ponuras

[ponuras]

GenAI v. not GenAI round up.

So you can avoid them stealing things from you, the artist/writer, etc.

Pro GenAI websites/Programs:

Facebook

Instagram

X/Twitter (Remember, Grok gives people cancer)

Threads

Pro Writing Aid

Grammarly

Duolingo

Google Docs

Microsoft Word/all Microsoft products Takes from and will feed their machine.

Youtube (taking advantage of people who are hearing impaired. ==;;)

Adobe Products. All of them. If you HAVE to use them (Some businesses require it), save offline because there is a film of at least some privacy protections there, so if you have to sue, you can say it violates US privacy law. Remember, contracts do not circumvent US law.

Corel won't feed the machines, but still uses AI stolen from other artists. Which sucks since Corel Draw is the second best overall for vector programs. (Plus I love Painter, but I bought the offline version to avoid AI). (Canadian company)

Canva Takes and feeds their machine.

Deviant Art Not only supports AI, but put a tool in and said they are going to steal your work if you like it or not for their machine.

Sketchup went Pro-GenAI. The thing is that you can do the same thing in Blender these days with precise measurements.

Autodesk has stated they are Pro-Gen AI here. It is not clear if they will use your models to feed their machine. But be on guard. They make Maya and 3Dmax. You can replace it with Blender.

Neutral ground:

Tumblr (there is a way to opt out [Link] and they don't have an active AI machine.) https://www.tumblr.com/dookins/743519550598987776/heres-how-to-disable-third-parties-like-ai

Etsy allows GenAI, but still has some (minor) restrictions. I'd still be cautious. (Also be cautious of drop shippers). Complaints about too much AI and AI images+patterns made by Ai still exist on the website. They lean slightly more pro-AI, but still won't let it run completely amok, say like Facebook. They won't feed your work into a machine, but also don't ban it through robots.txt.

Bluesky They don't use an AI algorithm except for in the "Discover" section of their website, but while they are anti-GenAI strongly, they don't seem to block the Gen AI bots from entry, so you'd still have to use Nightshade or Glaze (links below). There is no opt-out because they don't need an opt out. (Leaning towards strong position on AI, but I wish they would block GenAI bots).

Searxng- If you super want to screw over Google, in general, and have some tech savvy, you can set up your own search engine through searxng. It's easier on Windows and Linux than it is on a Mac. (Mac you need Docker), but if you're determined on privacy, Searxng adds a layer of privacy. Some of it sometimes uses bits of AI, but most of it doesn't and you can fuss with the settings so it doesn't spit out AI results. At sheer minimum Google will stop spitting out weird videos on Youtube at you because in your private browsing, you searched for the origin of ball bearings while not logged in for a book and Google likes to break privacy laws.

Strong positions against AI:

Scrivener (Creator vowed against AI) Writing program. There is an active forum, and versions for Mac, Linux and PC. It is paid, but at ~60 USD, it's cheaper than most programs. There is usually a holiday sale around Christmas. It has a learning curve, but with an active forum with the programmer of it there to ask obscure questions it's not a dead zone. They often take suggestions and implement them over time. (Especially if you rank the importance, applications, etc) US company.

LibreOffice Open source and free Spreadsheet and Word processor program that can replace Microsoft Word. Some people might have seen older versions where it was called Neo Office (now extinct) and Open Office. LibreOffice is still populated, plus the forums are super helpful if you get stuck. The UX is pretty intuitive if you've used Microsoft Word. Scrivener, BTW, supports exporting to odt (the native file) as well as .doc, and this can open both. The slight thing is that sometimes it doesn't export to .doc smoothly. And I DO wish more magazines, and agent (big clue here) supported .odt files since it is free. Part of the reason .odt isn't as supported is because Microsoft and Adobe have a deal with the devil with each other, so Adobe's Book formatting program InDesign doesn't support ODT. (BTW, if you have a good open source replacement for InDesign that supports ODT, let me know.)

