#because the discourse on this topic is usually really bad

[narse-tantalus]

You're wrong when you say GenAI is incapable of reproducing specific works.

Specifically: exactly reproducing training data is what the models are trained to do, and then many techniques are used to attempt to get the overall product to not reproduce exact copies of the training data in their output.

Here's a source that talks about different techniques to use to prevent verbatim copying in LLMs:

It specifically says this is undesirable because:

LLMs can regenerate copyrighted content verbatim, creating risks for both LLM providers and users.

For Users: Outputs containing copyrighted content could result in unintended legal issues, especially if such material is used commercially or distributed without proper authorization.

For providers: Hosting and distributing models capable of regenerating protected content poses unresolved legal challenges. This issue is particularly concerning for code models. Verbatim code reuse can impact licensing agreements, even for open-source code with restrictions on commercial use.

So your argument that genAI shouldn't be copyright infringement isn't accepted by people who develop genAI models and put lots of effort into making them infringe less often in their final outputs.

Your argument is obviously stronger when applied to novel output of genAIs (which may be all you intended to argue about). But the fact that they often and undesirably create exact copies of their training data does raise questions about the extent to which what they do is simply copying other works badly or is the creation of something original. Does it change your perception of a GenAI work to know that its first several attempts were deleted and not displayed to a user because they were judged by the service's algorithms to be too copyright infringing?

Do you care if LLMs reproduce Open Source code with a closed source license erroneously attached? Or are you contemptuous of the Open source and copyleft movements because they rely on copyright to enforce their licensing terms?

I feel like the people attacking the idea of copyright in the notes - especially those saying it's a tool that only benefits corporations - should be reminded that open sourcing and Creative Commons licencing rely on copyright to have legal force.

the framing of generative ai as "theft" in popular discourse has really set us back so far like not only should we not consider copyright infringement theft we shouldn't even consider generative ai copyright infringement

[charles-leclerc-official]

Lando's reactions in any of his interviews is really what bothers me. When he has one race where he doesn't have a great result? He acts like it's the end of the world, like he just got fired or something. We're still at the start of the season. He has the fastest car. No one is going to do what Max did in 2023 ever again. It's normal that he will sometimes have a bad weekend. Where is his self confidence?

Charles was in interviews talking about how he's targeting overtaking both George and Oscar at the start! Even when he doesn't have a good quali, Charles always has the self confidence to say he's going to go for a good result in the race.

And Lando, who will surely make his way up the field tomorrow, literally looks like he's about to cry in his interviews.

If he really feels this way and he's not just acting out, Lando seriously needs to see a sports psychologist to help him. At this point it's clear to see he can't handle any pressure. He will likely lose the WDC this year simply because his rivals will have the mental strength and determination to beat him, while he crumbles under pressure.

As much as I am not Lando's biggest fan I will say that we see a lot of other drivers have similarly bad moods when they know they are not where they should be. So I don't think he's special for that. Do I care for his particular brand of complaining? No I don't, but whatever.

Charles is in a very different place this weekend, best spot he's been in all year so I don't think this is the most charitable comparison. Now it's also different from when Charles has a bad weekend but they are different people.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Lando is far from an overtaking expert and the mclaren still doesn't love dirty air. at the bare minimum the Mercs will hold him up. I think most likely Max gets the jump on him in the first few laps(idk about Max keeping the place but I think he will get ahead at one point)

I don't really care to dive too much into his mentality/mental health or anything. There is only so much you can tell from interviews and everyone expresses themselves differently. I care more about the words he says(which have been pretty consistent so far this season I will add) But those seem to be broad conclusions to draw from some interviews. I don't necessarily think you're wrong but saying someone will lose WDC based on a few interview clips seems a bit of a reach.

That and I just do not know enough about Lando and how he is to comment much further.

[mechanical-sunchild]

Reasonable doubt versus fakeclaiming (or just being a jerk) RE: physical nonhumanity

{Long, no 'tl;dr'}

My first exposure to the general idea of otherkin and therian was through 'antis'. It's easy to paint anti's as people who simply do not like us, or do not like to believe in things outside of a narrow scope of realness. Ineloquent and without any thought into what they're against. They hate us because they think we are 'cringe' and that's that.

"If anti's just tried to understand us, they'd agree with us!"

The fact is, as someone who was in antikin etc circles as a lurker, these anti's do in fact look into otherkinism and therianthropy before they decide they disagree with it. Many do not start discourse about it, but some feel it is their duty to do so either in an hostile and calm manner (which amount to much the same thing, fakeclaiming the entire concept of nonhumanity or even alterhumanity in a broader scope, though the concentration is usually on otherkin and therians) due to the perceived 'dangers' of nonhumanity and how even we must be protected from ourselves or the idea that the illogical must always be corrected or they are helping us in some way etc etc.

I have seen essays - well thought out essays against nonhumanity. Ones that pull upon logic, science, sociology, potential 'dangers' of nonhuman identities as well as events in our community that have been negative or shown dangerous behaviours and mindsets in order to portray their case. This is what got me, because it seemed completely founded in genuine concern and facts. It was especially compelling when against fictionkin, whose existence is still debated amongst some due to the 'fantastical' nature of being something which in this world has been created by another person and therefore 'was never real' etc.

The same essays, with many of the same emotional and logic appealing points, I can now find against physical nonhumanity.

The only difference is that for antis to the general concept of otherkin/therian etc are usually not part of those communities (or closeted and self-hating like I was). The majority of pressure against physical nonhumans is instead being applied by those within the community itself. This hurts a lot more, and some would argue that our feelings don't matter in the grand scope of things. Personally, I feel that the happiness felt by physical nonhumans for embracing that part of our identity is infact invaluable. But I digress.

