I sometimes still think some American dog bloggers underestimate this never mind that some German and Austrian hunters have warned their compatriots enough to not let their dogs kill wildlife and game animals. Keep in mind that dog predation’s a frequent enough topic in German language news reports (and likewise similarly in their Italian, French and Polish counterparts from experience) that it’s bound to be taken more seriously.
Somebody like Sophie Bobbe wrote a study on it and that’s telling how much of an issue this is. Or at least why I get the impression of continental Europeans (including Russians), Indians, Africans and Mexicans taking it more seriously than their American counterparts do at times. Maybe not all Americans as there are those who bothered studying feral dog predation.
But then again trying to convince certain dog owners that dogs do have a predatory instinct (something that German hunters pointed out) would necessitate that either the issue has to be taken more seriously or that even if they do obsess over dogs, they frankly can’t imagine that their dogs are independent predators. One of my dogs killed a lizard.
My relative set up fences to keep one other dog from killing frogs a lot. So there’s that.
I remember writing this post about how one person’s loss lead him closer to God, which I literally linked this one to idolatry. (That’s something I’ve been through and come to realise.) A similar poster at Worthy Christian Forums said similar things. He admits to having a dog and showing some affection for it. However he also said that dogs are just (nonhuman) animals and shouldn’t come first before more important matters like God.
That those who do like this things a lot lack God in their lives so they turn their affections somewhere else. I’ve been through it and a lot of it is disappointing, possibly God’s way of saying that I should devote myself to God above these. Or that they’re not good for me to begin with. But it’s kind of neat to suggest that this person’s loss of something it found near and dear is linked to idolatry.
He was suspicious of God whilst being very into dogs before. God doesn’t want other gods or things before him so it seemed inevitable a tragedy had to occur to bring him closer. I could relate to it but won’t go into detail. Nonetheless it’s very telling.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn about politics on either side because most people don’t care to get it. Though I did harbour political views when I was growing up and frankly I distrust both conservative and leftist perspectives because when they’re used as the main bias, it leads to characters who are flat and hamfisted if they’re not on our side.
Even if they’re villains, give them more depth to what they are and trying to do to the protagonist other than evil sexist or evil communist homosexual whachamacallit. I think the essay ‘The Very Important Opinions’ beat me to it.
But it still proves the point that even if you have a worldview you need to be more open-minded to make the characters’ enemies and their motivations more believable or otherwise there’s no point at all to begin with.
Supergirl will go the way of Arrow, perhaps more easily due to being overlooked by Greg Berlanti and co as well as being formulaic. As for the fanbase, when Kon-El shows up there’s a damning chance that some will really latch onto him.
You have younger viewers connecting to him so easily they write a lot about him in their blogs and fanfictions. He ends up overshadowing his brother this way. Then we get people who secretly desire Superman.
Someone pointed out that another problem with female counterparts to male heroes is that they’re uninteresting to people who don’t secretly desire the latter. One shouldn’t be surprised to find sexualised fanart of Supergirl, including a literal genderbent Superman.
If there’s a Superboy some will age him up to be appealing. Some South Park fans do it often. Which further marginalises James Olsen. Which gets compounded not only by his personality change but also Winn who becomes male Felicity.
He’ll be appealing to people who don’t want desire the underaged Kon. Either character, it’s pretty frightening to witness if Kon shows up on Supergirl at all.
Regardless if it’s conservative fundamentalist or feminist SJW, a story that preaches too much and tries too hard to reveal its message isn’t just insincere but also needless and annoying.
Users at Project After criticised the programme Steven Universe for hiding weak writing with a well-intentioned but forced message. Similar things can be said of Supergirl though a number of SJWs don’t like it either.
But it’s telling how they depict the characters and the way fans react to them. Out of all the black characters on Steven Universe, it’s Garnet that gets the most attention.
Not Nanifua and her family even though they’re actually more relatable. Both Supergirl and Steven Universe involve interracial friendships but would backfire if one of them’s more average.
It’s pretty coincidental that they’re both SJW honeypots with a lot of female characters, non-threatening male characters save for the villains, hamfisted feminism and interracial dating.
If Supergirl gets replaced by a Christian conservative Superboy, it’ll still be preachy and annoying. It’s like the Horseshoe Theory where two opposing parties are very similar.
Not that there’s anything wrong but it should be subtler to have better writing shine through.
This is a meme coined after a critic’s observations of women who inspire men through their superficial flaws. They have quirky behaviours that are construed to be weirdly endearing.
But when taken out in the wild it inspires a different, albeit mixed response. One that combines humour, revulsion, pity, schadenfreude, horror, ridicule and cynicism.
There was an article on Nerve on a woman who tried to act adorkable to impress her boyfriend only to inspire the opposite. Also if you hang out at websites that ridicule lolcows (people whose eccentricities are amusing in a sadistic way) a lot of MPDG could be those.
While it’s wrong to ridicule those that stand out, it’s also wrong to put it on a pedestal or tolerate such because there comes a time when your tolerance and patience gets tested until it cracks.
I suspect superficially offbeat female characters are appealing to insecure people though not all insecure people like those. Or that if they’re actually flawed and awkward, they’d be too human to be considered quirky.
They’re ultimately boring though it’s probably harder to give them actual struggles, shortcomings and the way people react to them to keep them from being MPDG.
Superheroes weren’t intended for such a small demographic until recently. And making them appeal to adults who never outgrew superheroes is what’s holding back their potential to be greater.
One can write an adult superhero story without resorting to sex and violence though it’s harder to pull off because it involves not only restraint but awareness that nobody likes that.
Superhero cheesecake can be pretty redundant in the presence of actual pornography. It can trigger fetishes but superhero porn isn’t appealing to most people either.
I could be wrong about it. But superhero media increasingly preaches to a choir. Replace superhero with furry and you’d get something similar. Both of them involve incomprehensible tropes and fetishistic imagery and themes.
Similar things can be applied to anime. What’s alarming is that they appeal to niches so specific they’re obviously not meant for anybody else. It takes extraordinary awareness to realise this but some furries and superherofags have shot themselves in the foot, taking away any potential for world domination.