out of all the aspects of millennial-bashing, i think the one that most confuses me is the “millennials all got trophies as a kid, so now they’re all self-centered narcissists” theory
like— kids are pretty smart, y’all. they can see that every kid on the team gets a trophy and is told they did a good job; they can also see that not every kid on the team deserves a trophy, and not everyone did do a good job
the logical conclusion to draw from this is not “i’m great and i deserve praise”— it’s “no matter how mediocre i am, people will still praise me to make me feel better, so i can’t trust any compliments or accolades i receive”
this is not a recipe for overconfidence and narcissism. it is a recipe for constant self-guessing, low self-esteem, and a distrust of one’s own abilities and skills.
where did this whole “ugh millennials think their so-so work is super great” thing even come from it is a goddamn mystery
Holy shit! I have this EXACT problem. They started this assinine tradition of “everyone gets a trophy” (and then accusing us of being spoiled for it) with Gen X, and now I literally hear all compliments as “You suck, but I don’t think you’re strong enough to hear the truth.”
Do we all see these things?
WTF are these?
those are the pandimensional psionic worms that secretly control every aspect of our miserable existence. glimpsing them means you’re an alpha-level human who has developed nascent psychic abilities. TELL NO ONE. once the worms know you know, you become a target. pray the resistance finds you before the worms do.
I believe the serious answer is that they’re your retinas being illuminated by certain light conditions.
I just feel this gem needs to be giffed
A little behind the scenes look of the early stages of Green Lantern the Animated Series.
My eternal gratitude to everyone who helped prove the doubters wrong.
It irks me when people decry Elementary’s Sherlock because he says/does things BBC Sherlock never would, under the assumption that BBC Sherlock is somehow extremely similar to canon Holmes.
He is NOT canon Sherlock Holmes; fundamentally he’s not even anything like canon Holmes because he’s written as if his powers of deduction are some kind of supernatural ability that makes him super duper special and justifies him treating everyone else like they’re idiots, and somehow means that it’s alright for the other characters (I mean John) to just take shit from him without question. Canon Holmes always, always reiterates how his deductions are simply that, they’re methodical thought processes, he even says to Watson, “You know my methods. Apply them.” (The Sign of Four). He wants people to understand that despite his obvious talent, it’s just about being observant and looking out for the right things.
And although he does express how ‘simple’ he thinks others sometimes are, he knows to still treat them with respect! Even though Watson’s narration portrays him like he’s awesome in every sense, Holmes himself never acts like his abilities make him somehow better than everyone else. In A Study in Scarlet he says (something like) “if I show you too much of my method, you will come to the conclusion that I am a very ordinary individual after all.” He doesn’t think that he somehow has the right to be an asshole. Maybe if Moffat and co could look at the character objectively rather than as a stand in/vessel for their smugness they could relate that. Or maybe they are writing a fundamentally different Sherlock, in which case, why do they have to snidely suggest their show is “truer”?
Anyway, back to point, Sherlock Holmes solves cases to help people as well as curbing his boredom, he’s a detective because he has a sense of justice, he wouldn’t bother to apply his skills to the work he does if he didn’t believe in exacting justice for the crimes committed against clients. This is demonstrated in the way that he treats most of his clients kindly and expresses sympathy for them throughout the case. (I think this is one aspect that comes through so well in Elementary yet it’s the one that people attack the most, but believe it or not, Sherlock Holmes is NOT supposed to be a massive dick.) Shoot me if that’s not 5000 miles away from BBC Sherlock’s toddler-“sociopath”-asshole characterisation. Again it seems like this characterisation is created by the writers so they don’t have to spend time actually developing his relationships with others, instead it can be like, ‘oh, that Sherlock… he treats people like shit and has no respect for anyone but its hilarious and ok because john still loves him. no homo. haha”
Both shows have their strengths and weaknesses, but Elementary’s weaknesses are not the ‘changes they made from BBC Sherlock’ and definitely not in the characterisation. Superficial elements like the gender of the characters and the setting are not the measure of a good adaptation; capturing, the spirit and meaning of the story and characters are. In adapting and continuing the best aspects of canon, especially Sherlock’s characterisation and his relationship with Watson, I think Elementary excels. And I haven’t seen any other adaptation (beside the recent films and the Disney mouse one) but I’m sure they all do it better than BBC.
tldr; elementary sucks because sherlock would never [insert bbc sherlock characteristic] is not a good argument at all.
“This is the chemical formula for love:
dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin.
It can be easily manufactured in a lab, but overdosing on any of them can cause schizophrenia, extreme paranoia, and insanity.
Let that sink in.”
I get that the OP is trying to say love is on the road to those disorders (not that “insanity” is a particular disorder in the first place, but whatever). But the thing is, overdosing on anything can lead to serious problems. Like, that’s what overdose means: having enough of something to cause serious problems.
Dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin are chemicals with varied functions, including stuff like regulating digestion and motor control. I really hate when they get reduced down to “happy juice” or “attachment juice.”
Also, while these chemicals can be manufactured in a lab, none of them cross the blood-brain barrier, so you’re not going to feel any emotional effects if you just have them injected. If you get too much injected you’re going to be extremely sick and maybe die, but that’s going to be because of various physical effects, most notably the fact that serotonin and dopamine can massively raise your blood pressure.
The moral of the story is that neurotransmitters do not exist for artistic purposes.
(The other, even more obvious, moral is that schizophrenia is not caused by loving too hard.)
"A Sticky Situation" (1960) by Carl Barks
I like how advertising is literally still exactly as sexist as they’re joking about in this comic from 54 years ago.
The best comment I’ve seen all day
This is important:
PLEASE signalboost, this is rather important