Dabble (as suggested by SF stories, see reblog) is a writing program. Similar to Scrivener. Has vowed against AI and to resist it. 108 dollars a year for Basic. It is almost twice the price of Scrivener who lets you update for fairly cheap. 29 dollars a month, v. 59 dollars for the whole program (Scrivener) for the same features of Premium. You choose.

yWriter is a free Writing program and like Scrivener, and has vowed against AI Last I looked it had some UX issues, but some people swear by it. The learning curve is higher than Scrivener which is saying something.

Ellipsus is an online writing program and vowed against AI. The main feature I like (which Scrivener doesn't have) is the ability to change spellcheck based on region/language. It is a requested feature of Scrivener, but lower priority. So if you have a Brit, you can get the spelling for the character. They are a British-based company.

Cara.app (The creator of the website sued GenAI there is no chance they'll convert) is an artist website. Cara is trying to institute an auto Glaze/Nightshade into the website if given enough funds. People see it as a soft replacement for deviant art. (which went fully AI) If you believe in human art, please donate if you can. Zhang Jingna, the Creator,is Chinese-Singporean. She lives in Singapore.

Clip Studio Paint added AI, but saw the light and decided to protect artists instead because of protest and removed it. There are tutorials and a good forum if you get super stuck. Based in Japan, so the UI and UX is really clean.

Davinci Resolve Pro is a film editing software that's super good. There is a free version and a paid version. The forums are responsive. The programmers aren't always present. There is a healthy group of tutorials. US company. Clean UX. It does take a little bit of time to remember the shortcuts.

Tahoma2D is anti-AI and open source animation program. Takes a little getting used to, but is good for animations and doesn't crash as often as Animate. Programmers are in the forums and some bugs are fixed within hours. The forums are super responsive and helpful.

Krita open source and free, no AI. I'd rank it secondary to Clip Studio Paint (which is paid) I haven't tried the forums, but it's pretty intuitive and can stand for a lower level replacement for Painter, and do a lot of the basics of Photoshop. It's usually ranked higher than the equally open source Gimp.

Writer P AKA Writer+ (app for when you're on the go) is a simple word processor app for your phone that doesn't use AI. The original programmer stopped updating, so Writer+ person took over and isn't out to make a profit since it's free in the spirit of the original app. It has subfolders you can use. Since it was programmed before GenAI it doesn't have AI. Intuitive, easy to use. Fairly easy to upload the files through three dots->share. The files can save to your card or phone with some settings fussing. Simple word processor.

Inkscape is a free vector program and no AI. It is harder to use than illustrator and has less features. But if you're doing smaller vectors for one-offs with less complexity, it'll do you after some learning curve. Best of the lot. I hate Affinity Designer which is the same thing, only paid. (Neither Affinity program was worth the money paid)

Affinity (Designer, etc) swore to be AI-free and does Vector and Photos. The UX is messy, I dislike the program and regret paying for it. Inkscape and Krita are better UX and do the same thing. The forums aren't as friendly since there has been an onslaught of people seeing it's supposed to be a replacement for Photoshop and Illustrator, but the programmers aren't present. The people on the forums are often on edge about this assertion. And the capabilities of the program don't outshine basically Krita or Inkscape capabilities (both free). What is usually intuitive is not. UK company. If you're going to pay for a program, go for Clip Studio Paint which rivals Corel Painter.

Blender is a 3D art program and does not use GenAI. It can do 2D animation, but Tahoma is easier to use in this regard. It's open source and free. Plus there are plenty of tutorials. The forums can be touch and go sometimes, but there are plenty of sub Blender communities that might be responsive. It can also do animation.

Handmade vowed against AI and promised to never sell itself for stock prices to prevent AI (as a replacement for Etsy.)

Proton (to replace Google Suite) as suggested by SF Stories (see reblog) Vowed against AI. They are missing a spreadsheet, but have online and offline capabilities, plus a built-in VPN.

But you need a pro website...

