Good Villain Discussion: Analyzing and understanding all the things that led up to the villain being the way they are and appreciating them for what they are and analyzing the villain’s morality and sense of what makes them think they’re doing the right thing in their eyes (even though they’re usually not).
Bad Villain Discussion: Dismissing any and all antagonistic characters as flat, sneering caricatures and accusing anyone who enjoys to analyze villains as being bad people for whatever the reason.
Really Bad Villain Discussion: Attempting to condone every last thing the villain has done, insisting they have done nothing wrong, and possibly trying to paint them as a victim.
OP is behaving cruelly. No one should brag about treating another person like this. The third reblogger is spot on that conversations aren’t battlefields – you don’t “win” by shaming or rebuking your interlocutor into silence.
That said, I’m really not fond of statements like “kindness is free”, or “it costs zero dollars to be nice”, or any other permutation. Kindness isn’t free. No person has a limitless capacity for patience and understanding. To ignore that is to ignore the huge amount of work – yes, work – that humans put into cultivating compassion for others. And it not-so-implicitly shames people for whom that work isn’t easy.
Listening to someone infodump is not effortless. As an avid infodumper myself, I am always mindful that people willing to listen to me ramble are doing me a kindness. Hanging onto a topic that doesn’t interest you in the slightest, especially when the infodumper is speaking quickly or making leaps that don’t make sense to you, takes effort. That doesn’t make it ~emotional labor~, and it doesn’t mean you’re entitled to rudeness or to bragging about making someone “visibly uncomfortable”, but it’s not free. It’s a competing access need.
Responding with eye rolls or stony silence when I ramble about historical clothing is disrespectful, but so is expecting limitless attention. “Just listen! It’s not hard!” elides that. And it ignores the fact that the neurodivergences that make people prone to infodumping are often the same ones that make it hard to listen intently.
I’m confused by the assertion that feigning interest in boring infodumps isn’t emotional labor. What is emotional labor if it doesn’t include making an effort to fake emotions you aren’t feeling in order to spare someone else’s feelings?
It’s emotional labor in the sense that it’s work involving emotional management, and I suppose you could call it that colloquially. That said, I try not to contribute to the concept creep that ignores the service sector element. I’m also not fond of giving quarter to “being nice to strangers is emotional labor and you should pay me” types of arguments.
what is *actually* draining af is listening to people talk about emotional labour because it’s one of the worst cases of
Emotional labour is a term of Marxist theory. It stands for the unpaid-but-taxing emotional work that workers are expected to put into their jobs. It also stands for part of the reproductive labour done by women – unpaid, again, and unrecognised as labour, and defined as child-rearing and keeping a family in good social graces, and it goes under the umbrella of reproductive labour, which is different from productive labour because it’s what makes productive labour possible.
In short, emotional labour is NOT being kind to other people, it’s got nothing to do with what one does on the level of a single interpersonal conversation. Now, there’s smth to be said for the emotional ineptitude of cishet men, who are basically conditioned to expect emotional support from women around them, especially their romantic/sexual partners, and for the way women are conditioned to give it to them. This could arguably be termed emotional labour, but let’s pick another word for that, please, and stop saying emotional labour, because with the way tumblr’s abused this term and how pop feminism has distorted it, it now basically means: “How dare people expect basic politeness from me in regular conversation” and that’s really kinda fucked up.
I never thought I would see a psychological breakdown of having a polite conversation on a social media platform but here we are
I just want you guys to know that the woman of the confused lady meme is a Brazilian actress
it’s a scene from a soap opera. her character was called Nazaré Tedesco. This was one of the most iconic roles in all of Brazilian soap operas. So here goes another iconic scene (it’s Nazaré kidnapping a baby) that you guys can use to make memes:
I’m so glad this post is still going around
wtf this entire time i thought she was the tall lady from american horror story
I just want to know how the writers of snl knew about my very specific sexual fantasy
my soul: saved
One of my favourites
the shot of a pizza roll dragging across bare skin fucking kills me
EDIT: Okay, as it turns out I actually have Feels about this.
“What’s your name?” “I’ve never had one.”
Not only is this objectively the funniest line in the entire thing, but it also speaks to something deeper. Like, every bit guy who was in one scene gets a name. But not her, the ostensible star of the commercial. She exists only to feed her Hungry Guys. Her name is “Babe, we need more Totinos!”
That actually says… kinda a lot about heteronormativity and marketing.
Don’t forget this part either. While the 1924 Immigration Act essentially cut off Jewish immigration to the U.S., further action by officials enforcing anti-immigrant law was a huge issue in the 1930s too. Being a refugee did not save you from deportation.
And the same thing is happening today with all the refugees from the west and south Asian, and Central and South American countries we’ve either destablized or aided in the destabilization of. We can’t let ICE and their minions deport these immigrants to be killed.
screaming into the void since '89 