I Know I'm Not That Well Known And I Rarely Post But As It Soon Is Pride Mouth I Wanted To Share A Recent

I know I'm not that well known and I rarely post but as it soon is pride mouth I wanted to share a recent discovery I had with my gender. I am genderfluid and will from now on go by any and all pronouns. I haven't told anyone this yet so why not share it with Tumblr?!

Ableism in Subtitles

Something that really pisses me off is the litany of ableist issues found in subtitles. So, let's talk about 3 huge issues that need to stop.

Subtitles should never ever say [Speaking -language-]

When a hearing person is watching a TV show, or a stream, if someone starts speaking another language, if that hearing person knows that language, they will get to know what the person said, regardless of if the average viewer knows that foreign language.

Deaf and HOH viewers deserve the same opportunity, and to rob them of that opportunity by putting [speaking -language-] in the subtitles is ableist.

Every word spoken in a show or movie, unless given translated subtitles in the uncaptioned version of the show or movie, should have every word captioned exactly as it's spoken. If someone starts speaking Spanish, the words spoken in Spanish should be subtitled in Spanish. If someone starts speaking German, the words spoken in German should be subtitled in German.

When a show or movie is created, if you want a character to speak a foreign language, you get an actor who can speak that language. When you hire someone to transcribe a show into subtitles, your hire someone who can speak the languages spoken in the show, or you have them mark points where a foreign language speaker will need to assist and then have someone who speaks that language add in the parts that the transcriptionist can't.

Subtitles should never be cut short for convenience

This is something I see constantly. Shows and movies will frequently cut out words or even large chunks of a sentence from the subtitles to make the subtitles shorter.

When you remove descriptive words, parts of a sentence, or even whole sentences to cut down on the amount of subtitles in a given segment, you are completely changing the attitude, mood, and expression of those sentences. You can completely ruin all of the implicit feelings in a sentence if you remove words that show feelings or the way a person phrases things.

It is not your moral right, as a company or transcriptionist, to decide that deaf or HOH viewers shouldn't get the original phrasing.

I am not deaf or HOH. I have APD and have to use subtitles to keep up with what's being said, or I won't process it fast enough. Because of that, I get to see all of the ways subtitles deviate from the original wording all the time. This isn't an issue that just happens here and there. It happens in pretty much every episode of every show I've watched. And it's unacceptable.

Even if we ignore the way this impacts the intent of a sentence, this is ableist by its nature. When subtitles are made, they are made to fill the gap in a deaf or HOH person's TV experience. When you don't accurately fill that gap, or fill it partway, or half ass it, you are cutting corners on a disability aid. It's like if you sold someone a wheelchair with the wheels not pumped with enough air, or giving someone a hearing aid with damaged battery capacity.

When deaf or HOH people watch TV or movies and they use subtitles, they are relying on those subtitles to give them the most accurate wording possible. So why are companies directing or allowing their transcriptionists to half ass or cut down their subtitles? Every piece of media should be having its subtitles checked for accuracy before they're approved, and subtitles that cut corners should be amended before a show with subtitles is published or aired.

Subtitles should never censor words that aren't censored in audio

If a show or movie has swearing in it, of any kind, the subtitles should accurately depict what is happening audibly. If the audio has swear words censored, the subtitles should depict the noise - or lack thereof - that is used to censor the word. Subtitles should never be censored when the audio isn't.

Not only does this touch on the same issue from the last section, it's also ableist in another way. Not only are you giving deaf and HOH people a different experience than hearing people, you're also infantilizing them by disallowing them from hearing swear words that hearing viewers can hear.

Deaf and HOH adults are not children. They have just as much right to read the word "fuck" as a hearing person does to hear it. Censoring subtitles is disrespectful, ableist, and infantilizing and it needs to stop.

Make a change

I'm not familiar with the details of the ADA and how it regards subtitles, but if anyone would like to work with me to do something about this, I would really like to fight for subtitles to have more regulation.

