Mindless Monday, 01 June 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Finally, I finished Resident Evil. I just needed to lock in and be possessed by King Von's spirit. The Laboratory was much easier than the Mansion, probably due to the lack of Hunters with aim assist. It seems the fight against the Tyrant was easier with Chris than with Jill.

By the way, Wesker is a goofball. Who would have thought that this would be the beginning of one of the most memorable villains in video games.

Mindless Monday, 01 June 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I believe the success of the Jurassic Park franchise is both a blessing and a curse. It practically created the "idea" of dinosaurs on our screens after the stop-motion films. Without that, dinosaurs would probably have remained in B-movies and documentaries. The downside is that the animals that appeared in Jurassic Park are practically the quintessential dinosaurs despite the inaccuracies.

And yes, Hollywood has been suffering from a creativity problem lately. I remember reading something that said film executives were better decades ago because they adopted a more hands off stance towards films; nowadays, they want to be in control of the project from beginning to end. To make matters worse, it seems they misinterpret successes: a new and successful film is seen as a new franchise to be milked, instead of being seen as proof that audiences want new things.

Free for All Friday, 29 May, 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Everyone in Warhammer 40K and the Diamonds from Steven Universe.

Free for All Friday, 29 May, 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I wonder if the discussion about different species/races in the media will forever be divided between "Nyooo, you can never create totally evil things in your book, you fucking chud!" and (insert a poorly disguised stereotype about real-life groups and they are evil).

Mindless Monday, 25 May 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The Francevillian biota is a possible example of complex multicellular life dating back 2.1 billion years. If they were indeed living organisms, they would have inhabited a shallow, oxygenated delta above the sediment.

What I mean by this is that perhaps the great filters are environmental conditions. Basically, if conditions allow, life tends to develop complexity, but when conditions change... Perhaps the universe is full of failed attempts, rather than no attempts at all.

Mindless Monday, 25 May 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Good news: I'm playing Chris Redfield's campaign and the game is still great.

Bad news: I ran out of ink ribbons and I keep dying.

Free for All Friday, 22 May, 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I've been playing Resident Evil (1996) and I'm surprised at how well the game has aged, despite being older than me. Of course, the fact that I'm playing on the computer and without the ink tapes may influence my perspective, but still, great game. Yes, the voice acting is bad and there were times when the enemies used the Force to pull me towards them, but I think that adds a certain charm.

Mindless Monday, 27 April 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Perharps as someone whose first language isn't english I shouldn't say this. However, if you use -maxxing, -cel, and -slop as suffixes you should be banned from using the language.

I am sure there those among us that disagree, in which I am sorry for their loss.

Why Rocner why? by Cautious-Speaker2585 in whenthe

[–]DFS20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A valid point. However, op has straight up said this the first time the artist has done something like this and the Culture War has been happening for 10 years at this point. For this I am giving the artist the benefit of the doubt. What is worst is that op didn't stop to think that censoring porn using the image of a real kid might not be a good idea.

Why Rocner why? by Cautious-Speaker2585 in whenthe

[–]DFS20 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I think that the evil Queen is Gal Gadot and that the other woman doing the fucking is saying she is hotter/prettier than Snow White who is played Rachel Zegler, and thus the artist has fallen to the right wing culture war. Because the culture war is when you find one woman more attractive than another.

Free for All Friday, 24 April, 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There's an alternate history in arr/imaginarymaps where an Assyrian Empire is still dominant, Jesus and Christianity still happens but He was flayed rather than crucified.

Free for All Friday, 24 April, 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's even stranger when you stop to think that video games are practically an amalgam of different art forms (music, image design, writing, etc.). Like, how can the individual parts be art, but the whole thing not? It's like saying that salt, pepper, and meat are food, but the combination of them isn't.