I think the issue is that we never really sat down as a community and discussed what kind of behaviour is acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to casting reasonable doubt on a new (or newish/usually not talked about) topic and there is little to not reprecussions to being a huge dickhead to anyone who is part of a niche 'out' group which it is currently popular and acceptable to fakeclaim and insult as incorrect and potentially dangerous (for that emotional ploy).

Science and logic can in fact be applied to nonhumanity of any kind, but it gets to a point where using it to completely dispprove the lived experiences of a group is using it as a bludgeoning weapon, not as a tool to better understand a new phenomenom.

Of course it is natural and understandable that one sees claims of others being physically nonhuman and doesn't understand how this can be so. Our physical self is, generally, observable or at least testable (in terms of DNA, which is not visible but can be tested). But if your intention when engaging with 'the discourse' is just to prove without a shadow of a doubt that physical nonhumans are bad eggs -who are not experiencing anything actually real - and therefore should not be included within the community. Even insofar as changing how we define certain things to include them - you are just fakeclaiming and perhaps being a dick about it too. No matter how much you think you are being a decent reasonable person.

I have also observed behaviour from the physical nonhuman community which will, also understandably, cause many to go on guard (a rise in those claiming to be physical shifters for example). Sometimes the way a physical nonhuman might express what they mean or reply in defence to what is or is perceived to be an attack can result in them acting stubborn, illogical and seemingly subversive for the sake of being subversive which rubs some people wrong. Just straight up hostile to even polite questions sometimes, whilst they say things which seem to make absolutely no measurably logical sense even by nonhuman standards and thus would prompt curiousity.

In other words, I'm not saying that physical nonhumans are perfect conversationalists on the topic either! Many of us do not or can not deal with being relentlessly questions and it is much easier to simply get defensive about it or dismiss what others are saying even when they're being polite. With the level of hostility that usually occurs colouring our expectations, the conversations become fights in no time.

Example conversations!

A. "Woof woof I am literally a dog right now! I am literally physically a dog, I literally have paws and a tail rn lol woof arf!" B. "Um you actually can't be physically a dog. A physical dog would not be able to type or post on Tumblr and if someone looked at you they would see a human not a dog. Being a therian means NON-PHYSICAL belief in being an animal, you are either delusional or spreading dangerous p-shifting ideas. How can you possibly have actual paws and a tail when that is impossible? If you don't mean it literally then don't use that word, the word literally and physical have actual meanings which cannot possibly be applied to you right now. You should call it {this} or {that} instead which is more accurate. Failure to agree with me means you exist in an echo chamber and are trying to be more special than other nonhumans." A. "I am physically a dog though, you hater, why are you trying to exclude me? I am biting you with my literal muzzle and teeth and there's nothing you can do about it, you anti. Everyone block this guy they hate physical nonhumans!"

Result: In both of these cases A and B are not opening a good conversation here. B was way too hostile and has clearly already made their mind up that physical nonhumans are unintelligent and incorrect about their identities. The questions therefore are insincere. They are obstinate and therefore just looking for an argument. A in the same way may be tired of being told they aren't what they say they are, and in being provoked to reply has decided to fight fire with fire whilst still maintaining a silly and illogical seeming persona. This gives the impression to B that they are right and B would likely go on to express how 'rude' physical nonhumans are and how 'just being curious and wanting things to make logical sense' got them insulted.

Let's see an alternate version in which A replied differently:

A: "Oh I was mostly being silly in this post! I am physically nonhuman though. I use that term because I/'m {specific physical nonhuman reasoning/origin/belief}. What that means to me is {detailed explanation of what that means} and I experience it like {explanation of how it feels}. Other terms do not accurately describe my experience, so I use the words which do."

They might also say: "I don't really know how/have the spoons to etc explain physical nonhumanity to you, but if you look in the tags you might find something which explains it to you or maybe someone else on this post can - sorry!"

Or some combination. In this case, they're doing their best to explain their side of the story. They shouldn't have to add that they 'know it's not real' or defend themselves against being called delusional or dangerous, but might do so which also might give B more fuel. In fact, B may very well still reply with hostility and continue to rehash what they've said before until A is either equally rude or quits the conversation entirely - both options resulting in B still feeling right.

Alternatively, B could listen to A and even if they don't personally believe what A said, thank them for explaining it and move on possibly checking out what more physical nonhumans are saying to gather a better wider picture of why people identify this way and what it means to them.

A really great conversation might go like this:

A: "Woof woof I am literally a dog right now! I am literally physically a dog, I literally have paws and a tail rn lol woof arf!" B: "I'm genuinely curious because I was always told that being physically your theriotype is impossible and it doesn't seem logical to me, what do you mean when you say you're physically a dog? What does that mean to you? I would like to learn more about physical therians." A: "I'm physically nonhuman because {personal reason going in to as much depth as they please}. There are other reasons too, if you check the tags you'll find a lot of physical nonhumans talking about themselves which might help you understand the wide scope of experiences." B: "Cool, thanks, I'll do that. Can I just ask how this is different from p-shifting which I know has led to-" The conversation could go on a long time, providing that A has the knowledge and energy, with B asking the questions they're more curious about. B might also want to go to other physical nonhumans with their questions to continue establishing a bigger picture. It also could be more polite for B to ask if it's ok to ask questions first before proceeding to do so. B could also make a post asking physical nonhumans if it's okay to ask them some questions. A must also endeavour to take B's questions in good faith until B actually starts being aggressive, and not reply in the defensive immidiately.