Look up robots.txt and AI bots: https://www.cyberciti.biz/web-developer/block-openai-bard-bing-ai-crawler-bots-using-robots-txt-file/

Use cloudflare:

Use Nightshade:

https://nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/whatis.html

which will poison the algorithm

Use Glaze:

Take Away:

The thing is you think you doing it alone will do nothing, but the more AI feeds on itself, AI images, the worse they become, and the less detailed so, denying it the images, adding poison or not being able to read the human text is eventually going to lead to an AI collapse.

And why not help that along?

I don't want to give cancer to poor people [Link] or make the planet burn faster [Link]. So GenAI collapse is everything I dream of. GenAI apocalypse is not.

[ponuras]

Kolejny tydzień rozczarowujących filmów za mną. Oh well, słabsze filmy też warto oglądać, chociażby po to, żeby móc bardziej docenic te lepsze. Kolejność przypadkowa.

Kokainowy miś (2023) - film podobno oparty na prawdziwej historii, w co nawet jestem skłonny uwierzyć. Dochodzi do katastrofy samolotu transportującego kokainę. Większość towaru ląduje w górach, więc kartel wysyła kilku ludzi, żeby go odzyskali. Tam okazuje się, że jakiś niedźwiedź zeżarł jedną paczkę, uzależnił się i teraz chodzi i wyżera pozostałe. Brzmi jak pomysł na głupi i śmieszny film, ale niestety jest głównie głupi. Przy okazji okazał się być ostatnim filmem w karierze Raya Liotty, który nieoczekiwanie zmarł 2 lata temu.

Miss Kraken. Ruby Gillman (2023) - angielski tytuł Teenage Kraken znacznie lepiej oddaje charakter tego filmu, bo to film o typowych, tępych nastolatkach osadzony w realiach morskich potworów żyjących wśród ludzi. A jeśli jest coś, co irytuje mnie bardziej od nastolatków, to są to właśnie filmy o nastolatkach dla nastolatków. Nie dość, że w rolach głównych obsadza się archetypy tych irytujących kreatur, to jeszcze próbuje się ich wykreować na jakiś dzielnych bohaterów, którzy ratują sytuację, gdy wszyscy bezmyślnie się temu przyglądają. A matka tytułowej Ruby to irytujący schemat rodzica, który z troski o swoje potomstwo ukrywa przed nimi uber istotne informacje i przez tą wymuszoną niewiedzę popełniają wielkie głupoty. Żadna ze złych rzeczy, które się tu wydarzają nie wydarzyłyby się, gdyby po prostu ze sobą szczerze pogadali. A szkoda, bo koncepcja krakenów żyjących wśród ludzi, żeby nie mieszać się w spory z ich arcywrogami syrenami jest całkiem niezły i był tu potencjał na dobry film. Może historia by na tym skorzystała, gdyby Ruby odsunąć na dalszy plan, a centralną postacią był jej młodszy brat…

Ghost story (2017) - od tego filmu bardzo łatwo się odbić, bo pierwsze pół godziny tworzy iluzję dzieła nudnego, w którym nic się nie dzieje i w którym nie wydarzy się już nic interesującego. A to błąd, bo druga połowa jest o wiele ciekawsza od pierwszej. Trzeba tylko przemęczyć się przez natłok całkowitego braku jakiejkolwiek akcji (jak scena, w której Rooney Mara przez 5 minut siedzi i je ciasto, czy co tam było na talerzu), a potem dostajemy wizualny poemat. Niezłe ukazanie, że życie po śmierci to nie błogosławieństwo, tylko niewyobrażalne przekleństwo.

Pradawny ląd (1988), znany też jako „Zanim ruszył czas” - klasyczne animacje zawsze dobrze się ogląda. No właśnie, ogląda. Bajka jest piękna i stylowa, ale fabuła jest tu tylko pretekstem. Grupa przypadkowych małych dinozaurów, w tym jeden świeżo wykluty idą z punktu A do punktu B. Z grubsza tyle dzieje się w tym godzinnym filmie. Jako dzieciak pewnie byłbym zachwycony, ale wiedza o istnieniu innych, znacznie lepiej napisanych bajek, sprawia, że zwyczajnie nie jestem pod wrażeniem. Pomyśleć, że za ten film odpowiadał Don Bluth, czyli reżyser jednego z klasyków mojego dzieciństwa: Wszystkie psy idą do nieba. A producentami okazali się być weterani realizacji dziecięcych marzeń: George Lucas i Steven Spielberg. Ładna zapchajdziura.

