#bad as in inherently not responsibly building from source

[sharedblood]

as ive been rewatching and exploring the spn fandom my following has gotten considerably smaller bc while im open to reading differing interpretations (as any media can and should be subject to) some are so off the mark/ disjointed from the source that it’s apparent fandom opinion/content/misrepresentation of canon has eroded a genuine ability to critically look at what the series is saying/doing

[thisisnotthenerd]

putting the tl;dr at the top as a poll and the commentary under the cut because it’s quite rambly and it’s also late and i’m tired.

*whether dorian is one of these is up for debate

there’s some discussion of bell’s hells not having the “it” factor for a lot of people. even though it’s my first campaign and the only one i’ve mostly watched live, i kind of have to agree.

there’s a distinctive lack of investment in backstory for the group in terms of what they’ve spent time on in campaign. i think fearne is the only one who’s been done justice, even though we’ve seen other exploration, because they’ve been to her home multiple times, and while her backstory isn’t central to the main plot, it is close. it’s enough distance for her to be able to develop as a character but also for us to see where she came from.

imogen’s is tied directly to the main moon plot, so she’s had screen time aplenty, but less time to develop quietly, as laura does really well. i might argue for orym, but that’s because his is kept simple but with depth. his backstory comes through in the acting because he’s put up against his family members occasionally, but he’s a little guy at root.

for everyone else it’s been short detours. sometimes not even that. the spotlight oscillates between moon plot and god arguments with indecisive wandering in between.

while not everyone in vox machina inherently had a deep personal connection to the big bads of their campaigns, they didn’t need to. they did it for their friends, because they loved and trusted one another deeply. they made decisions about what they were facing and stuck to it, even when it meant sacrifice. they made multiple levels of friendship around and across the table.

at this point bell’s hells has been told a bunch of different things to do. and honestly i don’t know if they ever decided on one.

that’s not the point of this though.

there’s some archetypes or dnd players out there: roleplayers and power gamers. people who are all in it for the story and people who are all in it for the game. and it reflects in the characters they build.

somehow bell’s hells (collectively) is neither.

they don’t have strong investment in the plot collectively. the character concepts range from simple to deeply complex, and i have to say that i think the simpler has worked better for a plot-heavy campaign, because the characters that started simpler had a chance to develop over the campaign rather than competing for time between the plot and their own stories hanging over their heads.

take dorian. he was a humble bard, a former noble, who’s trying to make his way in the world. he refused great power from an evil source and paid the price in the loss of his brother. he fell in love as the world ended, and is still trying to sing the songs of the people he loves because he wants to bring people joy and bring them together. he’s invested in stopping predathos because of his friends, but also to avenge loss, and to protect the people of his homeland and take up his responsibility as heir to the silken squall.

it took a paragraph. but at the table, even when he was with the crown keepers for a few months, he fits right in. he’s had growth while keeping true to his core.

i’m not going to get into the rest now but there’s a definite element of throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

anyways, beyond the difficulties of backstory, they’re not super optimized. i’m of the belief that optimization works in tandem with roleplay—the characters are growing and changing over the course of the story, and having the mechanics trace that and make choices impactful is a big part of the appeal of the game.

watching vox machina and the mighty nein fight is a treat because not only are they level 20 and therefore godlike in power, their mechanics support interesting combat where failure hits hard because they’re built to succeed. when someone fails a save or misses it means something. they have options in their wheelhouse but they’ve found their niches and know how to play to their strengths.

bell’s hells is playing high level combat right now, but they have middling stats: lots of dump stats, 10-14s in the middle and some attacks/spell saves that aren’t as high as you’d expect of level 15 characters. they have several characters with perhaps too many options, and have made some weird strategic decisions. they’re indecisive. in combination with fluctuating luck from the dice, there’s times where they can wreck house, but also times of them failing saves, missing on full turns, losing resources, and overall failing more than they succeed.

also bell’s hells don’t make big decisions in combat unless they’re absolutely forced to. in the last arc pre-final battle, the big battles were otohan on ruidus, dominox and ludinus in aeor (+delilah), zathuda and the unseelie in the feywild. with otohan, they were dying all around until fcg’s sacrifice. literally end of the line. then in aeor, they fought to end dominox, got whammied with downfall, and then had the delilah fight, but then her sealing came later. they fought in the arch heart’s temple, but the big revelations came on the heels of that, between the arch heart themself and then zathuda being strung up on the loom.

but of a tangent: i don’t think naddpod and critical role can be fairly compared, because they’re different in tone and telling very different stories. i relistened to naddpod c1 recently along with the last few episodes of c3 as we approach the finale, and while they have gotten more creative on the character building side, the story is still well done and combat is fun to listen to. they have had moments of deep tragedy on naddpod. they’ve had cameos of old characters, and even had one of them as a pc for a full arc mid-campaign 3. they’ve explored the future of the world of bahumia after the events of c1.

and while the story is satisfying and fun, the combat is also satisfying and fun. not just because murph is really good at building combats that are interesting in theater of the mind, but because the characters are built to be good at what they do. and when they go down, when they miss, when they fail, it hits harder. but they bounce back and keep going even when the circumstances suck. and they make narratively important decisions during combat.

with bell’s hells, i have often noted a split between their combat and roleplay. i like matt’s combats. i think they’re fun and make good use of a variety of enemies, terrain, and complicating factors. with vm and mn, it makes for really engaging episodes of combat, where they make use of the environment tactically and get to discover elements of how the field is set up as they go. i’m using the recent examples, which are not entirely inclusive but generally reflective of their combat trends.

vox machina fought their way off an airship, onto a chaotic battlefield, and then stealthed up to the malleus key, where they proceeded to defeat ozo cruth, break the bloody bridge, and get vax out of imprisonment. the mighty nein stealthed around kreviris, met with the volition, zip lined to and blew up the arx creonum, and then snuck through to meet the weave mind in combat. i can recall fun details and clutch moves, big risks including characters dying, and overall, battles that had character interaction.

as i’ve talked about before, bell’s hells gets whomped. they swing for the fences on some things, but when it doesn’t pay off it’s not just a missed opportunity, it’s often an active barrier or a loss of valuable resources that drive them closer to crisis.

imogen’s whirlwind, laudna’s disintegrate, and dorian’s forcecage were all great moves this episode. it also means they’re down some of their highest level spells before they actually face ludinus and/or predathos. granted they have the orb. but whether they can use it will be variable.

[notaplaceofhonour]

See, this is what I’m talking about with hyperbolic & totalizing rhetoric both obscuring the actual problems and inevitably falling back on antisemitic libel.

At no point have I said the destruction or loss of life in any war isn’t excessive. But when war isn’t enough for you to criticize it, and it has to be “genocide” for you to care, you become more susceptible to filling the holes with hyperbole and misinformation. And more often than not, the hyperbole & conspiracy theories that are closest in reach rely on antisemitic tropes.

It isn’t enough that bombs are inherently destructive to human life & infrastructure, and that even “precision bombs” are not actually that precise; it has to be the worst, most total version of that thing—it has to be “carpet bombing”.

It isn’t enough to criticize the concept of civilian casualties as acceptable “collateral damage” in war; Israel has to be especially evil, so they have to be intentionally targeting civilians for the sake of it—thus the long and well-documented history of Hamas using civilians as “human shields” (even openly literally bragging about it), preventing civilians from escaping, and building military bases under civilian infrastructure, as well as the status quo of accepting civilian casualties in warfare, both remain unaddressed.

It isn’t enough that the destruction of war causes food and water scarcity, it has to be intentionally engineered. It has to be Israel poisoning wells.

And there it is: well-poisoning, an antisemitic libel nearly as old as—one could argue, an offshoot of—blood libel.

The claim that Israel is poisoning Palestinian wells is so baseless that even the source of that claim, Mahmoud Abbas, admitted his accusations were entirely baseless the very next day:

I’m pointing out that specific claim because it’s the easiest to illustrate just how baseless & bigoted it is. But it goes deeper than that: the same totalizing rhetoric and thought process that led this person to believe that antisemitic lie is also responsible for their willingness to attribute Hamas blocking escape routes to the IDF, to describe the bombing of military targets under civilian infrastructure as ”carpet bombing”, and that Israel is trying to exterminate the Palestinian people, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

I am not downplaying the loss of life & tragedy of this conflict or “mincing words” when I say this; I am not even denying the possibility that at some point more information may surface that suggests extermination was actually Netanyahu’s goal (though we are not there).