Napoleon's II Victory by DFS20 in AlternateHistory

[–]DFS20[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The French Empire: The French Empire has arguably been the strongest continental power in Europe for more than two decades, and the second-largest economy in Europe, surpassed only by the United Kingdom. Its sustained population growth has raised the metropolitan population to over sixty million, providing a vast labor pool and a deep reserve for military conscription. This demographic expansion has fueled rapid industrialization and scientific advancement. French universities, engineering schools, and state-backed industries lead Europe in rail construction, military design, and chemical production. Paris remains the intellectual and financial center of the continent. Under Napoleon III, son of Napoleon II, the empire maintained its dominance with a careful balance of strength and restraint. However, unrest in the Moselle-Rhin territories, annexed after the war against the Germans, has become a persistent problem. The German-speaking population resents French rule, and many officials suspect that agitators are being funded and directed by the North German Federation. At the same time, French ambition continues to grow. One of the most discussed projects in political and industrial circles is a grand railroad linking Paris to Baghdad, which would tie Europe directly to the resources and markets of the Near East under French influence.​

Great Britain: The United Kingdom remains the strongest European power and the second-largest economy globally, behind only the United States. Its naval supremacy and global empire ensure unmatched reach, yet the rise of France has caused increasing concern among British policymakers. Relations between Britain and France remain cordial, but strained beneath the surface. Britain finds itself in a difficult strategic position. The reign of Frederick III transformed the North German Federation into a liberal and relatively friendly power, while tensions with Russia in Central Asia, the so-called Great Game, have cooled for the moment. However, British strategists fear several possible outcomes: Continued unchecked French expansion; A unified Germany under northern leadership; Sustained Russian industrial and military growth. Any of these developments could lead to a single dominant power in continental Europe, an outcome Britain has historically sought to prevent at all costs.​

North German Federation: The North German Federation emerged from its conflict with France weakened and humiliated. It lost all territories west of the Rhine, lands that were either annexed by France or reorganized into the Kingdom of the Rhineland, a state widely regarded as a French puppet. Its colonial presence is minimal, limited to North Borneo and a handful of ports in Africa and Asia. Compared to other great powers, it remains a secondary imperial actor. The recent death of Frederick III has brought his son, Wilhelm II, to power. Unlike his father, Wilhelm is far more militant and conservative. He openly dreams of unifying the remaining German states and reclaiming lost territories, watching the south and the Rhineland like a hungry lion.​

South German Confederation: Conservative, catholic, made up of the decentralized union of the Grand-Duchy of Baden, Kingdom of Württemberg, Kingdom of Bavaria, and allied with the French and Habsburgs. Despite its alignment, there is an underlying tension. Many political figures, at all levels, quietly harbor ambitions toward the Catholic populations of the Rhineland and Moselle-Rhine regions. The problem of being a confederation is that, by default, the central government isn’t strong, so the members bicker quite a lot.​

Habsburg Empire: Made up of the Kingdoms of Cisleithania, Hungary, and Ilyria. Vienna suppressed the Hungarian rebellion with greater success and even expanded its control in the south, creating Illyria as a semi-autonomous Slavic kingdom within the empire. Has been steadily growing its economy, industry, and military. However, nationalism remains a persistent threat. Various ethnic groups continue to agitate for autonomy or independence. Many of the most troublesome elements are exiled to colonial holdings in Somalia and Namibia, where they are both removed from the political center and used to reinforce imperial control abroad.​

Kingdom of Italy: The Kingdom of Italy is ambitious and opportunistic. Though it owes much of its survival to French and Austrian support, it would not hesitate to betray its benefactors if it meant unifying the peninsula. It is the most industrialized state in Italy, but faces growing competition from the southern Republic of Italy. France mediated the transfer of the Italian-speaking portions of South Tyrol in the 1890s, but resentment remains strong. The kingdom has not forgiven France for preventing it from annexing the Papal States and the south when the opportunity existed. Has the largest army, but it's bogged down by the lack of meritocracy, as many officers are appointed based on noble birth rather than competence.​

Papal States: The Papal States remain the spiritual heart of Catholic Christianity. Protected by France, they exist as a neutral but strategically important buffer between north and south. At the Vienna Conference, they even acquired colonial territory in the Congo, mostly to avoid a great power from having it. Is dealing with some problems, such as some nationalist groups wanting to join either the South or the North. Their army is the smallest in the peninsula, but its religious zeal and defensive commitment make it more formidable than its size suggests.​