The key is that the questioner should be receptive to the topic and not merely trying to dispprove that one can be physically nonhuman. They might have to accept that the term 'physical' is being applied to experiences which also edge on the mental and spiritual but are so wrapped up in the physical for those who experience it that this is their chosen word. The questionee must also accept that not everyone asks questions with tact, that questioning an experience you're unfamiliar with is natural and not hostile by nature and that others will only understand us if we endeavour to explain. In fact, explaining to others and talking amongst ourselves can help solidify and evolve what physical nonhumanity is/is understood to be.

In other words, like how antis may come around to the idea of otherkin and therians etc despite not really understanding or believing us, because they at least understand why and how we experience our identities and that we're actually not harmful to ourselves or others - so can the community start to understand physical nonhumanity. The effort to get there comes from both sides. 'Grilling' is not a good tactic. Polite questioning and leaving someone be if they don't want to be questioned is.

Yes, absolutely cast doubt on anyone saying they can teach others to shapeshift, are shapeshifting themselves (especially if they say they are particularly special for some reason) or are trying to act like physical nonhumans are some elite group better than or different from everyone else.

And yes, absolutely do not just blindly believe anything you hear. Be curious, but learn to ask questions not make accusations. In return, hopefully physical nonhumans will react less defensively as they feel they are yet again just being told that they are not real and perhaps shouldn't talk about their experience because of it.

I'm sure someone else could give a much better example of the difference between reasonable questioning and just being a dick and if you can please do add them here.

Thank you if you got this far.

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

[kaiist]

𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐌𝐄. ∘ㅤKaisa / Kai ∘ㅤNineteen ( 19 ) ∘ㅤShe / Her ( AFAB ) ∘ㅤSoutheast Asian / Latina ∘ㅤINFP ∘ㅤPsychology Major

𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐒. ∘ㅤBeen hallucinating on writing apps since middle school, lmao. ∘ㅤLong-time fan and new player of LADS. ∘ㅤ2nd Hunter ID: 81003339871 ∘ㅤI am, sadly, a F2P player. Screaming, crying, kicking the air. ∘ㅤErm, pleaaase do not ask for my main account Hunter ID. Not for bad reasons, really! Just because I used my real name... (╥﹏╥)

𝐑𝐔𝐋𝐄𝐒. ∘ㅤDo not spread any hate and discourse into my blog. ∘ㅤDo not spam likes. ∘ㅤNo minors. It is an 18+ blog. ∘ㅤNo blank/untitled blogs. ∘ㅤDo not copy, repost, or translate to other platforms. ∘ㅤYou are a terrible human being overall (islamophobes, homophobes, zionist, etc.) ― It is an immediate block.

𝐁𝐄𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓. ∘ㅤLove and Deepspace-centered blog. ∘ㅤNot spoiler-free. ∘ㅤI write for female/afab (she/her) readers only. Focused on MC!Reader in mind. ∘ㅤI write mostly SFW. I might slip NSFW once in a while, maybe. ∘ㅤEnglish is not my native language. I apologize in advance for grammar mistakes and errors. ∘ㅤReblogs are very much appreciated. ∘ㅤRequests are welcomed, although I am selective depending on the mood. ∘ㅤIf you think my prompts for the headcanons/reactions are similar to that one Jujutsu Kaisen blog―yes, I am the same writer ^^

𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈 𝐖𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐄. ∘ㅤFemale readers (she/her). ∘ㅤMC!Readers in mind. ∘ㅤNo specific type of reader (gender, ethnicity, appearance, personality, etc.) ∘ㅤNo cheating. ∘ㅤNo mental health/illness. ∘ㅤNo sensitive issues/topics. ∘ㅤOpen to any topics if it is not a request.

𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐒. ∘ㅤI am always open to requests and typically work on them in the order I receive them. If your request takes some time, it’s likely because I am either still working on it or have chosen to skip it due to lack of inspiration or I just don’t want to. If a request particularly interests me, I may prioritize it sooner. ∘ㅤYou’re welcome to send requests anytime, but just know I’m also working on my own drafts and projects, so I can’t promise I’ll get to everything. ∘ㅤI usually write general scenarios or reactions, but if you have a more specific and detailed idea in mind, feel free to request a fic or mini-series instead. ∘ㅤBefore you send in any requests, I’d like to emphasize that; ㅤㅤ⤷ I write with MC in mind—not for specific reader types (gender, ethnicity, appearance, personality, traits, etc.). ㅤㅤ⤷ I write only for female readers / AFAB / she/her pronouns. (I do not feel comfortable writing for identities I might misinterpret). ㅤㅤ⤷ No personalization requests (e.g., “make the MC look/act like me” or “adjust the MC’s story to fit a specific reader”). ㅤㅤ⤷ I do not write topics involving cheating, mental health issues, or sensitive/triggering subjects. ㅤㅤ⤷ Requests are accepted only if they align with my writing style. ㅤㅤ⤷ If a request falls outside these boundaries, it will be ignored. ∘ㅤI primarily create SFW content. But if you engage with any NSFW-tagged contents without a visible indicator that you’re an adult—followers or not—I will have to hard block you. Please, respect these boundaries I’ve set in my blog.

