- Created By bellpickle
Is this real life????
Okay, so I'm taking the news about Monster with a grain of salt because who knows if a project of that scale is ever really going to get off the ground. But damn do I hope it really happens! Even though it all sounds too good to be true. An HBO live action adaptation of my favorite anime directed by the guy who made one of my favorite movies?? Who would be a good fit to play Johan? And if Tenma is actually played by an Asian actor, I will cry tears of joy.
Also, this weekend was a good time to be a fujoshi. DRAMAtical Murder Eng patch was released, Eva 3.0: The Return of Kawoshin is out w/ English subs, and of course, swimming anime got greenlit. I have the feeling that it's probably going to be pretty shitty and thrown together in terms of story, but honestly? Cute swimming boys doing cute things is fine by me at this point. >_>;
And I honestly think this is quite encouraging because if anything, stuff like this proves that the anime industry is willing to acknowledge the female fanbase in a way that other "geek" industries generally do not. (i.e. the Western video game industry)
On that note, /a/'s reaction to swimming anime, set to the OP theme of Shingeki no Kyojin. :P (Warning for language. It's 4chan, you know what to expect.)
Uh yeah, apologies for the blunt word choice and lack of proper grammar.
Me: I dropped by the library today and there was a little girl who was putting makeup on a little boy. and then a 50-ish year old man who works for the library came up to them and said, "you shouldn't do that, god made you a boy." and then he saw a picture of ke$ha on some kid's computer screen and said "awwww yeaa she's hottt" to a bunch of elementary school kids. i'm so grossed out by humanity now. that man RUINED MY WHOLE DAY!!!!
Friend: That is so fucked up. Wth? What did the kids say? What a nasty old perv.
Me: I didn't really catch what the kids said, but they seemed pretty unaffected. actually, it was kinda weird since it seemed like the girl was forcing the boy to let her put makeup on him and the boy was only somewhat willing. but then the girl once said "he wants to be a girl!" and I don't think the boy denied it, so who knows.
meanwhile next to me, there was a group of 2nd grade looking boys who were saying things like "yeah that girl's alright BUT I'M ALL ABOUT THAT BRITNEY SPEARS" and randomly calling each other gay. it was a shameful display. and one of my little cousins, who is only about six, is already saying weird shit like "BUT I THOUGHT GIRLS CAN'T SWEAT" and commenting on how big my boobs are. it's like we raise little boys to be savages instead of real human beings. and then they turn into nasty old men who harass kids in libraries and salivate over girls half their age.
Mind you, I actually like kids. But over the years, I've noticed strange things about how the boys are raised versus the girls. Little things like telling the boys "don't cry; be a man" and in the next breath, telling the girls "you need to comb your hair more often; you're not a boy." One of my little girl cousins was an absolute monster when she was a toddler; she would kick and scream at the top of her lungs at every little thing she took offense with. But after a couple years, she grew out of it. Her little brother (the one mentioned above) is now six and he still hasn't grown out of it. I don't see him reigning in his behavior for a long time. Some guys are quick to attribute these differences to "natural male aggression," but how much of it is really natural?
Honestly, I don't even know what I'm complaining about anymore. Maybe ten different things all at once?? All I know is that it has something to do with little boys and how some adults are really just little boys in disguise.
In conclusion, why can't all children just be like Natsume?
Putting real children to shame since 2003.
This is a couple days old, but I recently saw this headline:
Putting aside the obvious stupidity of a stunt like this as well as the equally obvious "not all Arabs/Muslims are terrorists" argument, I can't help but notice the racist undercurrent in all the "anti-Islam" backlash.
Let's be perfectly honest here: in the minds of most Americans, when we think "terrorist," the person that comes to mind isn't necessarily an Arab or a Muslim. Terrorists are equated with "brown-skinned" people, for the lack of a better term. (I think that the Boston Marathon terrorists are light-skinned Russian Muslims is not going to much change this presumption.) This is corroborated by tidbits such as this one from the article:
People from South Asia, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are sometimes targeted for violence and abuse by people who mistake them for Arabs whenever news of terror attacks emerge in the media.
This is the incredibly ignorant thought process of attackers such as these: brown skin --> Arab --> Muslim --> terrorist
Let's break this down:
A) Not all brown-skinned people are Arab.
B) Not all Arabs are Muslim. In fact, a notable percentage (average range is about 3% to 10% depending on region) are Christian.
C) Not all Muslims are brown-skinned. I've met Muslims from Turkey who are light-skinned with blonde hair and black Muslims from South Africa and Mozambique. It's not as though Islam is only practiced in the Middle East.
D) Not all Muslims are terrorists.
So thank you to all the idiots who attack brown-skinned people for being "Arab Muslim terrorists" when none of those three words actually describe them. You're doing a great service to our country!!