I am pointing out how this totalizing rhetoric, and the eagerness to believe Israelis are evil, genocidal monsters is impeding the left’s ability to accurately assess & address the root causes of that loss of life. I am pointing out how this goes deeper than just avoiding a checklist of antisemitic tropes. I am asking you to ask yourself, “What is making me so susceptible to believing Jews would poison wells or commit genocide?” “What bad habits am I engaging in with regard to my thought processes & rhetorical habits that makes me more prone to believing this?“

[bluejayadler]

Who is Edwin without Charles

So I got this NGL and it took me a while to answer. I mean, I had the answer almost immediately, but it quickly became a 3000 word ramble and sparked a few side rambles as well. So I tried to pare it down a bit. It kinda worked. So, here goes...

Fair warning, lots of rambling ahead but I tried!

Who is Edwin without Charles. I have TOO many thoughts about this. Firstly, hypotheticals are hard, especially with people, because there are too many variables! And in the case of Edwin, limited data. We see Edwin in the show after 30+ years of being with Charles. We have his flashback with limited shots showing him being different and ostracized by his peers then sacrificed. We know he spent 70 years in Hell. But this flashback doesn't tell us much about him as a person, just more about his peers response and treatment of him. So his actions in the attic scene and Edwin's own descriptions of himself are what we mostly have to go off of for who he is prior to spending 30+ years with Charles.

A few things we know and can assume about Edwin. Edwin is intelligent, studious, and values information and logic. Edwin is fairly straightforward. Edwin is kind (he may not be nice, but he is kind! I'll die on that hill like Charles died in that attic). He believes he is not good with people. He may have believed at some point that he deserved Hell. He does display some ptsd related symptoms and heightened fear response to certain triggers related to Hell. I mean, 30+ years later, he's still very hypervigilant about the potential of Hell finding him. Also, he has a drive and purpose with his detective work.

As for Charles, there are four things I think Charles provides Edwin that significantly impact the Edwin we see 30+ years down the road - I don't think these four things are the only things, but they're what I'm considering heavily in this portion of my analysis. Charles provides acceptance without change (accepting who Edwin is as he is and not expecting or forcing change or masking), a connection to others and the world, SAFETY (in words and actions, Charles not only claims he'll protect Edwin but repeatedly does), and absolution (this will take some explanation, later in the analysis). I think it might be argued that Charles helps Edwin find purpose in detective work, but I think this would always happen, just maybe not as quickly or easily. Reading detective stories to Charles may have made it fresh in Edwin's mind, but I think Edwin would always seek out some self-appointed task or purpose. Plus, he does reveal an ulterior motive of building a case for leniency, so the detective work purpose would eventually come about even without Charles. But, lets remove Charles from the equation.

First, Edwin will always be kind. 70+ years in Hell after being sacrificed by his peers, he still takes the time to comfort and care for an injured and dying boy, putting himself at risk at the same time. He knew Death would come when Charles passed, he explained the light to Charles, but he waits. He waits until Charles passes and even until the light appears. Edwin maintains his inherent kindness through 70+ years of the worst place and the worst people. So I think Edwin will still be kind.

Second, I disagree that Edwin is "bad with people" but he believes he is. This is ingrained from the treatment of his peers (and possibly family) and further exacerbated by being out of touch with the times, being displaced a 100 years out of time. He asks if the women in Niko's family are prone to bouts of hysteria. This would've been common medical thinking in his time. A couple episodes later, he stops himself from using the word hysteria. This implies part of his "bad with people" is lack of knowledge. That all being said, Charles is largely his source of updated information and also a connection to others, smoothing out things when Edwin says something wrong and being a major support for Edwin being himself. Without Charles as a point of connection, Edwin may never learn he isn't "bad with people" and would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He might withdraw more and, with no one to help talk to clients and smooth out any bumps and missteps, any error would be amplified. So Edwin becomes what he believes he is, "bad with people", withdrawn, and isolated more. He already reduces a lot of interactions to their necessary functions and would just do this to more extreme.

Third, Edwin's PTSD symptoms would probably be worse including increased hypervigilance, heightened flight-freeze response, and anxiety or possible even panic attacks. All of these would be internalized as well as something being wrong with him. Charles offers safety and acceptance of Edwin - he accepts Edwin's reactions without faulting him, ridiculing him, or shaming him. He accepts Edwin sharing as much about Hell as he does (we don't know the extent and clearly he left out details, but he did tell Charles "loads of stories about Hell"). Talking through traumatic experiences and emotions is a huge part of overcoming them and moving past them. Charles offers that to Edwin. Charles also offers safety - stepping between Edwin and a threat at every opportunity, protecting Edwin from physical pain but also coming to his defense in other ways - protecting him from the concept of Hell, the risk of going back, the idea he even belongs there. Charles shows again and again that he'll protect Edwin. Edwin feels safe! And we see this with his clothes. There are only four times we see Edwin without his armor. Twice are unwilling - pain and fear in Hell and on Esther's table. Twice are willing - Ep 6 in his sweater when he plans to confess to Charles and Ep 1 in the office when its just the two of them. Edwin feels safe with Charles and takes his armor off, even when he's about to do the very frightening thing of confessing his feelings. He feels safe. But if Edwin doesn't have that acceptance and safety, I imagine he doesn't progress as much in relation to his trauma. His PTSD symptoms may worsen or at least he stays in survival mode for so much longer.

Which brings me to point four - survival mode and Edwin finding his purpose - detective work. Again, still think he'd be a detective. I just think it'd be delayed. I think Edwin would spend a lot more time in initial survival more than we can assume he did in the show. Without a sense of safety and acceptance offered by Charles, I think Edwin spends longer in survival mode, a constant state of flight. How long would he stay in survival mode, flight mode for? Would he ever feel safe or would it worsen? You do not run from trauma. You do not hide from fear. Without something to help him feel safe, would Edwin have been as trapped in his own fear and trauma as he had been previously trapped in Hell? Charles is not the only reason Edwin moves out of flight/survival mode. Edwin has to do that work himself, and maybe 30 years later he does or has. But Charles would offer a huge support in this that now isn't there. 

Finally, Edwin doesn't deserve to be in Hell, but maybe he believed he did. Maybe, without Charles, he still does. Edwin, when meeting Simon again, says "when you punish yourself, everywhere becomes Hell." Edwin spent the season learning about himself, exploring parts of himself he didn't before. I don't think these word were always something he believed, nor was that self-punishment something he could let go of. Every time Charles or Edwin talk about Edwin being in Hell (except when Edwin is using is as a "you know nothing of suffering" comeback), they point out that it was on a technicality. The only other exception is the attic, when Edwin reveals to Charles who only just escaped Hell. We know he wouldn't have talked about Hell previously in the attic scene, cause of how Charles reacts "chuffed you got out of Hell mate. Sounds hard" and because Edwin hadn't even told Charles he was dying so as not to scare him. A hell-condemned ghost would scare most people. But, in the attic, Edwin also doesn't clarify that he was there on a technicality. 30 years later, that technicality is always mentioned, mostly by Charles. It is very clear that in their 30 years together, Charles has been openly adamant that Edwin doesn't belong in Hell. But Edwin's first time mentioning he'd been in Hell, he doesn't mention the technicality, even as a means to not frighten Charles. Possibly, Edwin wasn't so sure at that point. Possibly, Edwin believed that he belonged there, even if it was only a technicality that got him there. Maybe he believed he was destined for the red light. So, without that defender to not just his soul but his honor and goodness, would Edwin believe he doesn't deserve to be in Hell. 

Edwin without Charles is still kind, still finds purpose, but I think struggles with finding safety and with resulting PTSD, self-acceptance, and absolution, even if its just absolution from his own self-perceived sins.

[damnfandomproblems]

[*Note: I don't follow this blog but rather just search the username whenever I wanna get my fix so this response is being sent in kinda late into the conversation]

https://www.tumblr.com/damnfandomproblems/781555734732259328/fandom-problem-8473-theres-this-idea-going?source=share

"There’s this idea going around that criticizing fan works is inherently bad because the fandom artists worked sooooo hard on it for free and it’s rubbing me the wrong way. Don’t get me wrong, I agree we shouldn’t bully and harass fic authors and need to keep our criticism constructive, but if we swear off ANY negativity towards fics whatsoever no one will get better which is especially bad for those who write fics prepare for writing novels."

