I absolutely buy this. And I think it’s where my context fits in to some extent. I was watching the Whedeon stuff and a bunch of other things that toyed with unlikability before seeing this in the 90's so I got versions of this character, just not this character.

No doubt. My issue with FranXX was for whatever reason it seemed like the writing staff was confused on what they were trying to do towards the last third of the season. It’s world building was very cool up until that point.

Man.... I wish there was more of it.  But I will admit it is an extremely divisive show.  Loved it.

Oh no doubt. I’m not knocking it - I’m just saying for me the experience is out of context. In the 90's, Anime wasn’t my Jam but SciFi, Games, and the Internet were. So I totally get the idea the view point changes things.

The problem for EVA more than anything is the cult following that spawned everyone’s knowledge of it. What many people are viewing for the first time is a dated piece of art, years after the hype. So you have a lot of weird stuff going on such as people trying to understand “why the fuss”, coupled with people who’ve…

You know, I see this stuff alot in terms of a lot of fiction. But I think themes or tone tend to be extraordinarily subjective in terms of are they relevant to the viewer or not.

I think what he’s touching on is how people have personal reactions.  I personally felt Walt’s journey was a bit herky jerky myself but I generally don’t fight online about it.

One of the problems of modern criticism, is they took they acknowledged the idea of your lens “framing” your experience, but then never took it the next step past acknowledging it. So often things like Evangelion, MCU, or even Star Wars are judged by an oddball lens where in Star Wars for example, a critic may force a…

The both sides of their mouth thing is really a function of the landscape.

This kind of thing isn’t as arbitrary as you suppose.

I’m honestly finding the vetting for 2020 outright weird. It’s like no one besides the Russian Government learned anything from that debacle.

They didn’t last time. What’s different?

Those men’s groups didn’t get buy in either.

The problem I think, has always been the disconnect between use in social sciences and colloquial use though. Even in articles, I’ve seen the term used to mean everything from jealousy to lack of emotional regulation. Oddly that last one seems reinforcement of toxic masculinity rather than anything else.

I guess I’ll add the first “Oh Hi Bill” response.

The fixation with Bill Gates is... troubling on this. Ultimately Gates was correct- systems are classifying these documents. What he’s failing to account for was commercial and social pressure to ignore those classifications. There is a mismatch of effort vs. reward. There is major financial incentive to put out…

I think the main issue is most IO9 subscribers aren’t really actors/actresses and many (myself included) watch British stuff.

A question worth pondering is why Game Of Thrones captured the imagination of so many of us living in the 21st century. What does our own medieval creation say about our society?

It’s probably because incel culture should probably be removed from the general conversation as if it is logical. It isn’t. It’s a reaction and a radicalization forum for the most part where men tell other men untruths about themselves and about women.

To some extent it’s because boys are still taught that their status is intrinsically linked to their ability to “couple.” We don’t teach that successful manhood comes from within.