𝐓𝐀𝐆𝐒. ∘ㅤControl Command. ⋯ Navigation posts. ∘ㅤCaptain’s Log. ⋯ My personal rants, thoughts, etc. ∘ㅤData Scan. ⋯ Reblogs (personal commentaries) ∘ㅤData Stream. ⋯ Reblog (others) ∘ㅤEchoes. ⋯ Requests. ∘ㅤMission Report. ⋯ My writings. ㅤㅤ⤷ Sparks. ⋯ Drabbles. ㅤㅤ⤷ Mindwaves. ⋯ Headcanons/Scenarios/Reactions. ㅤㅤ⤷ Dossiers. ⋯ Fics. ㅤㅤ⤷ Odyssey. ⋯ Series. ∘ㅤEncrypted Messages. ⋯ My inbox. ∘ㅤOrbiting [Character Name]. ⋯ Sections for each LIs. ㅤㅤ⤷ Xavier. ㅤㅤ⤷ Zayne. ㅤㅤ⤷ Rafayel. ㅤㅤ⤷ Sylus. ㅤㅤ⤷ Caleb. ∘ㅤFull Orbit. ⋯ Section for all LIs at once. ∘ㅤClassified Intel. ⋯ Spoilers. ∘ㅤRestricted Zone. ⋯ 18+ contents. ― Filter tags accordingly. Include the ∞ (infinity) at the beginning and . (dot) at the end.

⍣ ೋ 𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓. ∘‎ㅤSince you must have scrolled through the post, I expect you to already read the rules. Violating the rules means you are ready to be blocked.

[agender-witchery]

I played through The Coffin of Andy and Leyley recently, and as with all games I play, I took to reddit to go and see what sorts of discussions people have about the thing I just read. Normally this is largely uneventful, I'll engage in some discussion, come out happy, usual things.

TCOAAL has way too much fucking incest for these discussions to ever be normal. Like that's just part of what the game's about? But because it's such an amazingly divisive topic, like a ton of people moralize over it, there's a subgenre of incest discourse around the game where the subject of discussion is that group of people who moralize about the game. And this creates a lot of weird arguments.

There are a lot of different kinds of weird arguments here, from people who lie and say it's only in the optional dream in the burial route (it's not) to people who just downplay it and say that the game isn't about incest (it is, it's just also about other things), to people who say that the game condemns incest (the game does not present an opinion one way or another).

And like, these arguments all have one thing in common, the people making them feel the need to save face in some way, make both the game and their discussion about it more respectable in the eyes of people who think we should never depict bad things in media ever. And so I wanna talk about the last thing, about how the game supposedly condemns incest, because even among the people who are most honest in their discussion of this game, this still gets thrown around a lot.

I don't think TCOAAL endorses incest, I don't think it endorses anything, but it doesn't really condemn them either. This goes for all of it, whether it's murder, cannibalism, incest, or whatever else they do. As far as the text is concerned, these things are presented value neutral and just kind of trusts the reader to implicitly understand that they shouldn't go around fucking their sister and murdering their parents. I don't think that's an argument the game has to make. There are some out of game sources that make that argument, but I do not think the game's about section on Steam counts as part of the text. The closest the game comes to having an opinion presented in the text is that sometimes Andrew acknowledges that what they're doing is fucked up, but that sure doesn't stop him, does it?

And that's kind of what makes the game so fascinating to me. This is a game about incest and manipulation and a horrifically abusive codependent sibling relationship and the ways in which these two maladjusted fuck ups react to the most vile shit possible, from their perspective. Like, I'll make a joke like "God I wish Ashley was my sister" but gonna be honest, if she really was, I would be trying my best to get the fuck out of there. And it is fascinating that Andrew doesn't. The way these two people absolutely need each other, that murder and cannibalism can't be deal breakers for Andrew, that they're valid solutions to problems for Ashley, the way in which these two idiots are so deeply fucked up and the way they react to being fucked up is just... why else would I have continued reading past the first episode? Stick them in a test tube and examine them kinda deal. You just can't really discuss this game in as much detail as it deserves if you just sweep the incest off to the side and pretend it isn't there.

So it's weird to me that people who talk about the game wanna downplay the incest, because to be completely honest, the game doesn't work without it, and anyone who enjoys the game enjoyed the incest, because it turns out this is a horror game and the incest is part of the horror.

[transfemme-shelterdog]

On the kink discourse: //CSA mention, suicidal ideation mention, OCD guilt + shame

Ageplay is another one of those really stigmatized kinks that people hate on even if both parties are consenting (because obviously there has to be some kind of abuse dynamic going on. demonization the Dom as well)

This is something that I've never admitted to in my life, but I love CG/L dynamics. I didn't really have a choice in developing it; I involuntarily age-regress and because of sexual abuse I faced as a child from my father, my brain has crossed wires and made it so whenever I (once again, involuntarily and usually because of a trigger) age-regress, my mind goes into a sexual space (subspace/littlespace). Or if I am in a sexual situation, my brain will cause me to age-regress as a coping mechanism.

For a long time I was ashamed of this, even to the point of getting rid of or hiding comfort items I would use during regression because I wanted it to feel as horrible as possible so it would stop happening (at least, that was my logic). I, at one point, had tried to get into SFW age-regression spaces but upon seeing the sometimes vitriolic reaction they had to CG/L people existing at all made me feel like I was unwelcome because of the unwanted feelings age-regression brought out in me. I ended up leaving those spaces because I felt so guilty that it was making me suicidal (I have Moral OCD, for reference). My brain was a constant stream of 'I'm sorry. I know I'm bad. I don't want this either. I want to be normal. Why am I so broken?' (This isn't to say that SFW age-regression spaces can't be a thing, I just wish there was more empathy for people in situations like mine)

It wasn't until I realized that I was acting in the same neglectful way towards myself that my parent's acted when I was a kid that I started being more gentle with myself. I still feel a lot of guilt and shame regarding this (which is why I'm on anon even while logged in to my kink blog. just having this blog has helped immensely with it, but it's still a work in progress).

