the case. But we are just their audience at the end of the day (unless you have actually met them in person and formed a bond with them), so we shouldn't start attacking our idol's "enemies" or people they disagree with. It can make the YouTuber look bad.

I have seen quite a few channels get bombarded with hate comments from a raid of people just because these channels disagreed with a larger and more toxic YouTuber.

EDIT: I just realized I generalized and forgot another portion of fans. The other portion of fans who haven't brainwashed themselves on accident still feel like their YouTuber deserves a chance at an argument, so they'll try to win the argument for them. XD It doesn't usually work.
 

Idea

The Pun Tyrant The Gif Hydra
I wouldn’t say so, no. But I do think plenty of people gained a new appreciation for certain services, and I’d say more “non-essential” ones than “essential” ones.
 
I don't think so. People tend to focus on what directly impacts them. I'm more likely to see someone complaining that they have to wear a mask in the store than worrying about the employees.
 

MindOfChrist

Way too many exclamation points!!!
No, for everyone's big talk, people don't really hate celebrities. Otherwise they wouldn't be celebrities anymore. Everyone still fawns over Keanu Reeves and buys Billie Eilish's latest album and watches Jon Favreau's newest series. And if the current celebrities fall out of favor, new ones will replace them as long as people care about entertainment media and hold entertainers in such high regard. And if society decides that another profession(s) is the most publicly exceptional and admirable, say soldiers like in WWII or artists in the renaissance, the standouts in those fields will become the new celebrities.

As for essential workers, I would say it's a mixed bag. People did begin to realize how dependent we are on grocery store workers and line cooks and delivery drivers, but eventually that awareness took a back seat to settling back into the status quo. Genuinely making change is hard, especially when that change is uncomfortable for yourself.
 

Doomevil

Keep Moving Forward
I treat celebrities like any other person and I understand they all have their flaws and strengths. Sure, some get addicted to the spotlight a little too much and they can be out of touch, but that's par for the course when you have a lot of fans. For essential workers, I still don't think people realize how much we depend on essential workers for everything, even in a crisis. I think once people are aching to go back to normalcy, it'll return to the same status quo before 2020, only we'll end up with more jobs lost because of the pandemic. We're basically playing a game of moving one step forward and two steps back whenever a year like 2020 happens.
 

Jannah

I suppose I'm back. Hello again.
I'm talking about people who use a YouTuber's tragic life experiences in an argument as a way to justify their own toxic behavior.

Random question of the day:

Has 2020 truly made us realize how much we hate celebrities and how much we need essential workers?
I never liked celebrities so nothing has changed for me.
 

Merciless Medic

Walking Pokemon Dictionary
Also, what would you classify as "unnecessary" LGBT+ theming?
I assume it's changing the sexuality of a character at the very end of a series or movie without giving them an actual reason or event that sparked the change whether it was shown or not. Like, there are a few characters I have seen in media (of which I don't remember) that were straight for the longest time, and then they all of a sudden switch sexualities at the very end.

Granted, it happening to an LGBT+ character where they go from whatever sexuality they have to being straight at the end of a series or film for no reason is also rather irritating because there is no build up or an event that we saw that sparked the change.

That's what I'm meaning. It's fine to have characters be portrayed as any of the LGBT+ and I think the craze for it has died down since the movement a few years back. But during that movement, I have seen quite a few characters go from straight to "whoop I'm [insert completely different sexuality they never expressed or grow into here] now".

Random question of the day:

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?
There is a big difference between "pandering to" and "supporting" said community.

It is fine if you have characters be a part of the LGBT+ or have themes in a series or movie that revolve around the character who is LGBT+ and the plot surrounding that character. A film or media that supports the LGBT+ community lifts the characters who are LGBT+ up, show the problems they face in society (whether it is in our own society or one made from fantasy, but it has to be relatable), and giving them a happy ending with road blocks in the way they have to solve or get over. If you fit this model on literally any other character, it should work the same way (just give them different problems if they aren't LGBT+). Make their lives realistic and something people in that community can look up to and hopefully take something from that movie. They also don't bash on anyone who is not LGBT+ and make them relatable or at least realistic, as well (granted, there is always that one homophobe in an LGBT+ centered piece of media. While that is realistic, I'd rather not see a homophobe and just see how society and stigma are played, as well, as I find that more realistic nowadays). While there are those people who do care or get uncomfortable a little bit when they are with someone who is of a different sexuality, there are others who don't care what sexuality you have just as long as you are a decent person and give respect when it's due, and then there are others who try to understand those who are not like them.

Pandering to a community is, like what I have stated above, changing a character's sexuality when there is no explanation, reason, or build up of such. It is also putting so many stereotypes in a movie that it becomes a gigantic trope itself and puts everyone in a bad light because of how generalized they are. It is like looking through what society sees and it just doesn't fit well. That's if you fail on supporting/pandering to the community. Another is making all the characters LGBT+ or not a cis-hetero as good people and making all the cis-hetero people one- or two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs or make them look and/or act extremely gross or wrong that no sane person would ever do. That is virtue signaling (which is basically showing off, in this example, that you "understand" the plights of the community and try to convey this by making it disgustingly unrealistic that it looks like you are trying way too hard and still trying to make yourself look like a good person in doing so).

There are other examples, but they are controversial at best, so I would rather go through the more obvious ones.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 3)

Top