[ponuras]

Dumbo (1941) - Dumbo to film, który człowiek albo oglądał, albo wydaje mu się, że go oglądał. Ja na przykład zaliczam się do tej drugiej kategorii i po obejrzeniu tego filmu już na 100%, stwierdzam, że w mojej pamięci wymieszały się tutaj motywy z równie starego Pinokia. Wydawało mi się, że film opowiada o słoniu z dużymi uszami, który odkrywa, że umie latać, więc leci w świat. A tu niespodzianka: nie dość, że nigdzie nie odlatuje, to jeszcze ten motyw pojawia się dopiero w ostatnim kwadransie. Tak naprawdę to film o dyskryminacji, niesprawiedliwości i psychologicznym okrucieństwie. Ze względu na to ile mam do zarzucenia temu filmowi, niżej znajdziecie dokładne streszczenie, więc jak ktoś planuje samodzielne oglądanie, niech dalej tego nie czyta.

Zaczyna się od tego, że bociany rozrzucają małe zwierzątka do ich „matek” (nigdy nie rozumiałem jak można było wymyślić tak głupie wyjaśnienie dla smarków skąd się biorą dzieci), w tym do żyjącej w cyrkowej niewoli słonicy Jumbo. Okazuje się, że Jumbo Junior ma znacznie większe uszy od typowego słonia. Matce to nie przeszkadza, ale pozostałe słonice od razu zaczynają wytykać małego trąbami i jeszcze doklejają mu złośliwy przydomek: Dumbo, czyli głupek. A gdy tylko JJ (Jumbo Junior - tak nazwała go matka i tak ja będę go nazywał) zostaje zaprezentowany publiczności, od razu złośliwe dzieciaki zaczynaja go gnębić (gdzie do cholery była ochrona!?), za co główny prowodyr dostaje zasłużone lanie od pani Jumbo. Pani Jumbo zostaje potraktowana jak dzikie zwierzę ze wścieklizną i zostaje zamknięta w odizolowanej klatce. Pozostałe słonice wykazują się całkowitym brakiem zrozumienia i o wszystko obwiniają JJa. Jedynie cyrkowa mysz staje w jego obronie i próbuje mu pomóc odnaleźć swoje miejsce w cyrku. Gdy właściciel cyrku zasypia, mysz szepcze mu do ucha kilka pomysłów, a ten myśląc, że doznał natchnienia, postanawia wdrożyć je w życie. JJ ma zostać przysłowiową wisienką na torcie w widowiskowym numerze, w którym słonie tworzą żywą wieżę. Przedstawienie, które najwyraźniej nie było wcześniej ćwiczone kończy się katastrofą po tym jak JJ potyka się o swoje uszy i uderza o podstawę wieży, co wywołuje efekt domina, który kończy się rozwaleniem wszystkiego dookoła. JJ oczywiście zostaje za wszystko obwiniony. Zero w tym winy kierownika, który zaproponował tak niebezpieczny spektakl i zaprezentował go publiczności bez sprawdzenia czy to w ogóle jest wykonalne. JJ zostaje przeniesiony do drużyny klaunów, a słonice uroczyście deklarują, że nie uznają go za słonia (jeśli kiedykolwiek go za niego uznawały). W przedstawieniu klaunów JJ odgrywa rolę dziecka skaczącego z płonącego budynku podczas gdy klauni odgrywają role nieudolnych strażaków. Przedstawienie jest nawet zabawne, a publiczność jest zachwycona. Wydaje się, że JJ znalazł swoje miejsce w cyrku, ale jednak jest nieszczęśliwy. Nic dziwnego. Ludzie nie śmieją się dzięki niemu, tylko śmieją się z niego. A na domiar złego klauni chcą bardziej doprawić spektakl zrzucając go z jeszcze większej wysokości. W końcu słonie są z gumy, więc się nie połamie (przegapiłem jakąś lekcję biologii!?). Podczas świętowania udanego dnia, jeden z klaunów upuszcza butelkę z szampanem do beczki z wodą. JJ i mysz potem piją z tej beczki i doznają narkotycznych wizji jak po LSD (fun fact: scena ta została lata później sparodiowana w Kubusiu Puchatku w piosence o słasicach i łoniach). Następnego dnia budzą się na drzewie i zastanawiają się jak tam trafili. Mysz po rozmowie z okolicznymi ptakami stwierdza, że JJ musiał tam polecieć. Jeden z ptaków wręcza im „magiczne piórko”, które sprawi, że JJ ponownie poleci. Sprawdzili - zadziałało. JJ potrafi latać! Postanawiają wykorzystać tę umiejetność do podboju cyrku. Zgodnie z zapowiedzią klaunów, JJ zostaje zmuszony do skoku ze znacznie większej wysokości, co raczej na pewno go zabije. Ale nie szkodzi, ma „magiczne piórko”. Niestety spadając gubi to piórko i dopiero wtedy mysz wyjaśnia mu, że go nie potrzebuje i poleci własnymi siłami (czemu nie powiedziałeś mu o tym już po pierwszej próbie?). Tak też się dzieje i niedługo później JJ staje się globalną sensacją jako pierwszy i jedyny latający słoń. Jego matka zostaje uwolniona z izolacji, dostają własny cyrkowy wagon i żyją sobie w dostatku w cyrku ciesząc się powszechnym szacunkiem. Happy end.