If the ADA prohibits inaccurate subtitles, we should be reporting companies like Netflix who constantly provide inaccurate subtitles. If it doesn't, we should be fighting to amend the ADA to include regulations for subtitle accuracy.

Anyone who's researched this before or who knows more about it than I do, please tell me what you know or give me some sources I can look into myself. I would research from scratch but I'm disabled and don't have a lot of spoons for it, which is why I'd like to work together with others.

Sketch of the boisterous malaprop, the Carpenter.

Graphite. I am in love with how this sketch is looking so far.

I need some help with a moral dilemma!

A person I follow reblogged a post about how you should respect other's kinks, ships and such things, which I agreed with, but immediately I thought "what about proshipping and pedo stuff?". And in the post the op brought up the "What about ____?" and wrote that if you thought that something horrible couldn't possibly be included in this, it was! They also said the of you didn't like something you should block the tag and not interact with it, which I also agree with.

I went down to the comments and saw how the op (not the reblogger) defended pedo ships and I got really uncomfortable, I wondered if the reblogger also agreed with that.

I personally interact with some yandere content cus I think it's interesting to read and fantasies about but I'd never accept it or like it if it happened to me. In that way I could somewhat understand where the op came from, but pedo ships? Really? I can't in anyway defend it, even when fictional if it isn't shown in a negative light.

I personally am against it because I've heard and seen how people have become desensitized to proshipping to the point that they think it's okay to act out those things irl, I've fallen into that category myself when I was younger, unlimited access to the internet yk. You could say the same thing about yandere but I fell like pedo and incest ships are so morally wrong that you just can't write about it like that.

Can someone give me their opinion on this? Did I misunderstand the point? Should I unfollow the reblogger?

Pls help!

//little side post while i get replies done in the middle of doing Arkham Origins, but

something i think i never really realized i loved so much about Riddler and the dynamic he brings is just how much his obsession to prove himself better brings about his downfall. there are many things that can be said about Edward Nygma, but he is ABSOLUTELY one hundred percent as smart as he claims to be. He is an absolute genius and that's not even up for debate.

the horrible part is that Eddie cannot perceive a world where there is anything beyond intellect - he is the biggest believer in brains over brawn, without realizing what that entails. he takes it to an extreme, because all his life he has felt belittled, especially by his father. being a genius isn't good enough. he has to be the best. and you know what? so does Bruce.

Bruce doesn't ever truly try to tell Eddie that what he's doing is stupid, or that he's good enough and that he respects him, because that may just be too easy. Bruce has an addiction to his work, and even if he will never admit it, I firmly believe there's a large part of Bruce that LOVES Eddie's riddles and games. For Bruce, they really ARE the "amusing diversion" that Eddie claims they are.

The biggest difference, however, is that while Bruce indulges in his pride, he has worked hard to hone not only his mind but his body as well. he doesn't suffer the same need to participate in these intellectual contests as Eddie does, though he does enjoy them. It's the difference between knowing when to stop, versus having it define your life.

Another tragedy is Edward's need. It's a psychological compulsion to KNOW, not just to be better. One of the questions he asks most is "how did you do it". And then his obsession over the "how", over how somebody could possibly outsmart him, drives him mad.

he will scream out that none of this was how he planned. he will insist that the batman cheated, that there's no way he could have done it. he will sob and screech to the high heavens and to everyone in arkham, asking how the bat could have possibly escaped his traps.

and he keeps going. because he has nothing else.

ultimately eddie is one of the most tragic figures in my honest opinion. also, most of my knowledge of him admittedly comes from the arkham games, the animated series (specifically "Riddler's Reform), and Matt Reeve's The Batman, so i apologize to my beloved eddie specialists ( @riddlethat and @brokentoys ) if this comes off as weird.

idk i just. really like him as a character.

REBLOG IF IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO BOTHER YOU IF YOU'RE MY MUTUAL