[004]
Shnakepup
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
With how deep Season 1 got into Adnan\'s story, and with Season 2 going into completely new territory, does it make sense to put everything on a single \
to:
With how deep Season 1 got into Adnan\\\'s story, and with Season 2 going into completely new territory, does it make sense to put everything on a single \\\"Serial\\\" page? Or should we break it up by season? Maybe have a main \\\"Serial\\\" overview page with a description of the series in general (i.e. who hosts it, how it usually works, common tropes not directly related to any particular season, etc) then have separate pages for the different seasons.
Throwing everything under the same page doesn\\\'t feel right to me, since right now everything on the page is about Adnan\\\'s story. As Season 2 progresses I\\\'m sure more stuff about Bergdahl will be added but it\\\'ll all be mixed in with the Adnan stuff, and presumably by the end the page will be a mish-mash of both. Considering how wildly different they are, this doesn\\\'t seem right to me. The only other thing I can think of would be to use folders but I have a feeling that they\\\'d be massive unwieldy folders and not all that helpful.
EDIT - Just noticed someone created a \\\"Season 1\\\" folder already. My point about unwieldiness still stands though.
Throwing everything under the same page doesn\\\'t feel right to me, since right now everything on the page is about Adnan\\\'s story. As Season 2 progresses I\\\'m sure more stuff about Bergdahl will be added but it\\\'ll all be mixed in with the Adnan stuff, and presumably by the end the page will be a mish-mash of both. Considering how wildly different they are, this doesn\\\'t seem right to me. The only other thing I can think of would be to use folders but I have a feeling that they\\\'d be massive unwieldy folders and not all that helpful.
EDIT - Just noticed someone created a \\\"Season 1\\\" folder already. My point about unwieldiness still stands though.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
But regardless of this, the argument that Mabel would easily assume the conflict isn\'t dangerous because Pacifica is primarily worried about her parents\' party is full of logical fallacies. Those factors aren\'t related. You can\'t assume a level of danger from someone else prioritizing something you likely wouldn\'t in their place. In either case, Mabel didn\'t have the knowledge to judge the danger and obviously didn\'t even consider the danger; she still talked her brother into dealing with the problem so she and her friends could get into the fancy party, which still proves my point. She wasn\'t thinking about what her brother would have to do, and even if it was a simple task of banishing a level one ghost, that still doesn\'t make her getting Dipper to work for her party tickets okay. Add that to the fact that she didn\'t know what she actually setting her brother up for, and QED: AesopAmnesia. Not appreciating her brother\'s efforts to make her happy, but actively encouraging him to do more for her, which is so far against the aesop it\'s ridiculous.
to:
But regardless of this, the argument that Mabel would easily assume the conflict isn\\\'t dangerous because Pacifica is primarily worried about her parents\\\' party is full of logical fallacies. Those factors aren\\\'t related. You can\\\'t assume a level of danger from someone else prioritizing something you likely wouldn\\\'t in their place. In either case, Mabel didn\\\'t have the knowledge to judge the danger and obviously didn\\\'t even consider the danger; she still talked her brother into dealing with the problem so she and her friends could get into the fancy party, which still proves my point. She wasn\\\'t thinking about what her brother would have to do, and even if it was a simple task of banishing a level one ghost, that still doesn\\\'t make her getting Dipper to work for her party tickets okay. Add that to the fact that she even didn\\\'t know what she was setting her brother up for, and QED: AesopAmnesia. Not appreciating her brother\\\'s efforts to make her happy, but actively encouraging him to do more for her, which is so far against the aesop it\\\'s ridiculous.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Is it rude to point out that you kind of sound like you\'re really reaching now? Seriously, why are you so against the other half of what I wrote for the AesopAmnesia trope?
to:
...No, that always came off to me as Pacifica having skewed priorities. The entire Northwest family was, before that, portrayed as shallow with severely skewed priorities. They\\\'re known to prioritize winning and appearance over everything, it wouldn\\\'t be exaggerating to interpret that as them considering their party more important than anything else threatened by the ghost. This shallow skew of priorities is expected by the audience and the twins. And it is a billion-dollar party with millionaires and billionaires in attendance, the disruption of which could have a huge social and financial effect on the Northwests.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
...And no, that always came off to me as Pacifica having skewed priorities. The entire Northwest family was, before that, portrayed as shallow with severely skewed priorities. They\'re known to prioritize winning and appearance over everything, it wouldn\'t be exaggerating to interpret that as them considering their party more important than anything else threatened by the ghost. This shallow skew of priorities is expected by the audience and the twins. And it is a billion-dollar party with millionaires and billionaires in attendance, the disruption of which could have a huge social and financial effect on the Northwests.
But regardless of this, the argument that Mabel would easily assume the conflict isn\'t dangerous because Pacifica is primarily worried about her parents\' party is full of logical fallacies. Those factors aren\'t related. You can\'t assume a level of danger from someone else prioritizing something you likely wouldn\'t in their place. In either case, Mabel didn\'t have the knowledge to judge the danger and obviously didn\'t even consider the danger; she still talked her brother into dealing with the problem so she and her friends could get into the fancy party, which still proves my point.
But regardless of this, the argument that Mabel would easily assume the conflict isn\'t dangerous because Pacifica is primarily worried about her parents\' party is full of logical fallacies. Those factors aren\'t related. You can\'t assume a level of danger from someone else prioritizing something you likely wouldn\'t in their place. In either case, Mabel didn\'t have the knowledge to judge the danger and obviously didn\'t even consider the danger; she still talked her brother into dealing with the problem so she and her friends could get into the fancy party, which still proves my point.
to:
But regardless of this, the argument that Mabel would easily assume the conflict isn\\\'t dangerous because Pacifica is primarily worried about her parents\\\' party is full of logical fallacies. Those factors aren\\\'t related. You can\\\'t assume a level of danger from someone else prioritizing something you likely wouldn\\\'t in their place. In either case, Mabel didn\\\'t have the knowledge to judge the danger and obviously didn\\\'t even consider the danger; she still talked her brother into dealing with the problem so she and her friends could get into the fancy party, which still proves my point. She wasn\\\'t thinking about what her brother would have to do, and even if it was a simple task of banishing a level one ghost, that still doesn\\\'t make her getting Dipper to work for her party tickets okay. Add that to the fact that she didn\\\'t know what she actually setting her brother up for, and QED: AesopAmnesia. Not appreciating her brother\\\'s efforts to make her happy, but actively encouraging him to do more for her, which is so far against the aesop it\\\'s ridiculous.