CZY ABY NA PEWNO???

Przede wszystkim dlaczego JJ po odkryciu, że umie latać został w tym toksycznym środowisku, gdzie całe dotychczasowe życie był traktowany jak śmieć? Dla matki? Matka na pewno chciałaby dla niego lepszego życia, a nie tkwienia w cyrkowej niewoli jak ona (nie żeby miał po tym zostać lordem Sithów). Nawet jeśli teraz są traktowani z szacunkiem, nie zmienia to krzywd, których doznali. JJ musiał udowodnić, że jest żywą kopalnią złota, żeby w ogóle być traktowanym jak żywe stworzenie, które też czuje i cierpi. Cyrkowa społeczność nie zasłużyła na jego unikalną zdolność i powinni dostać to, na co zasłużyli, czyli kopa w D. A zamiast tego JJ daje się wykorzystywać jako gwiazda cyrku i wszyscy na tym korzystają. A jako jedyny latający słoń może mieć cały świat u swych stóp, więc gdzie indziej mógłby żyć równie dobrze albo nawet i lepiej.

Poza tym mam zastrzeżenia do sceny picia alkoholu. Można to postrzegać jako bardzo przesadzone ostrzeżenie przed używkami i to nawet by się sprawdziło, ale to właśnie dzięki temu JJ odkrył, że potrafi latać. Alkohol może sprawić, że robimy rzeczy, których na trzeźwo nawet byśmy nie wymyślili i tak też się stało w tym przypadku. A może JJ pod wpływem alkoholu podjął próbę samobójczą i skoczył z urwiska? Tego nie wiemy, ale to zdarzenie odmieniło jego życie na lepsze. Ktoś mniej inteligentny mógłby wyciągnąć z tego niewłaściwe wnioski. Nic dziwnego, że na Disney+ przed filmem wyświetla się ostrzeżenie.

