“modern callout culture is so toxic!” okay… maybe you’re right… but like… do you mean that in a “young teens shouldn’t be run off a website for making mistakes that they rectified and apologized for” way or a “stop being mean to self admitted pedophiles and racists uwu” way
“But then Ocasio-Cortez spoke, followed by Bush, and I saw something
truly terrifying. I saw just how easy it would be, were I less involved
and less certain of our nation’s founding and its history, to fall for
the populist lines they were shouting from that stage.
I saw how easy it would be, as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education.
I
saw how easy it would be, as someone who has struggled to make ends
meet, to accept the idea that a “living wage” was a human right.
Above
all, I saw how easy it would be to accept the notion that it was the
government’s job to make sure that those things were provided.”
You guys, the Daily Caller just published the funniest thing I have ever read in my entire life. It is literally an article where a conservative is just terrified to death that they nearly felt empathy and love.
This article is like the biggest proof I have ever read that conservatives are just pathologically afraid of kindness.
There’s… not even a punchline. Like, the article concludes just a few lines after the quoted section, with no suggestion for why anyone SHOULDN’T support things like universal healthcare. Not even a token “but, you know, the money,” or “but you have to EARN it.” It just ends.
I guess the audience is expected to fill in the blanks? Like “gosh, I almost cared about an unrelated human being, but CLEARLY the very concept is absurd.” Which is… pretty sad, honestly.
Frollo and Mother Gothel convince Quasimodo and Rapunzel that their lives are dependent on them. The two villains claim the outside world is a terrible place even though they know this is not true. They also constantly emotionally abuse their victims by implying their worthlessness and destroying their self-esteems. Quasimodo and Rapunzel sympathize with their captors and even believe their captors are protecting them and treating them with kindness. However, both captors are merely using and manipulating their victims for their own selfish purposes.
Belle does not sympathize with the Beast when she is treated poorly. She becomes angry and leaves the castle, only returning by her own wish so that the Beast (who saves her) does not freeze to death. She does not respond nicely towards the Beast until he treats her with respect. In this situation, Belle has control and is not manipulated into feeling for the Beast, nor does the Beast treat her disrespectfully after the first night. While the Beast does have an underlying motive as to keeping Belle in his castle, he abandons this idea and sets her free to make her happy. If anything, this story is a case of Lima Syndrome where the captor starts to sympathize with the victim.
Check out this post which refocuses the purpose of Beauty and the Beast from merely (and wrongly) being about Stockholm Syndrome to it’s original purpose.
FUCKING FINALLY
I don’t usually reblog stuff like this, but Beauty and the Beast is my favorite movie and I’d like to have this on my page!
this is actually a very good analysis. I take back all the times I’ve called Beauty and the Beast a ‘stockholm syndrome’ romance.