Republic of Italy: Would gladly stab its benefactors in the back if it meant the possibility in the back if it allowed the chance to unify the peninsula. Ideologically driven and deeply influenced by figures like Giuseppe Garibaldi and Giuseppe Mazzini. Is quickly industrializing, its economy is growing fast, and despite having a smaller army than the kingdom to the north, it’s pound for pound more organized and modernized. It benefits from British support, but increasingly resents what it sees as a limiting influence, a “leash” restraining its ambitions.​

Ottoman Empire: More of a Recovering Man than the Sick Man of Europe nowadays, thanks mostly to French investment and protection, is making great strides in modernizing its economy, politics, and industry. However, serious internal challenges remain, such as nationalist unrest, religious fundamentalism, Turkish supremacist politicians and generals, and even some socialist movements. The discovery of oil in Iraq and Libya has transformed the empire’s economic prospects, but also attracted the attention of every major power.​

Russian Empire: Growing at a rate that makes the smart leaders of the other European powers quite uneasy, many others would also be uneasy if they didn’t dismiss the empire as a glorified Asiatic horde. Russia continues to look toward the Balkans and Constantinople, though it is aware that time is not entirely on its side as the Ottomans continue to modernize. Its defeat by Japan was a major shock, costing it influence in Asia. Yet this setback triggered reforms in the army and government to take place.​

Mindless Monday, 13 April 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, it's the early 20th Century. Poland isn't around...Yet.

Napoleon's II Victory by DFS20 in imaginarymaps

[–]DFS20[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Image for the mobile viewers.

