I've been mulling over this for some time. I'm what you'd call a politically or ideologically motivated person, as it contains topics close to my heart and I'm trying to do my best about them. However, I mostly don't personally follow "the news". I still hear or read things due to my friends and family, or because of places I browse like Tildes. But even here, I filter out most news topics.

Part of this is due to the health problems I have, as they leave little mental energy to spend on stuff, and I'd much rather spend that energy to build something rather than get demoralized. So, what I do instead is to check out specific topics I care more about, and possibly academic articles.

With this being said, I've been observing people around me and how they interact with the news. I'm trying to assess how much following the news regularly impact their political activity. I mean contributing to some sort of political goal. Based on my observations, I'm not convinced that regular consumption of news, in the form of visiting a news website (or several), is what is presented to be.

So, I decided to flex my ideological analysis muscles a little. Here's a rough sketch of my thoughts on the ideology of being a news outlet, whether it's a giant corporation or a single person.

I think there are two levels to the ideology of being a news outlet.

1) The News System

A) How to Market Yourself

1. You are the most important source of knowledge about the topic you choose. This most often includes a city, country, continent, a political concept like "the west", or the world in general.
2. You are the objective source of knowledge on this topic.
3. Consuming news regularly is the responsibility of every citizen. Thus, they should buy your products or visit your website. Doing otherwise is shirking one's duty, and it's morally reprehensible. It's equal to being ignorant.

With this level, you establish yourself as the epistemological source of news about the topic, and you attach moral feelings of duty, guilt, shame, etc. to consuming your product. However, it's also a wider ideology. You don't only sell your news, you sell the news. That means you're also marketing the idea of news to people. This is how you establish the moral case, that is vital to selling your product. It's also important for prestige, which shouldn't be underestimated. There is not only an economic motivation but also a social motivation to selling the idea of news, presenting yourself as a bringer of truths.

B) How to Keep Them in the Loop

1. Humans are problem-fixers, because ignoring problems would mean they or their loved ones could suffer from them in the future. So, they are emotionally motivated to seek and try to fix problems. So, if you present them a problem, they will pay attention to it.
2. Cities, countries, continents, etc. are vast. There are always problems, no matter how big or small. You can always report on them.
3. If you face with the criticism of getting too small on scale, you can say you are just putting a human face on a widespread problem.

By utilizing the points above, you can ensure that you are always selling your product. You also ensure that you are feeling like you are contributing to the world, by "bringing the news to people". This way, you ensure both your financial success and your moral standing, your sense of meaning.

2) The Problems

The problem with the system created by the approach above is several-fold, and it doesn't depend on the factuality of the news being reported.

1. This system ensures there is always bad-news to be reported every single day, possibly even every single waking hour.
2. The constant source of bad-news demoralizes people, and quite possibly affects their mental health. A cursory look at Google Scholar with the keywords "doomscrolling mental health" is enough to show that this is suspected by the psychological literature too.
3. This stream of bad-news alters a person's perception of city, country, world.

For example, if you look at the subreddit for a city, quite often you'll see it filled with news of crimes and such, with people in the comments lamenting or raging about it. But the daily life in such cities is very rarely one of being riddled with crime.

Another example is USA citizens' perception of crime. "The violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)." However, more and more people in USA think crime is getting worse. I suspect the news-cycle bears a big portion of the blame.

To drive the point home, I suspect this constant stream of bad-news might be feeding into conservatism, as "a meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat."

So, there is enough reason to suspect that constant stream of bad-news, which should elevate people's feelings of uncertainty and threat, should be feeding into conservatism.

3) Solution?

This is an open-ended topic, and I'm not claiming to have solved a very complex topic in a few hundred words. However, one thing that I found to work is limiting and choosing what I consume. By the ways I mentioned, I limit what I see and I try to focus more on topics I care more about.

There is support from the literature too, that suggests partial news avoidance can benefit mental health and well-being (more on the topic can be found on Google Scholar with "news avoidance mental health").

Obviously, following news isn't a black or white situation, and for moderation there is no single size that fits all. But I think it would be better to keep in mind that news outlets benefit both financially and socially from establishing their regular consumption as a moral principle. Honestly, I think constructing a good understanding of ideology and history is more important than that, as it provides a more solid base to judge things from, but that's another day's topic.

I watched Supernatural until season 7 or so when I was younger. I didn't really examine its subtext at the time, and just thought it lost steam after the original plot ended. I've recently started rewatching the show from the beginning, and, wow, like just wow. It's amazing how much Christian and Western supremacist subtext it contains.

Before I get into the details, I should mention that I've only rewatched the first five seasons yet. So I don't know if this still holds true after that. With that out of the way, here are the major reasons (obviously, spoilers).

Pagans are always depicted as bloodthirsty maniacs. Every single time.

Holy aspects of Christianity -such as exorcism rituals, churches, holy water- are the only "real" effective way of fighting demons. The other ways are made up in the show (demon killing guns and blades).

The cosmology is a thing on its own. Christian God has created the universe, yet Earth is at its metaphorical centre. Knowing a few things from the seasons after too, I can say that it's the only place of importance in the entire universe. Following the traditional Christian logic, humans are also the most important beings on Earth.