(Also, I just want to say that I love your blog a lot. I love the nuance you give to lots of topics. It's oddly reassuring when I'm getting trapped in the OCD thought spirals about being a bad person)

You're more than welcome Anon. You're not a bad person for having agere coping mechanisms, and I hope you realize that. Everyone copes with trauma in their own ways, and no way is more or more less valid than another. It's neither morally good, nor bad to cope the way you are, and that means that you have all the right to do whatever helps with your trauma best.

You're a good person, and deserving of love and support. I hope you know that sweetheart.

Agere all you want and all you need, I'll always be here to defend and support you. <3

[pizzaronipasta]

READ THIS BEFORE INTERACTING

Alright, I know I said I wasn't going to touch this topic again, but my inbox is filling up with asks from people who clearly didn't read everything I said, so I'm making a pinned post to explain my stance on AI in full, but especially in the context of disability. Read this post in its entirety before interacting with me on this topic, lest you make a fool of yourself.

AI Doesn't Steal

Before I address people's misinterpretations of what I've said, there is something I need to preface with. The overwhelming majority of AI discourse on social media is argued based on a faulty premise: that generative AI models "steal" from artists. There are several problems with this premise. The first and most important one is that this simply isn't how AI works. Contrary to popular misinformation, generative AI does not simply take pieces of existing works and paste them together to produce its output. Not a single byte of pre-existing material is stored anywhere in an AI's system. What's really going on is honestly a lot more sinister.

How It Actually Works

In reality, AI models are made by initializing and then training something called a neural network. Initializing the network simply consists of setting up a multitude of nodes arranged in "layers," with each node in each layer being connected to every node in the next layer. When prompted with input, a neural network will propagate the input data through itself, layer by layer, transforming it along the way until the final layer yields the network's output. This is directly based on the way organic nervous systems work, hence the name "neural network." The process of training a network consists of giving it an example prompt, comparing the resulting output with an expected correct answer, and tweaking the strengths of the network's connections so that its output is closer to what is expected. This is repeated until the network can adequately provide output for all prompts. This is exactly how your brain learns; upon detecting stimuli, neurons will propagate signals from one to the next in order to enact a response, and the connections between those neurons will be adjusted based on how close the outcome was to whatever was anticipated. In the case of both organic and artificial neural networks, you'll notice that no part of the process involves directly storing anything that was shown to it. It is possible, especially in the case of organic brains, for a neural network to be configured such that it can produce a decently close approximation of something it was trained on; however, it is crucial to note that this behavior is extremely undesirable in generative AI, since that would just be using a wasteful amount of computational resources for a very simple task. It's called "overfitting" in this context, and it's avoided like the plague.

The sinister part lies in where the training data comes from. Companies which make generative AI models are held to a very low standard of accountability when it comes to sourcing and handling training data, and it shows. These companies usually just scrape data from the internet indiscriminately, which inevitably results in the collection of people's personal information. This sensitive data is not kept very secure once it's been scraped and placed in easy-to-parse centralized databases. Fortunately, these issues could be solved with the most basic of regulations. The only reason we haven't already solved them is because people are demonizing the products rather than the companies behind them. Getting up in arms over a type of computer program does nothing, and this diversion is being taken advantage of by bad actors, who could be rendered impotent with basic accountability. Other issues surrounding AI are exactly the same way. For example, attempts to replace artists in their jobs are the result of under-regulated businesses and weak worker's rights protections, and we're already seeing very promising efforts to combat this just by holding the bad actors accountable. Generative AI is a tool, not an agent, and the sooner people realize this, the sooner and more effectively they can combat its abuse.

Y'all Are Being Snobs

Now I've debunked the idea that generative AI just pastes together pieces of existing works. But what if that were how it worked? Putting together pieces of existing works... hmm, why does that sound familiar? Ah, yes, because it is, verbatim, the definition of collage. For over a century, collage has been recognized as a perfectly valid art form, and not plagiarism. Furthermore, in collage, crediting sources is not viewed as a requirement, only a courtesy. Therefore, if generative AI worked how most people think it works, it would simply be a form of collage. Not theft.

Some might not be satisfied with that reasoning. Some may claim that AI cannot be artistic because the AI has no intent, no creative vision, and nothing to express. There is a metaphysical argument to be made against this, but I won't bother making it. I don't need to, because the AI is not the artist. Maybe someday an artificial general intelligence could have the autonomy and ostensible sentience to make art on its own, but such things are mere science fiction in the present day. Currently, generative AI completely lacks autonomy—it is only capable of making whatever it is told to, as accurate to the prompt as it can manage. Generative AI is a tool. A sculpture made by 3D printing a digital model is no less a sculpture just because an automatic machine gave it physical form. An artist designed the sculpture, and used a tool to make it real. Likewise, a digital artist is completely valid in having an AI realize the image they designed.

Some may claim that AI isn't artistic because it doesn't require effort. By that logic, photography isn't art, since all you do is point a camera at something that already looks nice, fiddle with some dials, and press a button. This argument has never been anything more than snobbish gatekeeping, and I won't entertain it any further. All art is art. Besides, getting an AI to make something that looks how you want can be quite the ordeal, involving a great amount of trial and error. I don't speak from experience on that, but you've probably seen what AI image generators' first drafts tend to look like.