EDIT: Also, I just realized the media has a tendency to refer to public shootings as mere acts of "gun violence," but bombings are ALWAYS referred to as acts of terrorism. And I just googled it and got this: "Call the Colorado shootings what they were: terrorism"
To suggest otherwise and insist that acts of terrorism must be premised on an established ideology or discernible beliefs would be to place subjective motivation above objective action. It would be to posit, in effect, that the "terrorism" definition applies without question to those who claim some allegiance to radical Islam, regardless of their psychological condition, whereas all others get the benefit of the doubt. This double-standard is unfair to Muslims and lets everyone else off the hook, to our own peril.
The media's cautiousness in calling acts of gun violence terrorism undoubtedly also has to do with the gun control issue. Oh, the US media.
AND IT IS GREAT. Yeah, the premise is goofy as hell, but it DOES draw you in and the gameplay is quite interesting. It's kind of Persona-esque in the exploration & socialization aspects, but the rest of the gameplay is more of a faster-paced Phoenix Wright.
Also, Akira Ishida voices one of the characters! ^-^
And it looks like I started caring about this game at just the right time, since the full English patch is probably going to be released in a month or so and the anime is going to start airing this summer. :)
If you can't/don't want to install CFW on your PSP, here's a video of the translated demo. :)
I ran across a blog post titled, "Why Are Christians So Intolerant?" Excerpts are below:
"...many [Christians] are allowing the very core of their beliefs to be compromised, allowing sin to slowly gain supremacy in their lives to avoid being called intolerant. Rather than live in accordance with their beliefs, Christians are willing to compromise and even abandon their beliefs to appease their fellow man, so that society will offer a nod of approval."
"...We can have respect, and love for the people who abide by the system, indeed we can even accept the system as part of our society, yet critique it to death. There is a fundamental difference between a critique and intolerance, and this should be thoroughly noted."
"...It seems to me that we are so concerned with being politically correct and what is tolerant, and tip-toeing around everybody as to not offend that we have tragically forgotten to be concerned with what is actually true and what is moral.
For just think: should all beliefs, and all behaviors be tolerated? What if the belief is untrue, and the behavior is immoral? There are the most crucial questions, and yet they are not asked, because somebody might be offended.
What if I believe in intolerance, and behave in intolerance? Why is that belief and that behavior less valid?"
My lengthy response, currently in the moderation queue, below:
Firstly, I wanted to say this is a very interesting read and it is from a perspective I don't often hear from. There are three points I would like to address:
1) Criticism vs intolerance. In your essay, you distinguish between the two and suggest that you and other Christians are critical rather than intolerant, yet in the latter half of the article, you continue to use the word "intolerant" and you seem to suggest that Christians SHOULD in fact practice intolerance. I'm assuming your true intention is to argue that Christians should not be afraid to voice criticism, though I feel this distinction is important and should not be neglected. I believe the most notable difference between criticism and intolerance is differing levels of hostility, the latter being considerably more hostile than the former. Feelings of hostility are typically borne from fear, anger, and the feeling that one is being threatened. (Specifically, that the status quo is being threatened.) Which leads me to my next point...
2) Morality: People view moral arguments with suspicion. Despite endless philosophical debate, there is a lack of consensus on a way to objectively measure morality. And people do have reason to be suspicious, as many figures throughout history have made "moral arguments" which in reality were arguments of self-interest merely disguised as morality. One of the best examples of this was slavery and the common slaveholder rhetoric that black people were "born inferior" and thus it was morally reprehensible to consider them equal to whites. Of course, the discrimination of black people had little to do with morality and much more to do with protecting the social and economic privileges of slaveholders. Yet slavery was an issue that was often discussed on "moral" grounds.
3) My last point: the unequal playing field. I agree with [the previous commenter] that people should be allowed to freely (and intelligently) criticize other institutions. However, marginalized groups in society are given fewer means to voice their criticisms, and even if they have the opportunity to, are much more likely to be met with open hostility. For instance, the mere fact that Christians can publicly claim their beliefs as truths is in fact a societal privilege; if a Scientologist were to publicly claim their beliefs as truths, such comments would be immediately met with skepticism, mockery, and hostility--really, fear of being "politically incorrect" would be the least of their concerns.
Really, the thought underlying my reply was the distinct feeling that the author of the original article is essentially complaining that a privileged group in society (in this case, Christians) are being "victimized" by an increasingly progressive society and are being "forced" to practice tolerance. The author even states that Christians are "victim" to politically correct jargon and other such "attacks."
One of my favorite quotes on this topic (made by a video game developer, no less): "...[Such] attitudes are rooted in a sense of privilege, and that [the privileged] are so used to getting things their own way, when everything is fair, they perceive it as imbalance." And that was what was EXACTLY on my mind when reading this article.
Especially when the author made sweeping remarks such as: "It is therefore particularly vital that my fellow Christians never concede that they are being intolerant." (Emphasis NOT mine.) Because of course, no privileged group in society would ever even think to be intolerant of marginalized groups!
Every other religious group is forced to "tolerate" Christianity, ESPECIALLY around Christmas time. Homosexuals are forced to "tolerate" Christianity literally every day. Is it so hard to expect the same in return?