A special mention goes to the episode "Hammer of the Gods" (S05E19), as a striking example of what I talk about. In the episode, the major "pagan" gods alive gather to talk about the looming apocalypse. This includes Kali, Baldur, Mercury, Baron Samedi, Zao Shen, Odin, Ganesh. It's really telling that they threw in Ganesh and Kali together with old gods. Oh, and of course they all eat people.

The said apocalypse is to be caused by Lucifer coming back and fighting it out with Michael. Apparently it will be so bad that it will kill around half the human population.

The gods gather, conspire, with leads Dean and Sam there being held hostage as bargaining chips. They say they have to conspire, because if not prevented, this Christian apocalypse will kill them too. So this led to them teaming up. You can already see that Christianity is depicted as the big bad boy in the entire world.

During the talks, Kali says this to Loki, who she discovered was actually arcangel Gabriel.

"Westerners, I swear. The sheer arrogance. You think you're the only ones on earth? You pillage and you butcher in your God's name. But you're not the only religion, and he's not the only God. And now you think you can just rip the planet apart? You're wrong. There are billions of us. An we were here first. If anyone gets to end this world, it's me. I'm sorry. [KALI stabs GABRIEL with his own blade. GABRIEL screams, and in a flash of light, dies.]"

Don't worry he doesn't actually get killed by Kali.

Almost just after this scene, Dean gets up and says the following. Emphasis mine.

"All right you primitive screwheads, listen up. I'm outta options. Now on any other given day, I'd be doing my damndest to, uh, kill you. You filthy murdering chimps. But, uh, hey, desperate times. So even though I'd love nothing better than to slit your throats, you dicks, I'm gonna help you. I'm going to help you ice the devil. And then we can all get back to ganking each other, like normal. You want Lucifer, well, dude's not in the Yellow Pages. But me and Sam, we can get him here."

I swear, at this moment, I could almost see a 19th century colonizer white supremacist manifest to say this. I should remind that he says this to a group of gods that includes two major gods from Hinduism: a major religion that still exists. It would have been bad even without that, but this fact makes it much worse.

After this, Lucifer shows up, and kills every god with ease. He's not even the Christian god, and he's not even at his full power, yet he kills multiple major gods from other religions as if they were less than nothing. Oh, and he says that to them too.

"You know, I never understood you pagans, always fighting, always happy to sell out your own kind. No wonder you forfeited this planet to us. You are worse than humans. You're worse than demons. And yet you claim to be gods. [LUCIFER twists his fingers and MERCURY dies as his neck snaps] And they call me prideful."

He then kills Gabriel for real too. Because, as is tradition, gods from other religions are too incompetent to do anything to Christianity.

This episode is probably the epitome of what I mean, but it's just a culmination of what's been there from the start. The trashing of what is deemed as "pagan" (often read: not "Western"), and the supremacy of Christianity has always been there. I still like the show for its other aspects, but its subtext is really Christian and western supremacist.

I'm an undoubted pleb when it comes to just about everything artistic (with the exception of music, in which I have impeccable taste). A while back, I suggested I'd be interested in seeing some critique or general discussion of already-known or published poetry, if only so I could get others' opinions on things that usually go over my head. This is an effort to get the ball rolling, with a poem that is one of my favorites.

Also, I'm not sure if this belongs here or in ~arts, please classify as appropriate.

Morning - Frank O'Hara

I've got to tell you
how I love you always
I think of it on grey
mornings with death

in my mouth the tea
is never hot enough
then and the cigarette
dry the maroon robe

chills me I need you
and look out the window
at the noiseless snow

At night on the dock
the buses glow like
clouds and I am lonely
thinking of flutes

I miss you always
when I go to the beach
the sand is wet with
tears that seem mine

although I never weep
and hold you in my
heart with a very real
humor you'd be proud of

the parking lot is
crowded and I stand
rattling my keys the car
is empty as a bicycle

what are you doing now
where did you eat your
lunch and were there
lots of anchovies it

is difficult to think
of you without me in
the sentence you depress
me when you are alone

Last night the stars
were numerous and today
snow is their calling
card I'll not be cordial

there is nothing that
distracts me music is
only a crossword puzzle
do you know how it is

when you are the only
passenger if there is a
place further from me
I beg you do not go

I've finally finished writing something. It's been about four years since I actually finished something nicely.

I'm entering the editing phase, which generally takes longer... But I'm a bit excited.

Hopefully this is an acceptable thing to talk about, and I'm going about things the right way.

So... To spin off into discussion, here's two things:

A part of the story:

The ground rose up and struck Raul in the face.

He blinked, stumbling backwards, seeing his master standing nearby.

The old man was glaring, his hands clutched around a brightly coloured stone.

Raul opened his mouth to question, but the old man was whisked away to a distance hillside, and the boy found himself tumbling head over heals backwards down a hillside.

He scrambled onto his knees, staring as he found himself on the shore of the lighthouse.

His master placed a solid hand on his shoulder, and muttered gibberish.

