now here's where I have to admit something—something that divides me somewhat from my friend @KaylinEvergreen, who frankly got exposed to a lot more culture than we ever did and therefore has always had better tastes.
we *started* as an "ironic", "bad movie" nerd fan.
it's not that we were totally ignorant of cinema, but we learned (largely thanks to @Caltech, with its abysmally toxic male nerd culture) to be like the right-wing nerds, dividing up films (and everything else) into Good™ and Bad™, and laughing and jeering at the Bad™.
(2/x)
we learned about #MST3K at Caltech; for a long while afterwards "Mystery Science Theater 3000" was among our most reliable "comfort watches", especially when we were very lonely and miserable in Seattle. it took us a long while to realize we were traumatizing ourselves.
(3/x)
that sounds overdramatic but that's just what repeated exposure to *abusive* entertainments is doing: you're retraumatizing yourself. you're locked in a pain-conditioned loop of stimulus response. you feel bad, so you watch something "funny"—but it's a *painful* "fun".
(4/x)
the very thing you're watching to "cheer yourself up" is hurting you a bit more, and you don't notice at the time, but you feel it later—so you feel bad again, and so you go back to the painful hurtful entertainment again, because it's *what you know*. it's "comfort".
(5/x)
and that's what #MST3K can be like, especially in its later Michael J. Nelson days (he seems no longer to be on Twitter—probably wise, because Nelson is a Republican.) most especially in the @SYFY Channel days, MST3K's "riffing" got mean-spirited, cheap, and bigoted.
(6/x)
these tendencies were minimal during the friendler @JoelGHodgson days of #MST3K (though one could still get blindsided by a sour joke or racist innuendo, more generally acceptable in that decade) and so I still rewatch early MST3K from time to time. but I admit...
(7/x)
...these days, I just like watching movies. MST3K had been a *crutch* of sorts, permitting me to see a certain selection of movies that I might otherwise have never touched. and luckily, I developed (over time) a strong interest in seeing the movies by themselves.
(8/x)
"Manos: The Hands of Fate" was the turning point, because my partner Daria helped crowdfund the restoration of that movie and thus we got to see it, as a reward, in a Seattle movie theater. and I was blown away—it was still *bad*, but it looked so much more alive, too.
(9/x)
and it was fun! I enjoyed watching the movie, for what it was. I can both thank #MST3K for having led me to that moment, but also realize that I'd had to fight off the miasma of the show—the tendency to respond to media in this "irony-poisoned" way, jeering at everything.
(10/x)
and if I could stop watching movies that way, then maybe Doug Walker could get there eventually. (is he on Twitter? it doesn't seem that he is. okay, I'll tag @cinemasins instead. maybe you'll grow up some day, CinemaSins!)
~Chara of Pnictogen
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
argh! I forgot the most important bit! because it's about Baldr and Hoðr and Loki—and a very *particular* version of their story, the one that most people know, which comes from Snorri Sturluson and the "Prose Edda" and which then got picked up by English poets.
#CSLewis cites Matthew Arnold's "Balder Dead", a retelling of the story of Baldr's death from the "Prose Edda", as one of his early influences in his semi-autobiographical work "Surprised by Joy".
now I speculate: Jack Lewis probably had Baldr in mind when he converted.
(2/x)
for it's been *noted* that the narrative about Baldr's death from Sturluson's "Prose Edda" is *almost* like the Christian narrative. Baldr is impossibly beautiful and impossibly pure, with amazing powers, then treachery lays him low—but he'll be coming back after Ragnarok!
we still love @JRRTolkien, which is why we detest Peter Jackson so very much—we think he turned one our favorite childhood works of art into coarse crass (and racist) action trash, and for some reason hardly anyone's noticed. I suppose it's a sign we're in the Bad Place™.
(1/x)
it's one of the ill-kept secrets of the modern-day fascıst movement, by the way, that they *adore* the Peter Jackson #LOTR films—people like @MattWalshBlog and @Timcast and @benshapiro have probably watched those trashy movies a thousand times. they're big hits, after all.
(2/x)
and if someone like @benshapiro adores your movie, then you've done something dreadfully wrong—and I earnestly hope that Peter Jackson's treatment of #Tolkien one day gets a very thorough critical laceration. Jackson's a hacky director, and he made polished hackwork.
it suddenly occurred to me: the amusing realization that the mere existence of *Caligula* confers a teensy bit of credibility to the Christian idea of the Incarnation. it's more credible that a human being might have claimed to have fully divine nature, that is to say.
(1/x)
we can guess that someone *like* Jesus may have existed, because a historical figure with much better attestation—namely Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, also known as "Little Boots" or _Caligula_ because as a child he dressed as a soldier—thought he was a god.
(2/x)
hence *that* much of the Jesus story is plausible anyway: it's plausible to imagine, at least, someone _claiming_ to be the one and only Son of God, authorized to tell us all how wonderful Heaven was and drive out "demons" and all that. questionable activities, perhaps.
I'm going to talk about something very painful now, but it must be discussed. it's a specific antisemitic trope. let these words serve as a content warning for the material I'm about to discuss:
I won't discuss this painful subject in too much detail—if you want to learn about the origins of the antisemitic trope of the Jewish Problem™ in Western culture, read up on the NSDAP and the Third Reich—but take care that you read *good* books about the Third Reich.
(2/x)
that's the problem, isn't it? people like @NateSilver538 and @mtaibbi don't read the *good* books about the Third Reich, but you can be pretty certain they've read a lot of bad ones. that's especially likely if they're the sort of people who think "history" means battles.
that's not some simple *insult*. it's in the nature of bigotry—it's the universal psychological defence mechanism, the escape-valve from any social awkwardness or personal failure. @charlesmurray is a bigot, and therefore he's a loser.
(1/x)
he's a mediocre, muddled man who feels like he's entitled to a permanent position in American scholarship even though he's muddled and mediocre. @AEI gave @charlesmurray some *illusion* of success but Murray dreamed bigger than an AEI propaganda job—you can bank on that.
(2/x)
a genuine biologist, a man who made fundamental contributions to evolutionary theory—Stephen Jay Gould—took @charlesmurray to pieces, and his response was to swallow his humiliation and double and treble down on bigotry, because that's how bigots deal with being failures.
*bigotry* is a subject that right-wing (and "independent") bigots—@NateSilver538, @DavidAFrench, @DKThomp, whoever, there's so many of these clowns—have attempted to keep as confused as possible. they want to pretend "bigot" is merely a slur, not a meaningful word.
(1/x)
but as I've pointed out before, bigotry is really just overdeveloped snobbery. the snob—the person who has very definite ideas about their personal superiority, and the superiority of their own intellect and tastes and everything else—is already showing "bigoted" behavior.
(2/x)
just as one may exhibit abusive behaviors from time to time without necessarily being "an abuser" (i.e. someone whose whole personality is abusive behavior), a snobbish person may say bigoted things without necessarily being "a bigot", i.e. someone who does nothing else.