Okay, but what makes you or any other nonprofessional fanfic critiquer think you know how to effectively critique/constructive criticism? What makes you think your unprofessional advice (or more often then not, judgment) would actually approve the writers skill?

Critique exists to do the following:

Build up the subject by focusing on solutions, not break it down by just mention faults or personal grievances without any way to fix them.

To help the WRITER improve their work into what THEY want it to be, not what YOU would prefer it to be.

And by criticizing the hobbist work of writers who aren't looking to improve but to just have fun, you aren't actually doing anything of vaule. You're just being a jerk who thinks they're special enough to cast judgment on free hobbist work and essentially telling people "well, Susan, I know the cookies you brought to this book club were something you did for fun and that I don't have to eat if them if I don't want to, but they could really be improved. Maybe less chocolate chips next time, m'kay?" and then patting yourself on the back for it.

And when writers do ask for criticism, never once have I seen a critisizer openly admit "hey, I never been taught on how to give unbiased and proper critique, so take this with a grain a salt, but here's what I think you could improve on and how you could go about improving it" they always just assume that anything they have to say is worth saying and that they never need to tell writers how to improve just that they need to. Even if their whole critique is just the story not being what they wanted it to be and basically telling the writer to stop writing what to write and to instead write what the critiquer wants.

I can count on half a hand how many fic critiquers I have both seen around and personally interacted with who were good enough at what they do to put their own wants and biases aside to help the writer achieve their own goals and improvement separate from their (critiquer's) own preferences.

Also OP, you seeing critique as something negative people are trying to swear off rather then as something neutral or even positive tells me you most likely aren't good at giving critique and should tell you why most writers don't care critiquers in general in the fandomsphere. Because again, critique is suppose to aim to build up and improve a work, not tear it down. If you or anyone else are being negative in your critique, it isn't really critique, it's complaining dressed up in spiffy suit. If you can't deliver critique in a neutral or even positive way, then you shouldn't be critiquing because you're building anything up but rather just trying to tear it down.

TLDR; fan critiquers tend to be shit at critique and fail to actually critique and rather just complain and that is why writers don't really care for any of your bullshit. Also, it's a hobby that is never going to be anything more then a hobby for that vast majority of us anyways do critique is fundamentally useless to us. Let us bake our goddamn cookies (write) in peace, you don't eat (read) them if you don't like and won't appreciate them for what they are.

Posting as a response to a previous problem.

[ewingstan]

So a well-known aspect of Taylor's behavior is a tendency to make herself indispensable: proving herself to be a good enough source of aid that people need to rely on her or let her lead them. This is in part related to her damage of not believing in her own inherent value: lacking that form of confidence, she supplements it by making herself obviously and exceptionally instrumentally valuable.

That said, we can go deeper with this. We can make a parahuman whose valuable fully because they prevent horrible threats that they themselves are responsible for creating. As such, I propose shitty cape idea #4: Dutch Boy, a villain who can build up the store of energy in an area around him while acting as the "plug" for that energy. This means that he can't be killed or even moved without the energy he created erupting outwards in a destructive wave (much like the eponymous little dutch boy removing his thumb from the crack in the dike). He would be an invaluable team asset for villains who need to keep an area blocked-off or guarded, as he could not be removed by heroes without harming themselves and everything around them.

Of course the problem with this proposal is one that I've run into before: Dutch Boy fits better as a Jojo's villain than as a parahuman. His power would be useful only if his opponents knew about it—which is fine in a story where the villains regularly gloat about their abilities. In JJBA especially, the tendency for power-explaining monologues to occur in bullet-time would pair well with a hero realizing they have to stop themselves from attacking mid-swing. In parahumans-verse though? He better hope his opponents recognize him. Maybe he gets lucky and the heroes are working with Tattletale, and she'll inform them before they blow themselves up—but there's much better odds he'll be dealing with someone like Victoria "punch first figure out powers later" Dallon. That's not even a knock against her, 90% of the time its the right move, unfortunate that you can't reliably signal that you're one of the 10% of cases where that's a really bad idea.

[ratinacoat]

Random syscourse takes

Saw a couple people do this and I like to be included and talk.

No syscourse stance makes you an inherently bad person. Pro endo, anti endo, endo neutral, whatever other options there are. The only thing that makes you a bad person is how you treat the people who disagree with you.

Adding to that one, the "pro endos aren't punk" "anti endos aren't punk" bs is stupid. Neither of that shit changes if you're punk or not. Punk is about being a good person (which you can be no matter of syscourse stance) and caring about real world issues like politics. If syscourse is your biggest worry, you're probably not punk.

If you're self diagnosed with DID, you shouldn't be speaking over people who are diagnosed sharing their experience. You don't know if you have DID or not, if you're self diagnosed you should always remember there's a possibility you're wrong and speaking as if your experience is 100% DID is a quick way to spread misinfo (and in some cases, stigma).

Being anti endo isn't comparable to being transphobic. It's more comparable to being against a religion. There's no proof of endos outside of claim, the only "proof" I've been sent acknowledges it as a belief or something related to psychosomatic symptoms. There is proof of trans people though that is observable outside of claim. Someone being anti endo just means they don't believe in plurality and we're not all assholes about it.

Endos will always have different experienced than someone with a CDD. Even endos that believe they split due to trauma at some point. Without the brain learning to build dissociative barriers as trauma response/defense mechanism, you can not have alters in the same way as DID. DID is a lot more than alters as well and the things that make it different (amnesia, flashbacks, DPDR, etc etc) are caused by the trauma.

Having DID doesn't mean you know everything about it and not having DID doesn't mean you know nothing about it. A diagnosis is not education. Experience is not a source of information. Someone without a disorder speaking on how it works from an educated perspective isn't automatically wrong just cause someone with the disorder (especially if self diagnosed) speaking from an uneducated perspective or experience "corrects" them.

People who defend the term RAMCOA with their life are weird. You hear something is antisemitic and have it explained to you why it is and you get mad? Really? If you act like the psychiatrists who supported conspiracy theories and abused patients are automatically saints cause one of the groups against RAMCOA as a term are also bad you are an idiot.

Adding to that, the same people who defended self diagnosis with "I'm not trusting abusive therapists about a disorder" defend RAMCOA and trust those abusive therapists. Seriously?

Pro endos with CDDs shouldn't be kicked out of every CDD space. They still have a CDD. They shouldn't be forced to stay with people who don't share the same experience as them just cause they believe some people can be plural. If they're not forcing their belief on everyone, it doesn't matter.

The horses of syscourse should be treated with more respect. Hi Morlocks.

[papercranesong]

Mythbusting Generative AI: The Eco-friendly, Ethical ChatGPT Is Out There

I've been hyperfixating learning a lot about Generative AI recently and here's what I've found - genAI doesn’t just apply to chatGPT or other large language models.

Small Language Models (specialised and more efficient versions of the large models)

are also generative

can perform in a similar way to large models for many writing and reasoning tasks

are community-trained on ethical data

and can run on your laptop.

"But isn't analytical AI good and generative AI bad?"

Fact: Generative AI creates stuff and is also used for analysis

In the past, before recent generative AI developments, most analytical AI relied on traditional machine learning models. But now the two are becoming more intertwined. Gen AI is being used to perform analytical tasks – they are no longer two distinct, separate categories. The models are being used synergistically.

For example, Oxford University in the UK is partnering with open.ai to use generative AI (ChatGPT-Edu) to support analytical work in areas like health research and climate change.

"But Generative AI stole fanfic. That makes any use of it inherently wrong."

Fact: there are Generative AI models developed on ethical data sets

Yes, many large language models scraped sites like AO3 without consent, incorporating these into their datasets to train on. That’s not okay.

But there are Small Language Models (compact, less powerful versions of LLMs) being developed which are built on transparent, opt-in, community-curated data sets – and that can still perform generative AI functions in the same way that the LLMS do (just not as powerfully). You can even build one yourself.

No it's actually really cool! Some real-life examples:

Dolly (Databricks): Trained on open, crowd-sourced instructions

RedPajama (Together.ai): Focused on creative-commons licensed and public domain data

There's a ton more examples here.