AI art is art.

Disability and Accessibility

Now that that's out of the way, I can finally move on to clarifying what people keep misinterpreting.

I Never Said That

First of all, despite what people keep claiming, I have never said that disabled people need AI in order to make art. In fact, I specifically said the opposite several times. What I have said is that AI can better enable some people to make the art they want to in the way they want to. Second of all, also despite what people keep claiming, I never said that AI is anyone's only option. Again, I specifically said the opposite multiple times. I am well aware that there are myriad tools available to aid the physically disabled in all manner of artistic pursuits. What I have argued is that AI is just as valid a tool as those other, longer-established ones.

In case anyone doubts me, here are all the posts I made in the discussion in question: Reblog chain 1 Reblog chain 2 Reblog chain 3 Reblog chain 4 Potentially relevant ask

I acknowledge that some of my earlier responses in that conversation were poorly worded and could potentially lead to a little confusion. However, I ended up clarifying everything so many times that the only good faith explanation I can think of for these wild misinterpretations is that people were seeing my arguments largely out of context. Now, though, I don't want to see any more straw men around here. You have no excuse, there's a convenient list of links to everything I said. As of posting this, I will ridicule anyone who ignores it and sends more hate mail. You have no one to blame but yourself for your poor reading comprehension.

What Prompted Me to Start Arguing in the First Place

There is one more thing that people kept misinterpreting, and it saddens me far more than anything else in this situation. It was sort of a culmination of both the things I already mentioned. Several people, notably including the one I was arguing with, have insisted that I'm trying to talk over physically disabled people.

Read the posts again. Notice how the original post was speaking for "everyone" in saying that AI isn't helpful. It doesn't take clairvoyance to realize that someone will find it helpful. That someone was being spoken over, before I ever said a word.

So I stepped in, and tried to oppose the OP on their universal claim. Lo and behold, they ended up saying that I'm the one talking over people.

Along the way, people started posting straight-up inspiration porn.

I hope you can understand where my uncharacteristic hostility came from in that argument.

[maddiem4]

Well, I wanna be working on a novel right now, but apparently it's time to make a certain kind of post again, as is periodically necessary, because young queer folk keep trying to reinvent the Hayes Code for a variety of misguided reasons. So you know what? Let me lead with the TLDR, and then give my reasoning. If you DNI stuff like incest, I am not just going to unfollow you, I am going to block you.

Now, if you're the type to make assumptions, you might be surprised to hear that I'm not into incest. Sorry to disappoint. Well, unless you count selfcest, but people don't usually lump those together except by technicality. But incest is really not my thing.

That said, I have mutuals who are into it, and harmless about it. Whether it's fictional, RP, or consensual, it's not my business and it hurts nobody. Get used to those words, they're gonna be a mantra here. Further, I've seen how Hayes Queers (hey, I needed a term for them) talk about harmless members of their own community who give them The Ick. The post I'm writing here is a direct reaction to seeing a Hayes Queer post from someone I followed! Reading that, and the comments on it. And lemme tell you: y'all are very quick to throw your peers under the bus with the exact same logic (respectability politics, personal disgust, "making a bad name for us as a larger group", lurking threat to our moral purity) that the conservatives are using to argue for the mass extermination of queer folk. You are bringing pitchforks and tiki torches to the party. So no, I am not going to give you access to my vulnerable mutuals. That's the heart of it. You are a danger to your community, and I'm going to limit the scope of harm you can do. The broader queer/kink communities have worked hard to define harm more carefully than "well I just personally think it's gross." Scat and piss are gross to me, but my mutuals who are into those things do still deserve love and safety, not to be sacrificed on an altar of conservative family values for imaginary "one of the good ones" points. I have a responsibility to look out for my people. So do you, FYI.

So here's the recipe for living online with people whose kinks aren't your business and hurt nobody: learn to scroll past those posts or block those tags, or even block that person. Be an adult. The world does not exist to be personally palatable to you. You are not being harmed, you're being inconvenienced. If you can't handle that, you're the one bringing real-world (rather than imagined) danger to your community. Fuck's sake.

This also finally convinced me to look up what "proshipper" means after seeing it in discourse for years, these dreaded dangerous devils who apparently must be purged from the internet, and... holy fuck, how is this contentious? It literally just means you can disagree about fandom pairings without harassing people? That's just mature behavior in a shared space. That's what the argument is about? Oh my god. If you're arguing about this in 2024, your Aunt Maddie is fully ashamed of you for real.

The dumbest part is that people get doxxed for saying the stuff I'm saying, and maybe it'll happen to me. Guess I'll roll the dice. Which comes full circle: if you're looking at this post and trying to decide how to punish me for it IRL, you are literally being the danger. Stop and think for 30 milliseconds. Maybe I have a point that you are a bigger threat than two trans girls who like to pretend to be sisters for sex reasons. And I don't wanna hear no trauma excuses from any of you little monkeys, fetishes come from trauma a decent percentage of the time, so a lot of the people you're persecuting are victims of the same kind of assault as you.

This is more words than I ever should have to write about a self-evident topic. I know if you're young enough and still figuring out a lot of life stuff from scratch, it may not be self-evident to you. But hopefully it is now before you fucking hurt somebody. Thanks.

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

Hi! I appreciate you mentioning that the way jm and jk got their success is different. There is a lot of people from any side of the fandom that like to compare jm and jk success to the rest and to pretend they are both being pushed by the company when the way their career has been handled so far is not the same at all. I've seen this narrative going aroound a lot. I mean maybe it probably makes them feel better to think jimin success is due to him being the company fave.