Jako dorosły człowiek, który na własnej skórze doświadczył prześladowań, ciężko mi patrzeć na ten film jako na bajkę dla dzieci. Może z perspektywy ludzi, którzy przeżyli pierwszą wojnę światową i właśnie doświadczają drugiej, Dumbo właśnie tym był, ale dla mnie to potencjalnie szkodliwy dla dziecka dramat psychologiczny. Może stanowić przestrogę przed okrucieństwem ze strony społeczeństwa, zwłaszcza, że JJ tak naprawdę zupełnie niczym nie zawinił, ale odnoszę wrażenie, że nie taki był zamysł twórców. Wygląda to raczej na sugestię, że jeśli żyje się w toksycznej społeczności, należy spróbować się do niej dopasować wszelkimi możliwymi sposobami, a to bardzo krzywdzące myślenie. A gdyby JJ nie odkrył, że umie latać? Z pewnością by tam zdechł przed dożyciem dorosłości i nikt nie czułby się winny z tego powodu, a winni byli wszyscy oprócz niego, jego biednej matki i myszy. To film o prześladowaniu, a prześladowania zasługują tylko na krytykę i pogardę. Tego tutaj zdecydowanie zabrakło.

[ponuras]

[ponuras]

[ponuras]

[ponuras]

[ponuras]

[ponuras]

On the toxic relationship of Donald and Daisy Duck

I’ve posted this as a DA journal a few years ago, and now I’m putting it here.