(A word of warning: there are some SLMs like Microsoft’s Phi-3 that have likely been trained on some of the datasets hosted on the platform huggingface (which include scraped web content like from AO3), and these big companies are being deliberately sketchy about where their datasets came from - so the key is to check the data set. All SLMs should be transparent about what datasets they’re using).

"But AI harms the environment, so any use is unethical."

Fact: There are small language models that don't use massive centralised data centres.

SLMs run on less energy, don’t require cloud servers or data centres, and can be used on laptops, phones, Raspberry Pi’s (basically running AI locally on your own device instead of relying on remote data centres)

If you're interested -

You can build your own SLM and even train it on your own data.

Let's recap

Generative AI doesn't just include the big tools like chatGPT - it includes the Small Language Models that you can run ethically and locally

Some LLMs are trained on fanfic scraped from AO3 without consent. That's not okay

But ethical SLMs exist, which are developed on open, community-curated data that aims to avoid bias and misinformation - and you can even train your own models

These models can run on laptops and phones, using less energy

AI is a tool, it's up to humans to wield it responsibly

It means everything – and nothing

Everything – in the sense that it might remove some of the barriers and concerns people have which makes them reluctant to use AI. This may lead to more people using it - which will raise more questions on how to use it well.

It also means that nothing's changed – because even these ethical Small Language Models should be used in the same way as the other AI tools - ethically, transparently and responsibly.

So now what? Now, more than ever, we need to be having an open, respectful and curious discussion on how to use AI well in writing.

In the area of creative writing, it has the potential to be an awesome and insightful tool - a psychological mirror to analyse yourself through your stories, a narrative experimentation device (e.g. in the form of RPGs), to identify themes or emotional patterns in your fics and brainstorming when you get stuck -

but it also has capacity for great darkness too. It can steal your voice (and the voice of others), damage fandom community spirit, foster tech dependency and shortcut the whole creative process.

Just to add my two pence at the end - I don't think it has to be so all-or-nothing. AI shouldn't replace elements we love about fandom community; rather it can help fill the gaps and pick up the slack when people aren't available, or to help writers who, for whatever reason, struggle or don't have access to fan communities.

People who use AI as a tool are also part of fandom community. Let's keep talking about how to use AI well.

Feel free to push back on this, DM me or leave me an ask (the anon function is on for people who need it to be). You can also read more on my FAQ for an AI-using fanfic writer Master Post in which I reflect on AI transparency, ethics and something I call 'McWriting'.

[skaruresonic]

Even ignoring that, Oshima doesn't write the games, nor has been in the franchise for decades. His opinions have also definitely changed as well (from being annoyed by the Harmony Calendar art by other artists overly mascotting/cutifying Sonic, to blanket "they good" now cuz fondness of all 90s)

He's a good resource for dev of stuff in the initial games and inspiration for char designs, but is generally unaware of char writing besides basic traits

Though his view on Eggman being not evil evil might be cuz Sonic 1 dev Eggman being the main villain was an afterthought. And people pressure him to prioritize remembering Sonic 1/CD dev over others

But hey, took him 30 years to forget things. I can't say the same for certain writers...

And people pressure him to prioritize remembering Sonic 1/CD dev over others

Bruh I can barely remember my mindset when making OaS and it got published only a year ago. Demanding a dev recall their initial impressions of a character they helped create 30 years ago is insane.

...Anyway, I had to go find the original quote because unfortunately, people tend to misrepresent Ohshima's statements. Can't really take anyone else's word for it.

And, uh, yeah. Like the SonAmy tweet, there's quite a bit here that I have to disagree with.

First, we have the problem of thinking that villains who aim to destroy the world are automatically worse than Eggman, who "only" wants to conquer it.

Conquest under Eggman's rule would be absolutely horrible. In some instances, I wouldn't be sure if total annihilation wouldn't be a more preferable fate.

You could argue that Eggman conquering the world would end up destroying it anyway, thus rendering the comparison moot. But since that gives ground to the idea that instant destruction is worse than subjugation which results in destruction over time, I'm not going to lean too hard into it. Destruction is destruction.

The underlying assumption weakens even more when you consider the fact that not every non-Eggman villain wants to destroy the world in the first place.

Fueled by pain and rage, Chaos massacred the Knuckles clan. Regardless, it didn't destroy the entire clan, never mind the world.

Neo Metal wanted to build a robot kingdom. Not a far cry from his creator's aims.

Black Doom wanted to turn humanity into fuel and a food source. To which I must say, how is that qualitatively any different than Eggman turning animals into robot batteries?

---

Second, "Eggman protects the world" as part of his own self-interests when necessity demands. Yeah, obviously there's going to be nothing to rule if he allows the world to be destroyed and he doesn't want that. But he's not going out of his way to "protect" the world unless he has a personal stake in it and there's no other alternative. At which point, he can only be said to be pragmatic at best.

He's not doing it because he thinks he can outperform Mother Nature. I feel like Ohshima is taking Eggman's god complex too literally and thinking Eggman feels he can replace nature. Science is the means, not the objective:

He doesn't really want to replace anything; he wants to conquer and have all bend to his will, and he doesn't care if things fall into disrepair.

If he was interested in supplanting nature with his own version, why is everything falling apart in CD's Bad Futures? Where are the forests full of mechanized trees? Why are the waters polluted and not replaced with Mega Mack? This argument would imply that Eggman is also responsible for the beneficial technology seen in CD's Good Futures, and that's just backwards.

Just because he wants to slap his face on every available surface doesn't mean he has some pseudo-philosophical reason for doing so.

---

"Humans are enemies for animals."

Mr. Ohshima, I respect you, but no. Not every culture believes this. Mine doesn't. Humans have the potential to be harmful or helpful, but we are not inherently one or the other.

I think maybe what he meant to say here is that humanity's greed is the driving force behind environmental destruction, which would be a valid take in keeping with the series' overall message. Eggman does represent industry, humanity's potential for great scientific achievement and for great harm.

"Eggman wants to make the world beautiful with science and technology."

Source? No seriously, source?

This might be hair-splitting to the Nth degree, but the sense I get from this particular bit is that Eggman finds science inherently beautiful and seeks to enhance the world with it, rather than finding his own creations beautiful out of a sense of ego.

---

"He is not evil in Sonic Adventure" does not mean Ohshima is necessarily saying Eggman isn't evil in other games. And even then, it's a bit of a stretch to say he isn't evil in Adventure.

Not sure why Ohshima is bringing up SA1 as if it's particularly relevant... Although I'm vaguely reminded of a manual entry that describes Eggman as possessing no real sense of right or wrong, so he may be remembering that.

The problem with Mr. Ohshima's statements is that they are not corroborated by what the games show us. Every time Eggman has displayed remorse, it was part of a ruse - which would imply that he needs to know what contrition looks like in order to imitate it. He wouldn't brutally mock Emerl's mercy as a sign of weakness if he didn't understand it. He's not lacking in comprehension; he's actively rejecting the concept. There's a difference.

Also, this interpretation inadvertently paints Sonic in a darker light than intended given his callous disregard of Eggman, and I don't think Ohshima realizes it.

It's significant that Sonic has never looked at the camera and lamented: "Alas, poor Eggman, he knows not the error of his ways." In fact, it'd be pretty fucked-up if he thought Eggman was simply walking down a bad path, and still chose to leave him behind in explosions and ignored the guy's pleas for rescue/mercy.

The games make it clear that Eggman knows what he's doing and he just doesn't care. He calls himself "evil" in Sonic Battle. He absolutely is capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and it borders on discrediting his intelligence to imply otherwise.

Eggman has a 300 IQ and is capable of self-reflection, if we're buying the whole "muh humanizing moments" bullshit SA2 and Frontiers are selling us. It therefore strips him of his agency and infantilizes him to insist that he knows no better, even in this roundabout "oh, he's only misguided" kind of way.

Shadow was misguided in SA2. We can argue about whether he heel-face turned too quickly, but the point remains that he eventually came around.