The members success was not the same in chap1 so i don't know why armys thought it would suddenly change for solo era.

Thanks, I guess. Lol.

I was just pointing out the obvious and it's certainly not the first time I talked about this, but it has been a while since I mentioned anything on the topic.

Of course the solo career path has started differently and perhaps will continue that way as well. By that I mean, concepts, what each wanted out of their solo music, the specifics of album rollout, label involvement, fan and public perception/reception, press discourse, fandom narratives, etc.

Regardless on what side a person positions themselves on, they'll see things from their own perspective. And that usually is a mix of facts, heavily biased opinions and on a more extreme (and common) side, worship, victimization, projection. There's a whole mix of opinions out there regarding career trajectory and it's a discourse that gets tiring very easily because it has no end and it can go round in circles really fast.

I've often been critical of radicalism and worship in fandom spaces. Including when it is about idols that I like. Perhaps even more in that case. I don't feel the need to fight and work daily for Jimin and Jungkook to become more succesful. I don't perform fan labor for free just because a music company under a big corporation still relies on that.

I liked Face. I liked SMFPt2 but not the autotune. I think Like Crazy is Jimin's best song, but the music video was unimpressive and looked liked they ran out of budget for party scenes. I didn't like Seven and it still annoys me cause the chorus gets stuck in my head, but I really liked the music video. I had the same reaction to 3D, but damn I did fell for the choreo and the early 2000s-inspired sound. SNTY's mv concept was completely ridiculous, but it's a well produced song and it fitted Jungkook. Golden was a bad album overall and the negative reviews from music critics really showed why. I like Who in a way I like 90s Eurodance. I still listen to it. On repeat. Looping because I don't care about streaming rules. I thought SGMB was a fun concept but I haven't listened to that song since its release. I think Muse was a mediocre album and at its basics, with no real cohesive concept and too generic in a way that makes it closer to whatever they tried to frame Golden as. I think Who should have been a single and that's it.

Why have I listed all that? Because I will never get to the point where I will believe that everything my favorite idol does and the music he puts out is some masterpiece and how I should work tiredlessly for him to reach unimaginable levels of success.

There is nothing unusual in me pointing out that Jimin and Jungkook have reached success in different ways because that is a fact. I don't have any agenda that would make me lie about it or to try and equate it for some ridiculous reason. Yes, they are highly succesful compared to the other people in bts and compared to other idols in the industry. But that success can be measured differently depending on a variety of elements, situations that took place, fan filtered theories and overall context.

Lastly, what I do want to point out is that first and foremost I'm a fan. In the simple, classic understanding of the term. Not a worker, not a worshipper. When I like an artist/group/band/idol, I like them for their music and for them as people. Their level of success (whatever that means to them and to the overall fanbase) is way less relevant than any other thing that is to be appreciated or given too much importance. That's my position and not a way in which I'm preaching what the acceptable one should be.

[pseudophan]

Do you have a lot of unanswered asks? And is there a type you ask you usually don't reply to?

well

obviously this is years worth bc i never clear out my inbox, but i think i had about 72-75k unanswered asks when dapg came back so that's 10k+ in the past year. realistically i know i can't actually reply to all of them but i still feel bad like oh god this is so much worse than my unread emails. i could definitely reply to more than i do though still i just suck very bad

idk if there's a specific type of ask i don't reply to, i guess perhaps anything that i know will start discourse i'm not really interested in having lmao. that's not to say i have anything against the asks themselves though like i'm allll for people bitching about things in my inbox i love reading it i just often don't post it to avoid the inevitable drama

also omg i always feel awful for this but i have a tendency to answer an ask while technically being busy doing something else, and then i get like ten new asks from people adding onto that topic and they're usually very well thought out and interesting and long and i'm like oh god i can't keep replying because if i do i'll get even more asks about it and while i would love to have this conversation in theory i'm doing something else right now and dont actually have the time to keep this going so i just leave it at that one reply and feel So Bad bc people had a lot of interesting thoughts to contribute and took the time to write them down and now they're just sitting in my inbox like i'm so sorry

[fjorn-the-skald]

In one of your recent reblogs you said that "Rings worn on the finger, for example, have often played important roles in Norse legends." Could you please explain more on that?

I’ll have to scold my past self for that one. Not only did I leave the footnote for that statement lacking, but I think I made some assumptions. You see, the Norse usually didn’t distinguish between arm rings and, well, ‘normal’ rings. The same word, hringr, is used for both and only context (which is often lacking) tells us where it was worn.(1) Other words, like baugr, are also used for both bracelets and rings—but with some extra baggage.(2) Some sources use the more specific fingrgull (let. finger-gold), but that really isn’t helpful.(3)

All of that is to say: when my past, less-experienced self said “rings worn on the finger,” I wasn’t looking carefully at the Old Norse in question. As for the legends I referred to in my footnote for that claim, The Saga of King Hrolf Kraki and Otter’s Ransom (contained within The Saga of the Volsungs)—the ‘original’ texts (let’s not even get into manuscript variation, please) both use hringr.(4) With that out of the way, though, I can go a little deeper into the translations (because, let’s face it, my Old Norse isn’t good enough for that level of an in-depth take for this question).

The Ring in Chapter 7 and 8 of The Saga of Hrolf Kraki(5)

This particular passage is a bit too long for me to share it in full. I was tempted, but I don’t want any trouble coming my way from posting too much. That said, I’ll quote the important bits and summarize the rest:

“A ring owned by King Helgi was a widely famed treasure.”