Raul glanced up, but found himself staring at the light of the lighthouse.

Spinning.

A bright light, round and round.

Lightning struck him, and Raul screamed, stumbling backwards.

The rod lay in front of him.

He tore his gaze away with effort, and saw his master, hands outstretched, the stone of red, gold and silver floating between them.

Almost as astonishing, the stone was clean.

A hammer hit him between the eyes.

Raul found himself stumbling behind his father, watching as the old man struck stone, separated it, revealing the river of solid copper within it.

"Boy!"

I'm hoping I've got the grammar at least semi-right. My illness means I can forget words, or my brain can replace words at random with others that it thinks are related.

Any guidance or critique is welcome. (I'd give a bigger quote... But this is probably more than enough to discuss.)

The build script I'm using:

#!/bin/sh

set -e

if [ -z "$1" ]; then
  echo 'Please provide an output file name.' >&2
  exit 1
fi

tmp=$(mktemp)

echo 'Building...'

cat title.txt > "$tmp"
echo '' >> "$tmp"
cat LICENSE.md >> "$tmp"
echo '' >> "$tmp"
cat Prologue.md >> "$tmp"

for file in 0*.md; do
  echo '' >> "$tmp"
  cat "$file" >> "$tmp"
done

for file in 1*.md; do
  echo '' >> "$tmp"
  cat "$file" >> "$tmp"
done

echo 'Converting...'

pandoc --toc "$tmp" -o "$1" 2>/dev/null

rm "$tmp"

echo 'Done'

title.txt is basically just YAML markup for pandoc. The other files should be fairly obvious.

I'm silencing pandoc's output, because I make use of a self-reference to add comments to the Markdown, that get killed by the parser and never make it to the output:

[//]: # (This is a Markdown comment. Isn't that cool?)

However, as all the references point to themselves, pandoc warns.

I'm using pandoc this time around, because it produces fairly clean files. I've used GitBook and Calibre in the past, and though the ebooks they produce work and look okay, the amount of crazy markup they produce means the books lag on some ereaders.

However, that does make a lot of back and forth. Building, checking output, rebuilding, etc.

There's a really awesome thread on constructive criticism with a lot of thoughtful insight about the process. What makes criticism helpful? What causes more harm than good? What's the best way to go about asking for a critique?

I wanted to play a little game where we can turn the tables on the process and examine what makes critiques tick. At the same time, it'll give folks a chance to share some of their creations. The idea is to critique the critiques based off of how the requests are presented.

To quote @silva-rerum from the other thread,

Context and empathy are both incredibly important when it comes to the delivery and impact of creative criticism. Most people who deliver critiques while failing to contextualize or understand their recipient’s perspective will be engaging in an exercise in futility at best, or an act of cruelty at worst.

I think it would be a fun exercise to experiment with how much context can affect how good or bad a critique is.

Rules:

Content

Content should be something of your own, whether it's writing, music, physical works, visual, or whatever. If you made it and you're down to post it for some criticism, it fits.

Context

It's entirely up to you what kind of context you'd like to provide. The game is about finding what works and what doesn't, and context can play a huge factor in the quality of the critique. If you want to try to see what kind of criticism zero-context requests elicit, post your work with zero context. Alternatively, you can see what kind of critique you get from high-context, specifically targeted feedback requests.
(If you haven't read through some of the ideas in the other thread, check it out before posting. There really are some great insights in there even if you aren't planning on posting anything.)

Critiques

Perform your critiques for others as you normally would. Obviously, keep it civil. Multiple people can offer their critiques for each item up for critique. Since we're playing around with different degrees of context, try to critique on a case-by-case basis. That is, if you have more context for a critique than is proffered, try your best to set that extra context aside. There may be fudge-factor involved with that, but I think we can still end up with some interesting results.

Counter-critiques

Counter-critiques are open to all! It will definitely be helpful to hear from the creator how helpful or hurtful the critique was. If other people have input or questions, discuss away!

Side note: I don't think I've ever typed/thought the word "critique" so much in my life.

I'll put together some stuff I've worked on recently to get thing started.

I would like to have everyone weigh in on constructive critique style for ~creative. :)

Most of the critiques given so far in ~creative have been very light and amiable. People are feeling their way into what is acceptable, and don't wish to offend. Today we've had an extremely high level critique by Trin (awesome feedback, btw!) And I'm caught between cheering and covering my eyes.

Cheering because having this level of critique in ~creative is worth gold. To have members of the community capable and willing to devote this much care is incredible. It takes a LOT of time and energy to give this sort of feedback. Some people search and pay money for feedback like this, and still can't find someone good enough to give it.

Covering my eyes because many people don't understand or want such thoroughness, and I'm imagining all the new writers/crafters/artists running for the hills and never posting again.

I am extremely reluctant to fling a "critique scale request" out there. That often seems to polarize posts. Also...if someone reads your work, views your art, enjoys your craft enough to give you the compliment of a deep critique...wouldn't you want it?

Let's hear what people want! I personally want all levels of submitters comfortable in ~creative. But I also want it to be a place that encourages growth instead of just ego stroking. :)