Eggman's actions, on the other hand, have proven that even if he is misguided, he's too entrenched in his goals to consider turning the car around. So there's no real point in emphasizing the "misguided" part.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "Eggman's finally becoming A Real Human Being(tm) through self-reflection" in one breath and "he just doesn't know right from wrong" in the next. Those two ideas are incompatible. Either Eggman knows that what he does is wrong or he doesn't. And considering how he was able to recognize his grandfather's greatness as a child, my bets are on the former.

[nonstandardrepertoire]

Parashat Ki Tisa: יָדַֽעְנוּ | yadánu

When I first encountered the idea that the evil inclination is necessary for human flourishing in shul, it was presented in less sexual terms — I more often heard the evil inclination being described as the ultimate source of the drive to make art, engage in politics, advance the limits of human knowledge — and it left me a little confused. The impulse to write a sonata seemed very far removed from the impulse to lie, and I had trouble making sense of the connection. I think I am finally coming into an understanding.

Why do people do bad things?

The traditional Jewish answer is yéitzer hara, the evil inclination, which all humans are born with. This is, to be clear, not a claim that all humans are inherently broken or wicked, but rather a recognition that we are all capable of making harmful choices — we are all susceptible to things like jealousy, revulsion, and greed that can pull us towards acting badly; no one Just Is ontologically good — we are all capable of going wildly astray [a].

[a] This evil inclination is balanced by yéitzer hatov, the good inclination, which I’m essentially going to ignore here. My sense is that traditional sources have much less to say about this, in part because it represents less of a problem for them. A drive towards goodness needs no explanation in the rabbinic imagination, while a drive towards wickedness needs lots.

This immediately poses a problem for sages who imagine G-d as wholly and unreservedly Good: Why would such a Creator make humans with an evil inclination baked into their hearts? Why didn’t G-d just make us good outright?

One traditional response is to reject the question. In Bəreishit Rabah, an explanatory commentary on the first book of Torah hailing from around 400AD (give or take 100 years on either side), Rabbi Naḥman bar Shəmu’eil bar Naḥman quotes Rav Shəmu’eil bar Naḥman as having said that the evil inclination is not just good but very good, going on to explain, “If it weren’t for the evil inclination, a person would not build a house, take a spouse, reproduce, or take and give [money for goods and services]” (9:7, my translation). This is hardly an isolated line of thought: The Babylonian Talmud has numerous stories about various rabbis eliminating yéitzer hara from the world only to find its absence bringing calamity of one sort or another. The paradigmatic cases for the rabbis tend to be sexual: You can’t remove the urge to sleep with the wrong people without removing the urge to sleep with the right people, too — it’s all one indivisible urge.

When I first encountered this idea in shul, it was presented in less sexual terms — I more often heard the evil inclination being described as the ultimate source of the drive to make art, engage in politics, advance the limits of human knowledge — and it left me a little confused. The impulse to write a sonata seemed very far removed from the impulse to lie, and I had trouble making sense of the connection. I think I am finally coming into an understanding.

In this week’s Torah portion, the Israelites ask Aharon to make them a golden calf, because Mosheh has been on Mt Sinai for way too long. זֶה מֹשֶׁה . . . לֹא יָדַֽעְנוּ מֶה־הָֽיָה לוֹ | Zeh Mosheh . . . lo yadánu meh háyah lo | “This Mosheh . . . we don’t know what happened to him” (Shəmot 32:1).

Setting aside the recency of the miracles of the exodus and the very flashy theophany on the mountain, I’m inclined to be sympathetic to the Israelites here. Uncertainty is a terrible feeling, a feeling only amplified by heightened stakes. More than once, I’ve stayed up regrettably late because I couldn’t bear not knowing what happened next on some TV show or other; I don’t have high hopes for how I’d behave if a miraculously liberational leader hiked up a mountain billowing with smoke and flames with no indication of when, if ever, he’d be back.

This inability to tolerate not knowing can lead to wonderful things. One thinks perhaps of science [b] and medicine — in seeking to know how to heal the body’s failings and how to transform the raw materials of the Earth into useful things, we have created the possibility of living in astonishing comfort, health, and abundance, even if that possibility is far from universally realized — but it underlies creative endeavors, too. How can a building physically manifest ideals of participatory democratic government? What, psychologically, would lead a happily married person to commit adultery? How can music tell a story without relying on words? We have made deep and moving works of art in striving to know the answers to questions such as these.

[b] Which, etymologically, just means “known things”.

And yet knowing has its limits. There are very basic things we will never be able to know about the ancient world because so much evidence has been destroyed over the years. There are experiments we cannot run because it would be unethical to subject humans to the necessary test conditions. There are parts of my life that I reserve for myself, that no one else will ever get to know, because I do not choose to share them.

Disregarding these limits can lead to terrible things. On the one hand, a desire to know at all costs can lead to immoral inquiries — parents reading their children’s diaries without permission, scientists withholding known cures for diseases, the whole long litany of wrongs you can get to by asking what happens if you just don’t stop at any line. But on the other, when knowledge is impossible, intolerance of uncertainty can lead to fabricating answers out of whole cloth, and then sticking to them ferociously in the face of alternate possibilities. It cannot be that gender categories are fluid and contingent, shifting constantly across times and cultures with no immutable basis to hold firm to; they must be fixed certainties we can project across all peoples, always and everywhere. It cannot be that each generation evaluates the past anew, condemning figures that their parents hailed as saints; any critique of a beloved forbear must be a lie concocted to smear their known, immutable goodness. It cannot be that others have reasons for their actions that remain opaque to us; it must be that we know best and they are either fools or schemers, undeserving of autonomy and respect.

To lead just lives, we must make peace with the agony of not knowing. Unlike the Israelites at Mt Sinai, we must endure Mosheh’s absence, however unending, without building a false g-d to assuage our discomfort [c]. And yet that peace must always be partial, provisional. If we felt no discomfort with not knowing, we would never have learned to heal, would never have learned to paint caves and sing songs. The discomfort with uncertainty is the same discomfort. The urge to know is the same urge: the very good evil inclination in our hearts.

[c] In this dəvar, I don’t want to get into the question of whether the Israelites actually do anything wrong here. Personally, I’m not all that fussed about including icons in religious practice and think that there are strong arguments that the Israelites would have understood the golden calf as being a symbol of haSheim, not a brand new and different g-d. (There’s a good deal of evidence that Shəmot 32 was originally written as a critique of regional variants of ancient Israelite religion around the time of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom in 722BC. For a good analysis and discussion of the implications, I recommend William HC Propp’s treatment of this chapter in the second volume of his Exodus translation and commentary for the Anchor Yale Bible series.) For now, I’m willing to take the text as given and accept the golden calf in its proverbial sense as the paradigmatic false g-d. One text can mean many things, it’s fine.

How do you strike the right balance here, between seeking to know and accepting unknowledge?

I don’t know. I’ll let you know if I find out.

[This has been an installment of one-word Torah. You can read the full series here.]

[arvianijlal-blog]

Breaking the Noise: The Social Media Surge

With billions of users online at any given moment, social media has evolved into a vibrant space where political discourse, social activism, and consumer trends collide. Gone are the days when people merely scrolled through posts for entertainment; these platforms have graduated into influential channels capable of swaying elections, jumpstarting social movements, and redefining cultural norms.

Why does this matter? Because the speed and reach of platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok dwarf traditional broadcasting models. What once took news outlets days 'if not weeks' to disseminate can now spread in a matter of hours, sometimes even minutes.

The Power Players: Influencers, Hashtags, and Digital Communities

Influencers as Opinion Leaders Traditional gatekeepers: editors, journalists, or broadcasting executives are no longer the sole arbiters of public discourse. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 1962) highlights the pivotal role “opinion leaders” play in spreading new ideas. On social media, these opinion leaders can be popular vloggers, niche experts, or even regular citizens who capture the moment’s zeitgeist.

Hashtags and Collective Action The hashtag culture has become a digital rallying cry, turning local issues into international discussions. A single hashtag can unite voices worldwide, giving rise to movements like #ClimateStrike or #MeToo. What used to be fragmented protest efforts now find coherence and momentum online.

Digital Communities for Shared Passions Facebook groups, subreddits, and specialized forums foster micro-communities. Whether it’s a group dedicated to sustainable living or a fandom for the latest pop star, these spaces enable deeper engagement, trust-building, and collective problem-solving among members.