I’ve been wanting to write this for quite a long time already. Call me silly, but I just have to get it out of my head. As I grow up I’m reflecting on various things. Like stories I used to read when I was a kid. I’m seeing them in a different light and my conclusions amaze me. Like in the case of Donald and Daisy Duck. I am extremely curious if anybody else shares my newly formed opinion concerning their relationship. To justify it, I am going to present some evidence. Since I am Polish, I will be relying on the Donald Duck comics that were published in Poland in the times of my childhood/adolescence. I assume all of them were translated from English, but I have no way of checking what the English titles were (Frankly, I don’t even want to check the Polish titles, as digging through the pile of my old comics would take ages, so I will be relying on my memory). I’m going to provide summaries, so you may recognize what story it is. Now, to the actual journal: Thesis – Daisy doesn’t deserve Donald Point 1 – Daisy expects Donald to sacrifice his hobbies for her, but is not willing to sacrifice her hobbies for him. Example: Daisy managed to obtain tickets to opera. She calls Donald and invites him to go with her. He tells her he was going to see a soccer game, a very important game. She goes berserk and threatens to dump him if he doesn’t go with her. He doesn’t even have a chance to defend himself, because she disconnects. This is a typical behavior of Daisy. She doesn’t give Donald any choice, she gives him an ultimatum. I mean, seriously, how cruel is it to make your boyfriend choose between you and sports? Such behavior is only justified when the boyfriend devotes way too much time to sports and totally ignores the girlfriend, but that is not the case here. Daisy is being plain selfish. As soon as Donald says he has different plans she goes mad and yells at him. She could’ve at least let him finish what he had to say. But no – it is her opinion that matters. He is supposed to do as she says. What’s worse, when exact reverse situation happens, Daisy is unwilling to sacrifice her hobbies for Donald. As presented here: Example: Donald has spent a few hours in the kitchen, preparing a romantic dinner for himself and Daisy. He is extremely proud of himself and hopes his girlfriend will appreciate his efforts. However, as soon as he opens the door, Daisy pushes him away and dashes to the living room. She sits in front of TV and turns it on, glad that she made it before the show started. When Donald says that the dinner is ready, she makes a dreamy face and replies with “Who would even think of eating when there’s the perfect man on screen?” (more-or-less). When Donald tries to complain, she scolds him for disturbing her and spoiling the evening for her. She then demands that he brings her some snacks. Brokenhearted, he obeys. Now this is plain cruel. This is not something you do to somebody you love. The poor guy put so much effort into preparing the dinner and she preferred to watch TV. Moreover, a show that featured a muscular hero rescuing damsels in distress. If I were Donald, I would have cut the TV wire and demanded an apology. Sadly, he doesn’t have the guts to do it. Daisy has him so whipped that he won’t even have the courage to tell her he likes something that she hates. As shown in here: Example: Donald’s nephews ask him for pocket money, because they want to see a museum exhibition. He refuses, stating he’s taking Daisy to a heavy metal concert and needs money. When Daisy appears she says “Let’s hurry before the fans of that good-for-nothing Fred Dodger create a traffic jam”. Donald (shocked): “You don’t like Fred?”, Daisy (furious): “I hate him! A deaf goose sings better than he does! So, where are you taking me?”, Donald (terrified): “Well, Umh, I…”, Nephews (sensing their chance): “Tell her about the museum exhibition!”. And so the entire family goes to the museum exhibition. As we see, it’s not just that Daisy makes Donald choose between her and his hobbies. She doesn’t even respect his hobbies, nor his opinions. Sure, Donald tends to have a weird taste. He often likes the kind of music everybody hates and hates the kind of music everybody likes. But it’s not a crime, he has the right to have his own taste. Unfortunately, Daisy doesn’t seem to understand this. She forces Donald to participate in her hobbies and goes mad when he shows no enthusiasm for it. Talking about a real tyrant, heh? Point 2 – When Daisy s****s something up, she blames it on Donald Seriously, she does it all the time. Example: Donald and Daisy have been hired by the Olympics committee (or something like this). Their job is to chose a sponsor for their team. A potential sponsor appears – he is a very handsome young man. Donald takes a look at his products and laughs. “Daisy will never agree to this!” he says. But then Daisy comes in. The potential sponsor gives her a charming smile. She is immediately smitten and agrees to sign the contract without even taking a look at his products. Donald begs Daisy to listen to him, as he tries to show her the sponsor’s suitcase, but she slams the door into his face, demanding that he distributes the products to the team. So he does. It turns out that the sponsors products accessories for babies. When Donald and Daisy’s boss discovers what they’ve done, he fires them. Daisy yells at Donald: “You knew about it!”. He says: “I tried to tell you, but you wouldn’t listen!”. She attacks him and beats him up. They are disturbed by the sponsor, who threatens to sue them if their teams doesn’t advertise his products. Daisy finds a solution – she makes Donald wear the baby clothes and take part in the Olympics.     Example: Donald notices that Daisy is writing a diary. She tells him that it helps her remember things better. Sometime later Daisy catches Donald with a notebook. He quickly hides it and explains that he decided to follow her example – the notebook helps him remember things better. Since then Daisy wonders what is Donald writing in his diary about. The curiosity drives her nuts. At some point she and Donald go to a soccer game. When Donald goes away for a moment, Daisy takes his diary out of his bag. Before she can open it Donald comes back, so she shoves the diary into his bag again – unfortunately she misses and she shoves it into some strange woman’s bag. The woman takes the bag and goes away. Daisy follows her, hoping to retrieve the diary. Before she can reach it, some pickpockets steal it. Determined, Daisy pursues them. It takes a couple of pages of extremely hot pursuit before she finally catches them. In the end, it turns out that Donald’s notebook was not a diary – he wrote sports statistics in it. The comic ends with furious Daisy pursuing confused Donald, yelling “You made me risk my life for some stupid sports statistics?!” or something like this. My point is – Daisy blames all her mistakes on Donald. In both cases what happened was her fault, yet she cannot accept it. She cannot accept the fact that she could be guilty of anything, she cannot accept the consequences of her own actions. She is plain immature. Like a child. Not that Donald is flawless – he pretty much s****s up all the time, and he has to pay for it. Quite a lot of his comic revolve around him running into trouble and trying to get out of it. He sometimes succeeds and sometimes fails, but he always tries. The case is debatable, but I’d say his sense of responsibility is higher than Daisy’s. I can’t think of a single instant when he’d shove the responsibility for his actions onto her. It is usually the reverse – he wants to protect her and goes out of his skin to do so. Unfortunately, she doesn’t appreciate it. As if dealing with his own mess wasn’t bad enough, Donald is forced to deal with Daisy’s. He is the victim, no matter what.   Point 3 – Daisy finds pleasure in teasing Donald, yet she cannot stand to be teased herself Both Donald and Daisy happen to be not necessarily faithful to each other in all respects. They however differ greatly in the manner of cheating. Example: Donald and Daisy are taking a walk. They notice Gladstone, surrounded by a crowd of female fans (he has recently become a TV star). Daisy leaves Donald and approaches Gladstone. She congratulates him on his new career and invites him for a walk. Gladstone asks if Donald won’t be jealous. Daisy replies “Forget about Donald! I’d rather take a walk with you!”. And so they go, leaving a jealous Donald behind. Now isn’t this open cheating? Donald gets stood out on his date, because his girlfriend wants to be with the popular guy. Further on – later in the same comic Donald is invited to the same show as Gladstone and steals all the popularity from him (people find it easier to identify with a loser than a lucky guy). Soon Donald is the one surrounded by female fans. Furious Daisy approaches him, scolds him, and walks away, refusing to listen to his explanations. What does that say about Daisy? She thinks it’s alright for a woman to cheat, but not for a man. Talk about hypocrisy, huh? After examining a couple of such instances, you will notice a clear pattern: Usually, when Daisy cheats, she does it openly – in front of Donald’s very eyes. Her goal is to make him jealous. When Donald cheats, he does it behind Daisy’s back. He finds pleasure in knowing he can attract other women, not just the one he dates. Plain male need of being admired. It is arguable which of them is the worse cheater (as cheating is always wrong), but I’d say Daisy. Her intention is to hurt Donald. Donald’s intention is improve his self esteem. He never intended to hurt Daisy. It doesn’t justify his actions, but he’s the better of the two. He is stupid while she is cruel. Concluding: Daisy is one hell of a b****. She has no respect for her boyfriend, she treats him like a dog, and expects him to obey her in everything. Donald should either break up with her or grow a spine and learn to stand up to her. Otherwise it’s just a toxic relationship. Man, what a relief to have finally written it.            

