Post by sturgeon on Apr 5, 2021 0:34:54 GMT
I feel triggered by this cap.
(I feel triggered by the word "triggered". As much as I'm proud to call myself a hippie-dippie liberal tree-hugging yoghurt-weaving pansy snowflake, 'cos we're the good guys after all, "triggered" sounds like some quasi-bullshit excuse for cry-home-to-mama hypersensitivity. And yet this capital provoked me in such a painfully specific way that there's no other word for it.)
Anyway, I feel triggered by this capital, on two levels. One, it's peppered with errors (like Gladsone, lept, vidid, lots of its instead of it's, complementary vs complimentary, fusciha, etc.).
Two, the thoughtlessly patriarchal viewpoint. Only guys work at the warehouse, except for the lady in HR; women marry young and look after the kids, and fall for makeup-oriented pyramid schemes because they're so gullible and vulnerable. The trickle-down of this casual patriarchal conservatism is that the main (female) character is as three-dimensional as a blank piece of paper.
Neither of those alone are cause to dismiss this cap, but they did set me to looking for reasons to reject.
There are a couple of reasons I found, like how the main character is maddeningly slow on the uptake, and difficult to root for. Or how it seems to be a tale about the insidious ripple effect of relying on social media algorithms to dictate your worldview, but then fails to really explore that and ends up being more about the character falling for a pyramid scheme.
But damn it, despite how this piece needled me, I did kind of like it. It was a good portrayal of how easy it can be to buy into a Ponzi; especially with the carrot of such a strong feeling of belonging, and the stick of mounting debt. The light sci-fi elements were well handled. The twist (of the knife) at the end was satisfying and utterly tragic.
On balance, though, this is a no from me. Let's see which way the bull tips the scales - after all, his weight - both editorial and physical - is substantial.
(I feel triggered by the word "triggered". As much as I'm proud to call myself a hippie-dippie liberal tree-hugging yoghurt-weaving pansy snowflake, 'cos we're the good guys after all, "triggered" sounds like some quasi-bullshit excuse for cry-home-to-mama hypersensitivity. And yet this capital provoked me in such a painfully specific way that there's no other word for it.)
Anyway, I feel triggered by this capital, on two levels. One, it's peppered with errors (like Gladsone, lept, vidid, lots of its instead of it's, complementary vs complimentary, fusciha, etc.).
Two, the thoughtlessly patriarchal viewpoint. Only guys work at the warehouse, except for the lady in HR; women marry young and look after the kids, and fall for makeup-oriented pyramid schemes because they're so gullible and vulnerable. The trickle-down of this casual patriarchal conservatism is that the main (female) character is as three-dimensional as a blank piece of paper.
Neither of those alone are cause to dismiss this cap, but they did set me to looking for reasons to reject.
There are a couple of reasons I found, like how the main character is maddeningly slow on the uptake, and difficult to root for. Or how it seems to be a tale about the insidious ripple effect of relying on social media algorithms to dictate your worldview, but then fails to really explore that and ends up being more about the character falling for a pyramid scheme.
But damn it, despite how this piece needled me, I did kind of like it. It was a good portrayal of how easy it can be to buy into a Ponzi; especially with the carrot of such a strong feeling of belonging, and the stick of mounting debt. The light sci-fi elements were well handled. The twist (of the knife) at the end was satisfying and utterly tragic.
On balance, though, this is a no from me. Let's see which way the bull tips the scales - after all, his weight - both editorial and physical - is substantial.