The Flip Side: Risks in the Age of Hyperconnectivity

Misinformation and Echo Chambers When information travels at lightning speed, so do rumors and falsehoods. Despite fact-checking initiatives, viral hoaxes and conspiracy theories remain persistent, often amplified by echo chambers, online circles where users are only exposed to content that reaffirms their existing beliefs.

Privacy and Ethical Concerns Social platforms often collect vast amounts of user data, raising questions about surveillance, targeted ads, and data breaches. Striking a balance between personalization and privacy has become a pressing issue for both policymakers and tech companies.

Mental Health Implications The dopamine rush from receiving likes, shares, or follows can be addictive, fueling obsessive usage. Meanwhile, cyberbullying and social comparisons exacerbate feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and depression among vulnerable users, particularly teenagers.

Strategies for a Healthier Digital Landscape

Promote Media Literacy Embedding critical thinking and digital literacy in school curricula can empower the next generation to navigate information responsibly.

Engage Responsibly Taking breaks from social media, verifying sources, and participating in constructive debates can foster a more meaningful online experience.

Balanced Regulation Governments and tech giants must collaborate on policies that curb dangerous content, like hate speech or disinformation without stifling free expression.

Conclusion: Crafting Tomorrow’s Online Culture

Social media isn’t inherently good or bad; it’s a mirror reflecting our collective aspirations and fears. It can amplify social reform, but it can also magnify divisions. As digital citizens, we shoulder the responsibility to shape these platforms into tools for progress whether by championing marginalized voices, verifying facts before sharing, or advocating for transparency and accountability.

In the end, the true measure of social media’s impact lies in how we harness it: as a bridge that connects us or as a fault line that divides us. The choice is ours to make.

[ludo-nadir]

Hello, you seem to the type of person who takes legitimacy and appropriate argument building very seriously so I have a few criticisms for the post you made.

1.) Nearly every screenshot you posted was out of context, only a few barely had the original message Sai was responding to.

2.) The context we do see about most of these messages is Sai arguing about the usage of slurs, probably about the Q word (I say probably because Y’know, lack of context). Discussions about slur reclaimation *often* includes comparing the Q and N word.

3.) you ignore that the account’s name is in line with Taffy/Curly’s name as a more obvious evidence

4.) you give Taffy/Curly the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t lying and solely base their innocence on their written word. That’s way less evidence than Sai’s screenshot yet you treat Sai with way more bad faith.

5.) A lack of problematic behavior on a public account doesn’t negate any problematic behavior in private

6.) Have you ever pondered that maybe a third party might have impersonated Curly and Sai wouldn’t have any clue and thus assumed it’s Curly based on the username and typing pattern? Or more simply, pondered that Curly is lying?

You are well spoken and obviously put a lot of thought into the words you choose but please analyze the reasons you say it.

Curly/taffy has also gone on to draw a caricature of Sai with racialized features like a wider nose and hoop earrings screaming her head off.

Even if the account that sent that message to Sai isn’t Curly, I believe that drawing proves that their morals might not be too different from the person who impersonated them.

My sincere apologies for the delay in this response; it was such a remarkably strange message that I found myself speechless at the audacity of such claims. Understand, of course, that I will hence do my best to address your concerns in good faith, however this travesty is such that it may be impossible for me to maintain this position of neutrality entirely. Nevertheless, I will attempt as such.

1) Should you take care to examine the context of which I have illustrated in the post, you would note that the context matters little. That this individual is flippant about using the terminology at all is of concern. I am not making the claim that user Saiscribbles is motivated by racial hatred or distaste for others of racial minorities. To make a bold claim with naught more than scant fragments of their character on social media is far too egregious an overstep anyone can make. Rather, it is evident that there is a pattern of behavior that sees user Saiscribbles utilize inflammatory terminology with greater ease and frequency.

2) Again, the context of the messages matters not; the main proponent of my argument is to state that user Saiscribbles is shown to have a pattern of usage. That they frequently and readily use the terms in discussions and debate is what I wished to highlight.

3) A non-argument. For the sake of addressing this, however, I would point out that user Taffer/Curly has had usernames based off of fictitious videogame characters with no utilization of numerals, whereas user "l4ffyp1n3" does not fit this standard.

4) Should you reread my argument, I have stated no small number of times that it is impossible to readily determine the source of the messages in question and instead demonstrate through pattern of behavior that the possibility user Saiscribbles has reached is deeply flawed in nature, and as a result, can include many a number of possibilities, from ignorance to malice.

5) A nonargument. We are discussing the information exclusively present to us, and not the lack of information we cannot have access to.

6) Had you read my post in depth, you would have most certainly noticed that I had considered this very possibility. As it is, no one culprit has been identified nor alluded to. Rather instead, the purpose is to identify the inherent flaws in user Saiscribbles' logic (or lack thereof) in coming to a definitive conclusion whilst lacking any conclusive evidence to support or refute their claim. Moreover, as I've already discussed, the username has no identifiable pattern, and as speech patterns are easily replicable on the internet, it makes a poor form of evidence.

In addition, that you conclude such a caricature contains racial coding for a woman of whom, as far as I'm aware, is decidedly not a person of color, speaks far more about your desire to locate "clues" or "signs" that are blatantly absent from any one person seeing the material from an objective standpoint. Do try to refrain from radically gossiping conspiratorial speculation whilst we discuss tangible evidence, if you would please.

[velvetvexations]

This is a sincere attempt at illustrating my point of view and if you can articulate why you think the situation is different I would welcome engaging you on that.

The key things are that TMA/TME relies on (a) all people AFAB having privilege over a group defined as consisting entirely of people AMAB and (b) simply moves to whom "inherent respect and privilege due to sexual characteristics" applies. Even putting aside that TME is very frequently used as a dog whistle, and I've seen "cis and TME men"* a million times, the fact is that there's simply no more reason to assume that being AFAB and identifying as a man gives you more inherent privilege than being AMAB and identifying as a woman. There just isn't. There's no source of logic that would make that true. It's like saying if you drop something off a building it'll fall into the sky. The idea that only people AMAB are in a situation where gender deviance could cause them as great harm as transphobia does, and trans men are treated no worse than cis women, is entirely fabricated and just as arbitrary a decleration as trans women retaining the privilage of having been AMAB.

The only way for it not to be true is if you're just calling them all liars. Which a lot of yall do. And no, we don't call transfems liars - as I said in my response yesterday, the only thing I've ever disclaimed is "non-binary people AFAB love lording their gender complexity over us," which I've yet to see even a single screenshot of in my life and exclusively comes up in the context of why it's okay to call those people slurs. Other than that, the fact that other trans people can be transmisogynistic is very well recognized over on this side of Tumblr. Nothing about advocating for "TME" trans people says anything about the oppression of other people the way TMA/TME framework** does. It simply says things also happen to them.

*And considering the fact that I personally watched the TRF-tankie crowd dogpile you or ignore that you were being dogpiled, only for them to later aggressively cape for the cis guy who kicked it off, this is getting worse because the TRF community is slowly shedding even token acknowledgements that cis men are any kinna problem and seem to be really eager to elect one as King of Telling People of Color They're Lying About How Bad They're Oppressed.***

**Which is also why it's ridiculous to say perisex is mean to perisex transfems. The eqivalent of perisex is "non-transfem." If the eqivalent were TME, we would be calling people Intersexism Exempt. It's very simple and I genuinely, genuinely do not understand what's so hard to get about that.

***Which is another issue in and of itself. At this point everyone who uses TMA/TME is so at least adjacent to really horrific and disgusting racism that it's hard to imagine how one can stomach it. The type that were calling your family Nazis for having been Ukranian are the ones at the core of it, that's the norm. Say what you will about me tolerating a small minority of people who discuss transandrophobia being against Israel's genocide but invested in the continued existence of the state itself, I can think of exactly one "transandrobro" who was actually pro-IDF, and I got a million messages from my followers warning me about him and lamenting that he still has a blog when I unknowingly reblogged something of his, whereas extremely popular tumblr "transfeminists" who you personally reblog from on a regular basis go to the mat to argue until their blue in the face about why mass murder and systemic rape aren't bad things when they happen in countries that don't speak English, or to be more precise that it's not happening but if it were the victims deserve it.