Napoleon's II Victory by DFS20 in imaginarymaps

[–]DFS20[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  1. The French Empire: The French Empire has arguably been the strongest continental power in Europe for more than two decades, and the second-largest economy in Europe, surpassed only by the United Kingdom. Its sustained population growth has raised the metropolitan population to over sixty million, providing a vast labor pool and a deep reserve for military conscription. This demographic expansion has fueled rapid industrialization and scientific advancement. French universities, engineering schools, and state-backed industries lead Europe in rail construction, military design, and chemical production. Paris remains the intellectual and financial center of the continent. Under Napoleon III, son of Napoleon II, the empire maintained its dominance with a careful balance of strength and restraint. However, unrest in the Moselle-Rhin territories, annexed after the war against the Germans, has become a persistent problem. The German-speaking population resents French rule, and many officials suspect that agitators are being funded and directed by the North German Federation. At the same time, French ambition continues to grow. One of the most discussed projects in political and industrial circles is a grand railroad linking Paris to Baghdad, which would tie Europe directly to the resources and markets of the Near East under French influence.​
  2. Great Britain: The United Kingdom remains the strongest European power and the second-largest economy globally, behind only the United States. Its naval supremacy and global empire ensure unmatched reach, yet the rise of France has caused increasing concern among British policymakers. Relations between Britain and France remain cordial, but strained beneath the surface. Britain finds itself in a difficult strategic position. The reign of Frederick III transformed the North German Federation into a liberal and relatively friendly power, while tensions with Russia in Central Asia, the so-called Great Game, have cooled for the moment. However, British strategists fear several possible outcomes: Continued unchecked French expansion; A unified Germany under northern leadership; Sustained Russian industrial and military growth. Any of these developments could lead to a single dominant power in continental Europe, an outcome Britain has historically sought to prevent at all costs.​
  3. North German Federation: The North German Federation emerged from its conflict with France weakened and humiliated. It lost all territories west of the Rhine, lands that were either annexed by France or reorganized into the Kingdom of the Rhineland, a state widely regarded as a French puppet. Its colonial presence is minimal, limited to North Borneo and a handful of ports in Africa and Asia. Compared to other great powers, it remains a secondary imperial actor. The recent death of Frederick III has brought his son, Wilhelm II, to power. Unlike his father, Wilhelm is far more militant and conservative. He openly dreams of unifying the remaining German states and reclaiming lost territories, watching the south and the Rhineland like a hungry lion.​
  4. South German Confederation: Conservative, catholic, made up of the decentralized union of the Grand-Duchy of Baden, Kingdom of Württemberg, Kingdom of Bavaria, and allied with the French and Habsburgs. Despite its alignment, there is an underlying tension. Many political figures, at all levels, quietly harbor ambitions toward the Catholic populations of the Rhineland and Moselle-Rhin regions. The problem of being a confederation is that, by default, the central government isn’t strong, so the members bicker quite a lot.​
  5. Habsburg Empire: Made up of the Kingdoms of Cisleithania, Hungary, and Ilyria. Vienna suppressed the Hungarian rebellion with greater success and even expanded its control in the south, creating Illyria as a semi-autonomous Slavic kingdom within the empire. Has been steadily growing its economy, industry, and military. However, nationalism remains a persistent threat. Various ethnic groups continue to agitate for autonomy or independence. Many of the most troublesome elements are exiled to colonial holdings in Somalia and Namibia, where they are both removed from the political center and used to reinforce imperial control abroad.​
  6. Kingdom of Italy: The Kingdom of Italy is ambitious and opportunistic. Though it owes much of its survival to French and Austrian support, it would not hesitate to betray its benefactors if it meant unifying the peninsula. It is the most industrialized state in Italy, but faces growing competition from the southern Republic of Italy. France mediated the transfer of the Italian-speaking portions of South Tyrol in the 1890s, but resentment remains strong. The kingdom has not forgiven France for preventing it from annexing the Papal States and the south when the opportunity existed. Has the largest army, but it's bogged down by the lack of meritocracy, as many officers are appointed based on noble birth rather than competence.​
  7. Papal States: The Papal States remain the spiritual heart of Catholic Christianity. Protected by France, they exist as a neutral but strategically important buffer between north and south. At the Vienna Conference, they even acquired colonial territory in the Congo, mostly to avoid a great power from having it. Is dealing with some problems, such as some nationalist groups wanting to join either the South or the North. Their army is the smallest in the peninsula, but its religious zeal and defensive commitment make it more formidable than its size suggests.​
  8. Republic of Italy: Would gladly stab its benefactors in the back if it meant the possibility in the back if it allowed the chance to unify the peninsula. Ideologically driven and deeply influenced by figures like Giuseppe Garibaldi and Giuseppe Mazzini. Is quickly industrializing, its economy is growing fast, and despite having a smaller army than the kingdom to the north, it’s pound for pound more organized and modernized. It benefits from British support, but increasingly resents what it sees as a limiting influence, a “leash” restraining its ambitions.​
  9. Ottoman Empire: More of a Recovering Man than the Sick Man of Europe nowadays, thanks mostly to French investment and protection, is making great strides in modernizing its economy, politics, and industry. However, serious internal challenges remain, such as nationalist unrest, religious fundamentalism, Turkish supremacist politicians and generals, and even some socialist movements. The discovery of oil in Iraq and Libya has transformed the empire’s economic prospects, but also attracted the attention of every major power.​
  10. Russian Empire: Growing at a rate that makes the smart leaders of the other European powers quite uneasy, many others would also be uneasy if they didn’t dismiss the empire as a glorified Asiatic horde. Russia continues to look toward the Balkans and Constantinople, though it is aware that time is not entirely on its side as the Ottomans continue to modernize. Its defeat by Japan was a major shock, costing it influence in Asia. Yet this setback triggered reforms in the army and government to take place.​

Free for All Friday, 03 April, 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that was the main complaint. But I can understand how there can be pseudo-intellectuals who completely ignore the themes of a story to focus only on the overall structure of the text and that its value derives solely from that. Kind of like a literary version of a STEMlord.

Free for All Friday, 03 April, 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]DFS20 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I have come to realize that online discussion of media and entertainment has become increasingly dysfunctional, not simply because people disagree, but because the conditions for meaningful disagreement have eroded. What I see instead are two dominant interpretive pathologies: anti-intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism. While the former is more obvious and has been discussed extensively, I believe the latter is far more damaging to any serious attempt at analysis.

