• 3 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 14th, 2025

help-circle




  • I see what you mean. In my experience of the internet it’s called “The Streisand Effect” only when the person complaining about something (and therefore giving an issue attention that it otherwise wouldn’t have received) is generally considered to be “in the wrong” on the issue. I can’t think of a case where someone received blowback for speaking up about an issue (professional repercussions, exclusion from social circles, “cancelling” by various parties, w/e) but was considered to be in the right by the the people calling it “The Streisand Effect”. It feels like there’s a necessary component of “you complained about something you shouldn’t have and were justly punished for it” schadenfreude attached to the term that differentiates it: if you don’t have that you’re just bravely and correctly shining a light on an injustice and it’s not called “The Streisand Effect”, it’s just raising awareness or something.

    I think you’re being downvoted because the victim of the alleged injustice complaining about that injustice and then deserving the backlash is baked into the term, and calling it “victim blaming” feels off, but it technically is, it’s just that calling something “The Streisand Effect” implies that the “victim” in the situation deserved what they got because they complained about something trivial, or an effect of privilege, or some other thing that, in the eyes of the public, makes them unworthy of sympathy. But I think carrying that implication of guilt means that it is, technically, victim blaming, and the person using the term “The Streisand Effect” implicitly agrees that the victim deserves blame for their actions. And knowing the internet, I doubt this assessment is correct 100% of the time.

    I’m curious to see if other people agree with this assessment. I haven’t done any research on whether my experience of the term is shared by other people, so this may not be a strong theory. Just a thought that spawned off your comment. But it is an interesting perspective.



  • It’s not bad, I’m going to finish the first book and will probably pick up the next one. Part of the charm is looking back at an era where ripping off Tolkien wasn’t such a cliche that that people actively avoided it. Brooks is far from the only person to do it so I’m not trying to be too hard on him, and it’s different enough that I’m still invested. My only real complaint about the writing is how he keeps reminding us of how the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Like, yeah, we know, Allanon laid out the stakes very clearly in the opening lore dump. Show, don’t tell. Overall I’m glad I picked it up.

    EDIT: Also Walker Boh hasn’t shown up yet so I’m gonna at least try to get to them.


  • Ok I’m about halfway through The Sword of Shannara and I’m enjoying it but it really feels like we’re just doing The Fellowship of the Ring Magic Sword. They just got through the halls of the dead (which they had to take, even though they’re guarded by the dead and are super dangerous but it’s the fastest route) and I 100% expected Gandalf Allanon to die fighting the Balrog lake tentacle monster. But they get out, and Shae gets washed away by the river, and now Allanon’s like “welp, the one guy who could wield the Magic Sword against the Evil Sorcerer, the guy this whole quest is about, might be dead now. He might not be, but let’s abandon him and go find the Magic Sword anyway”. I mean the author has explicitly stated that Allanon might have other plans up his sleeve but I really don’t understand why finding Shae isn’t priority #1.