Seeing a popular transmasc blog who generally had very level headed and reasonable takes on discourse get dragged into transandrophobia discourse, being targeted by trans radfems despite making it clear they want no part of it, start reblogging from popular trans radfems and using TME/TMA rhetoric sucks honestly. Like you seriously can’t be a trans man on this website without trans radfems dragging you into their bullshit

Depressing. I hope he gets better.

[hillbillyoracle]

The concept of Bad Authors can never really be nuanced. I’ve yet to see a single nuanced version of it. 

“Some people are Bad Authors and some people aren’t” is not a nuanced take when Bad Author means that an entire person’s body of work should not be read and contains nothing valuable or worthwhile - pretty definitionally not nuanced.

Especially when taken as a hardline, this line of thinking absolutely fucks with so called Leftist communities. I say so called because Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism are all based in a material analysis of inequity and possible solutions. And “Bad Authors” is not a materialist take in the least. 

It assigns issue with the person, not their actions or actual demonstrated harms of the work itself which is not rooted in materialist political thinking. When people cite an authors actions, that’s still not demonstrating the issue of the work itself. When people do try do state the issues with the work itself, it very rarely rises to the level material harm. Not saying it never does but woo buddy is it rare. It tends to frame consumption and monetary exchange as one of the most important forms of “activism” - which is a capitalist argument, not necessarily a Leftist one.  

One of the core aims of Leftist communities when I first became apart of them was community building. But Bad Authors has a severe impact on communities too because it doesn’t stop at authors. When people have bad takes they become Bad People and get totally rejected from communities. There’s no effort to open a dialog and have room for disagreement in places. There’s no relationship building and understanding that thinking critically is an evolving process that no human just comes into the world knowing. There’s no patience and rewards people for having little empathy in their performative take downs. So it results in literally dehumanizing demands of individuals with relatively little power or influence.

And community building was not just for within Leftist circles themselves but out in their actual real live in person local communities. People who are permanently online seem to have really lost touch with that. And let me tell you, if you’re out there cutting people of because of what books they read or trying to lecture them about it - holy shit are you going seem out of touch and damage the cause. If you’re willing to revoke resources to people on the basis of what books they read, you’re putting personal ideas of purity over the needs of the people. 

Not a leap then to see why people who get remotely disillusioned with Leftist politics become prime targets for alt-right groups. You’ve laid the ground work at that point. And suddenly an understanding of agency tends to kicks in “Well that’s their choice, it’s not my responsibility. I can’t control what they think.” 

Yeah. Much like reading a book doesn’t control one’s choices. Whodathunk. 

I’m seriously begging folks to not use their online communities as the sole source of their political education and for those of us who’ve been through academic training in politically charged fields like women’s studies to go out in the field and do work with an actual group doing actual work. 

See what of your politics sticks when faced with the realities of people’s inherent humanity. 

[wordsnstuff]

20 Mistakes To Avoid in Enemies To Lovers

PLEASE REBLOG | Tumblr suppresses posts with links :/

Patreon || Ko-Fi || Masterlist || Work In Progress

–

Weak Conflict

There should always be a strong, compelling source of tension between two people who are considered enemies. Even if their rivalry stems from external sources, such as bad blood between families or competing for a number one spot, there should always be a concrete reason why they hate each other.

Not Explaining Forgiveness

When one of these conflicts subsides, or a tense moment resolves, it should be justified. Tension and emotions shouldn’t disappear because you’re trying to stuff romantic moments in here and there. If one of your characters crosses a line and the other character chooses to forgive them, there needs to be a clear and understandable reason. It doesn’t always have to sit well with the reader. Your character can make a blatantly stupid decision, but it needs to serve the plot. 

No Tension To Be Found

If your characters have to verbally or physically assault each other to demonstrate the tension between them, you’re doing it wrong. If they have to kiss for the reader to see that they like each other, you’re doing it wrong. Tension is in the little things. It’s in the instances that most people would overlook, but your characters zero-in on because the subtext is too thick to gloss over. Tension is the most important plot device in enemies-to-lovers stories, so it requires a lot of time and attention to minute details. 

Conflict Solved Too Easily

If the rivalry between your characters is one misstep after another, with immediate forgiveness following, the tension won’t build correctly. You’re working your way up to a boiling over moment. A moment where everything comes out and then, once resolved, makes way for the romantic feelings to enter. If the conflicts don’t slowly build on each other, that boiling moment will come out of nowhere and be less satisfying to read. Don’t let your characters off that easily. Enemies aren’t constantly letting things slide. 

Characters Changing For One Another

People don’t need to be exactly the same to see attractive qualities in one another. It’s true that relationships shift your perspective and that it occasionally results in outward changes in behavior, but one or both characters shouldn’t mold their personality around their partner. 

Stupid Potion

If one of your characters has to become oblivious or avoid critical thought to maintain a relationship with that character, you haven’t made the two characters compatible enough. This is especially true when one or both of your character’s identity revolves around a higher intelligence. They should have enough in common that there doesn’t have to be a giant shift in one or both personalities to work as a couple. 

The Relationship Brings Them Down

The thing about enemies to lovers stories is that the happy endings are usually an indication of the author’s view of what is and is not forgivable in a potential partner. The acceptance of someone’s past mistakes, current flaws, and future struggles. When a love story ends with a couple that repeatedly lower each other or hurt each other, that sends a bad message, and that is your responsibility to avoid. It doesn’t need a happy ending, but it should never have a destructive one. 

Writing Abuse Instead of Rivalry

There is a big difference between writing two equals who have a rivalry slowly falling in love and putting aside their differences, and writing an abusive, predatory love interest who repeatedly hurts, manipulates, and gaslights the main character. Just because you can imagine the character forgiving them doesn’t mean they’re a good partner. Cheating, physical abuse, isolation, passive aggression, and manipulation are not character flaws. They’re not “mistakes” that the character needs to forgive in order to save their relationship. It’s abuse, and when you write a story between an abuser and a victim that has a happy ending, that has consequences. 

Revealing Feelings In A Cliché Way

This is very subjective, however, there are also a plethora of tropes to choose from and an infinite amount of alterations you can apply to make them your own. The objective, however, is to build up to it in a way that creates a satisfying payoff, and an interesting moment that serves all of the work you’ve done to build to it. There’s nothing worse than reading chapters and chapters of build up, anticipating a big moment where sparks fly, and then having all of that tension result in a sad sputter of mediocrity.

Instant Trust

Trust is difficult to build between two people, especially when they have a complicated past. Trust is earned, no matter who you are or what you’ve been through, it’s always a process. It’s never inherent. When two characters have a history of betrayal or hurt, trust is going to be even harder to develop between them, and that process is an opportunity for more tension, character development, conflict, and eventually a satisfying resolution. Trust development is a major plot device, and I recommend you take advantage of it. It’s also a huge opportunity for building romantic tension amongst the angst of trials and tribulations. 

Why Do They Hate Each Other, Though?

There’s a thin line between love and hate, and that line is infatuation; obsession. So, what put the two of them on the bad side of that line? This reason is the main conflict. The overarching plot begins with the point where that rivalry either begins or is challenged after a long while of stagnation, and it ends with the two characters crossing over that line into love. You need to make that beginning point very clear.

Rivalry Shouldn’t Just Dissolve

There needs to be a transitionary period that is tense and awkward with scattered moments that make the effort worth it to both of them. There should be a “Well, we hated each other last week and then they did some really sweet things and now I’m not so sure. Maybe we’re starting to become friends now? I feel really excited when I see them, so I must not hate them anymore, right?” period. 

Complete Opposites

Yes, opposites can attract. Yes, completely different people can fit together very well and have a happy relationship, but this is a cliché and is, in most cases, poorly thought out with little to no originality. 

Love With No Reason

Just like your characters need a reason to hate each other, they need a reason to love each other. There has to be something that makes them work. Not just a common hobby or characteristic or exterior aspect they share, but something that makes them fit together. If they love each other because... they can, your reader will feel like they’re watching two stupid, lonely people tolerate each other’s flaws in the interest of sex or companionship for 100 pages. 

No Actual Conflict Resolution

Relationships are built through conflict resolution. Communication, empathy, effort, and understanding between two people who work to make each other happy. Hollow forgiveness is not apart of that process, and if that’s all there is, you’re not developing a realistic relationship between compatible people, you’re depicting a toxic relationship that, in the case of these origins, can be abusive. 