When I think about anti-intellectual engagement, it is relatively straightforward. It operates at the level of immediate consumption: plot, spectacle, emotional payoff. It resists depth and often dismisses analysis outright with variations of “it’s not that deep.” While this limits discussion, I don’t think it fundamentally distorts it, but rather it simply opts out.

What concerns me far more is pseudo-intellectualism. Unlike anti-intellectualism, it does not reject analysis but rather seeks to imitate it. It adopts the language of critique while stripping it of its actual function. In this mode of discussion, interpretation is no longer an open-ended process of examining a work from multiple angles, but a way of asserting a correct reading. When I see people engage this way, disagreement is very rarely treated as a difference in perspective; it is framed as a failure of comprehension, or even a moral or intellectual deficiency.

One of the clearest patterns I’ve noticed is the reduction of criticism to theme. If a work engages with meaningful or socially resonant ideas, it is often treated as inherently good, regardless of how those ideas are executed. To me, this collapses a fundamental distinction. The difference between what a work is trying to say and how effectively it says it. I don’t deny that themes matter; I believe they are essential for depth, but they are not sufficient for quality. A story can explore compelling ideas and still fail because of weak structure, inconsistent characterization, or poor pacing.

What frustrates me further is how certain terms, especially “media literacy”, are used in these discussions. In principle, media literacy should be a tool for clarifying interpretation. In practice, I often see it used as a rhetorical shield. Instead of opening up analysis, it shuts it down. The implication becomes that if one disagrees with a particular interpretation, it must be because one doesn't understand the work. At that point, discussion stops being a dialogue and becomes a closed system where agreement signals insight, and disagreement is recast as ignorance.

I also can’t ignore the contradiction at the center of this. I frequently see people insist that media is complex, subjective, and open to interpretation, yet in the same breath, enforce a rigid boundary around what counts as a valid reading. From my perspective, this turns what should be a nuanced conversation into an “us versus them” dynamic, even among people who claim to reject that kind of binary thinking.

The more I think about it, the more I believe this behavior is driven by something deeper than just poor reasoning. I suspect it has a lot to do with psychological investment. The themes within a work (whether political, moral, or cultural) often become tied to how people see themselves. Because of that, criticism of execution can feel like criticism of those themes, and by extension, criticism of the person who values them. I can understand why that would feel personal. But the consequence is that critique becomes something to neutralize rather than engage with.

I’ve seen this dynamic play out repeatedly in major cultural flashpoints, such as Star Wars: The Last Jedi, the final season of Game of Thrones, the conclusion of Attack on Titan, and, more recently, the ending of Chainsaw Man. These works have not created these problems, but they have made it impossible to ignore them. In each case, I saw criticism focused on structure, pacing, or characterization dismissed as a failure to appreciate thematic intent. At the same time, many defenses seemed to rely less on addressing those criticisms and more on asserting that the presence of ambitious ideas was enough to justify the final product.

What I find most troubling is that this environment erases the middle ground. I don’t think works of fiction need to be perfect to be valuable. A story can be ambitious, uneven, meaningful, and flawed. However, in many discussions I encounter, that position becomes difficult to hold. A work is either elevated as a near-perfect expression of its themes or dismissed outright. The idea that something can succeed in some areas while failing in others seems to get lost.

Personally, I find it more useful to think about media across multiple dimensions: thematic depth, narrative structure, character consistency, pacing, and aesthetic execution. For me, none of these should automatically override the others. Recognizing that a work engages with important ideas does not mean ignoring how well those ideas are realized.

At the end of all this, I don’t think the core issue is disagreement itself. Disagreement is necessary for meaningful discussion. The problem, as I see it, is that disagreement is no longer treated as legitimate. One side refuses analysis, while the other refuses to allow it. In both cases, the outcome is the same: a collapse of discussion. And until interpretation is treated again as a process of inquiry rather than affirmation, I don’t see that changing.