[ponuras]

That reminds me that time when we asked our grandma why she loves grandpa. She said for nothing. That time I found it funny, but now I know she simply didn’t love him.

Why is being beautiful so important?

Recently I came across a post by some woman, which boiled down to: “I overheard my husband admitting to his buddies he doesn’t find me beautiful and nothing has been the same since.” Further reading provided additional context: the husband said he was in love with his wife’s personality and adored her as a person, and only begrudgingly admitted his ex was better looking.

My problem with this story is – I don’t understand what this woman’s problem is.

It may be because I’m autistic. It may be because I’m asexual. Probably a combination of both. But I just don’t get it. The way I see it, a man who is capable of loving a woman for her personality is a keeper. He is not shallow. Not like men who complain that their girlfriends/wives stopped putting on make-up. Isn’t this a good thing?

This story reminded me of one I read over ten years ago. The author, a young man, said something along the lines of: “I love my girlfriend very much, even though she is not much to look at. She knows I love her for her personality and all the memories we have together. I just found out she cheated on me with some guy at a party just because he told her she was beautiful.” In the comment section to this story, everybody was bashing the author for not telling his girlfriend what she most longed to hear. They said he himself was to blame for her cheating. I couldn’t believe it. Personally, I thought the girlfriend was the shallow one, because she threw away a man who genuinely cared about her for a random dude who fed her false compliments. It baffled me nobody else shared my opinion.

Of course, people should choose partners with whom they have chemistry. Still, at the end of the day, you build a relationship with a person, with their personality, habits and belief system. If people choose to prioritize those things above physical attraction, is it really a reason to bash them? Why is it so vitally important for people to be thought of as beautiful? I don’t understand this. And it frustrates me so much. It feels as if something is wrong with me, because I don’t agree with the majority.

I don’t care if people find me beautiful. In fact, I prefer to be thought of as average or even below average. Being seen as attractive is dangerous. It just earns you the envy of other women and complete objectification from men. When you’re good-looking, that’s all people care about. Your personality, skills and other qualities are overshadowed by your physical attributes. Therefore, it is most fortunate to just be average.

Once again, I am asexual and autistic. I don’t even want to be in a relationship. I basically just wanted to vent.