Underusing Sexual Tension

Sexual tension is great. It’s easy to develop, it has a satisfying payoff, and it doesn’t take up a lot of space on the pages. It doesn’t have to result in x-rated material, especially if you’re writing for a young adult audience, but it’s simple and effective. 

No Awkward Transition Period

A large chunk of the plot should be awkward and uncomfortable to watch. The transition should be organic and make sense for your characters, but all organic movement contains struggle. Nobody goes from hating each other to loving each other overnight, and relationships are complicated and require hard work. Show this.

Catalogue Characters

There are enough stories out there with cardboard characters and self-insert protagonists, especially in romance. Make your protagonists unique and individual. Make your characters diverse and interesting to read about. Readers should have a bit of wiggle room for imagination, but that doesn’t mean they should be filling in the blanks like your characters are Mad Libs. Don’t close your eyes and point at character archetypes to form your cast. It’s obvious and lazy. 

Stagnant Tone

The tone of these stories often falls flat because in the interest of building tension, writers ignore purposeful tone shifting, scene-to-scene. Change it up, make it potent, and make a lasting impact during important moments. Suspense and anticipation shouldn’t just build during the climax and resolution. 

Bad Pacing

When your readers spend hours reading a story that promises a romantic payoff, they expect to see some of it. I think that a three act structure is really effective with this type of arc, with the first third being devoted to building rival tensions, the middle third being the shift from rivals to friends, and the last third building that romantic tension and ending with a happy resolution. 

–

Masterlist | WIP Blog

If you enjoy my blog and wish for it to continue being updated frequently and for me to continue putting my energy toward answering your questions, please consider Buying Me A Coffee, or pledging your support on Patreon, where I offer early access and exclusive benefits for only $5/month.

[zen-garden-gnome]

Long post about whiteness

I’m seeing a lot of false-start questions based on a narrow understanding of whiteness. Whiteness (and recovery from whiteness) can be tricky to unpack because it has a lot of layers that have been added over the years. So you’ll run into a layer and may be tempted to stop there, but it goes deeper.

1) Racial identity was a vague belief before it was officially named, but it’s not as old as many think it is. Prior to European Expansionism, travelers and merchants and militaries alike have generally referred to people based on their place of origin or their language. The idea of vaguely lumping hundreds of ethnicities together based on a handful of physical attributes started to kick up when Portugal began capturing and enslaving huge numbers of sub-Saharan Africans in the mid-1400s. As slave traders and “explorers” brought shiploads of captured, multi-ethnic Africans to Portuguese auction blocks to be traded all over Europe, what set these enslaved people apart from anyone else there (including other enslaved people) was a) the fact that they were to some degree darker than the Portuguese despite displaying a wide range of skin tones, b) were from Africa at the time, and c) were enslaved. When Christian militant and royal biographer Gomes de Zurara was hired in 1453 to write about the life and “accomplishments” of Portugal’s most famous slave trader, Infante Henrique aka Prince Henry the Navigator, he officiated, in writing, the idea that all these newly enslaved people were their own class of people with no differentiation between them. Here, race is a burgeoning social narrative invented to praise European slave traders, and this racial concept is defined in relation to slavery, African origins, and skin tone. Racial concepts appeared in tandem with racist concepts, because races began to be envisioned in order to excuse the abuse of others. The ideas of whiteness and blackness were birthed simultaneously, specifically around slavery, and they became deeply entrenched beliefs before they were ever officially named.

2. “Negro” became the first major racial term before “white” was widely used, binding the development of racial concepts even more securely with the practice of European slavery. In fact, race and racism became encoded in colonial-American law in 1640, when African servant John Punch ran away from his European buyers along with two European servants. He was eventually recaptured, as were his Dutch and Scottish companions. However, the colonial judicial system sentenced Punch to a lifetime of slavery, while the two Europeans had an extra year added to their initial servitude. This marks the first record of a Euro/American legal precedence for lifetime sentencing of enslavement based openly on race. John Punch’s African lineage and the other servants’ European lineage were the differences between their sentencing. Here, European origin was what freed a person from being of the “negro race” and therefore severely reduced one’s likelihood to enslavement. It was also the requirement for incoming settlers who wanted to be able to buy land. Only white people were allowed to develop inter-generational wealth, at a time when this continent was being carved up by land speculators for massive profits.

3. The concept of whiteness was officially named by Carl Linnaeus in order to rank Europeans as superior among other conceptual categories of people. It involved grouping hundreds of ethnic groups together to form white, yellow, red, and black races in he text “System Naturale" (1735). While primarily an introduction to our current taxonomy system, it included these racial categories. It was highly regarded by Europeans eager to cast themselves as superior because it a) created a popular “scientific” framework for excusing the most obscene (and profitable) crimes against humanity, b) officially outlined/invented the white race and identified it with everything good and the black race as everything bad, and then c) clearly defined Europeans as the basis of whiteness, “Homo sapiens europaeus.” Here, whiteness is coined to describe European ancestry, particularly in relation to “grotesque” non-whites.

4. An individual’s personal ideas of whiteness fluctuates with time and circumstances. As governments, social institutions, literature, etc all work to redefine history and clean up their image, people have different/less information to work with, but the effects are the same. The popular spoken definition of whiteness is often simply a reference to a relatively pale skin tone caused by European ancestry. Obviously there are pale people in other places around the world who aren’t European and weren’t related to the slavery of European Expansionism, so pale skin isn’t enough. The relation to Europe’s capitalistic global expansion is key. But what about European countries who didn’t go expanding this way, or whose involvement is harder to pinpoint? After all, most of the trading of enslaved indigenous peoples from Africa and North & South America were carried out by the Portuguese, Genoese, Dutch, French, British, Spanish, and Americans. Well, the rapid enrichment and development of the rest of Europe for centuries to come was specifically made possible by all the labor, resources, and capital brought in by this period of the European slave trade. European ancestry links every white person to privileges and developments born on the backs of black and indigenous enslaved peoples. Furthermore, simply being white makes one safer from these kinds of exploits, and today it also makes one safer from the effects of generations of racial prejudices and resource extraction on the global scene. Which brings me to...

5. Whiteness tends to involve one’s relative freedom. Freedom of movement, both physical and social, without immediate threat of policing. Freedom to explore one’s ancestral history without being blocked by 500 years of forced removal, renaming, forced childbirth, etc. Freedom to exist without having to actually know or respond to one’s racial identity. This one’s really important. Whiteness involves not having to think about being white, usually in relation to living in a country/region whose laws and norms are defined and enforced almost exclusively by other white people. Since whiteness and blackness arose mutually around the European slave trade, blackness is inherently tied to a lack of rights/freedoms and whiteness is inherently tied to an abundance of them. That doesn’t mean that every white person experiences these equally, and there will always be exceptions to the rule. But the exceptions don’t make the rule, and after centuries of globalized white supremacy, whiteness has become a subconscious signifier of power for people all over the place.

The big take-away is this: whiteness is inherently toxic. There is nothing positive to defend in whiteness. It was born out of ugliness and it is ugly to its core. That’s why it feels so bad. It’s why “white pride” is always ugly. However, the solution is not to disconnect from our ancestry. All that does is leave us trapped here, in an ugly set of circumstances, with no concept of who we are except what we’re living in, now. The real work to be done is to connect with our ancestry before whiteness, with the ancestors who related to the land as a living entity, before the land was limited in social memory to a source of private capital, servitude, and empire-building. This land, this Earth, is the backdrop against which all our relativity is measured. From this place of relative security, understanding, and development of the spirit, we can withstand the reality of our more recent ancestors, and finally heal from the last 1000 to 2000 years of trauma.

I know I’ve said this before, but now that I have this huge post, I’ll repeat it: Dr. Daniel Foor’s Ancestral Medicine is a really helpful book and/or course for this whole process. It’s not the end-all be-all resource, but it’s a great start! I’m also always down to talk about this stuff. Hit me up. I need to be able to talk about it, too.

(I should add, while blackness was created by white people and therefore was born out of the racism of whiteness, blackness was forced on people, while whiteness was claimed by the takers. It’s no white person’s place to have an opinion about "black identity.” White people started race, so white people are responsible for deconstructing our own race--no one else’s. We cannot be “post-racial” while everyone else is still living the violent reality of racism.)