—but his brother, King Hroar, wants it.

“I want the ring, the one that is the best treasure in your possession and that both of us would like to own.”

You’d think trouble would start here, but the brothers settle things amicably—that is, until this guy comes around:

“Next came the news that Jarl Saevil had died and that his son Hrok had then assumed rule. Hrok was a cruel and exceptionally greedy man.”

Remember the “exceptionally greedy” part for the end of my answer. It’s important. But anyway, he ends up being goaded by his mother (another large topic in Norse discourse) to demand a reward from King Helgi for helping him and his brother get vengeance for their father. The only problem? He’s ridiculous.

“He demanded a third of the Danish kingdom or the great ring.”

King Helgi tells him to f*** off. Of course he won’t give such a large slice of his hard-earned kingdom to this loser, but he also shrugs off the whole ring thing with a simple “my bro has it now.” So Hrok goes to Hroar next, obviously. Here’s how that one goes:

“The king responded, ‘I have given so much to get this ring that I will by no means part with it.’

Naturally.

Hrok said, ‘Then you must allow me to look at it, as I am very curious to know whether the ring is as much of a treasure as is claimed.’

Suspicious?

‘That is a small thing to do for you,’ said Hroar, ‘and I will certainly let you look at it.’ He then produced the ring for Hrok to see.

Bad move.

“For a while Hrok studied the ring, declaring finally that there was no possibility of exaggeration when describing it. ‘I have never seen a comparable treasure, and the reason you esteem the ring so highly is obvious. The best solution, it seems to me, is that neither of us, or, for that matter, anyone else should enjoy it.’ He then threw the ring as far out as he could into the sea.”

A bunch of violence, death, and vengeance follows. You know, the good stuff.

The Ring in Chapter 14 of The Saga of the Volsungs(6)

“Loki saw all the gold that Andvari owned. And after he had taken all of it, Andvari still had one single ring, and Loki took that from him as well. The dwarf then hid inside a stone and said that this ring and the gold would cause the death of everyone who owned it.”

In both cases, the ring in question is never explicitly said to be “worn on the finger.” That’s my (past) bad. But, to be honest, it doesn’t really matter here? If we put ourselves in a Norse mindset, a ring is a ring no matter where it is worn. Unless a specific placement is mentioned, I don’t think we’re supposed to care about that. What mattered more, I deem, was the material (gold vs silver), design (size and intricacy probably mattered), and source (i.e. former owner) of the ring.

As for the “important roles” they played in Norse legends, it kind of depends. Norse rings typically embody one’s status (wealth, resources, position) or social relationships (connections to other powerful people, places, etc.). In the case of the legends recounted above, however, they both act as symbols of greed (at the surface level); but there’s an important commentary being made when you put those two things together (aka look a bit deeper): the authors of these later medieval sagas used stories with old roots and objects everyone would be familiar with to show that these rings (and social structures) destroy bonds as much, if not more than, they create them.

But that’s just my personal take.

I hope that clears things up a little, though, my anonymous friend! If not, feel free to send another ask. There’s a lot to say about Norse rings, but I’d rather not write a giant essay all at once (anymore).

— fjörn

Footnotes

To be clear, this word is used for literally anything ring-shaped.

This term, baugr, is usually used in the context of money, kings, and the ‘gift-giving’ economy. The function of a ring described with this particular word, then, is even more transactional. To share a quote from an article: “The term baugr proves the existence of a special type of fee or wage for particular persons who were retainers (and maybe poets?) of the king or ruler. The baugr itself was only awarded by the ruler himself.” See Antje Wendt, “Viking Age Gold Rings and the Question of ‘Gefolgschaft’,” Lund Archaeological Review 13-14 (2008): 75-90.

I say “not helpful” because this term, while interesting, is used far less often than the more common hringr or baugr.

For the ring in The Saga of Hrolf Kraki (chapters 7-8): “Helgi konungr átti hring…” and The Saga of the Volsungs (chapter 14) : “…er hann hafði fram reitt gullið þá hafði hann eftir einn hring…” Although I obtained these versions from an Icelandic site (snerpa.is), I think it still satisfies our needs for this discussion.

Jesse Byock trans., The Saga of King Hrolf Kraki (Penguin, 1998), 109-113 (chapters 7-8).

Jackson Crawford trans., The Saga of the Volsungs with The Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok (Hackett Publishing, 2017), 26 (chapter 14).

If I’m wrong about something, please call me out. Nicely, if possible—but always with sources.

Send Fjorn a tip for his toils?

[max1461]

I am, as usual, a counter-example to everyone's claims about higher education on all sides of the discourse, because I have a really weird academic history.

In summary: I was identified as a gifted kid at ~5 years old. Parents didn't act on that information because they didn't think accelerated classes would be good for me. Enrolled me in what I affectionately call a "hippy school", which I attended from 1st grade all the way through 12th grade. Before high school our work wasn't even graded, and homework was optional. The first time I ever had a piece of work graded I was 15 years old, in 9th grade, and it was terrifying. I don't remember what I got. Even in high school things were still incredibly chill and flexible, and grading was lenient. The first standardized test I ever took was the SAT.

As a kid, I had a hard time learning to read. I probably have undiagnosed dyslexia. Also, because my education was so flexible, the fact that I preferred to do other things over reading meant I got more practice at those other things, probably creating a bit of a vicious cycle. I liked math, and was good at it. When I got to high school, there were not enough math classes for me—this was more a consequence of the school being small than it being a hippy school. Nothing was offered above Calc 1. So I started studying math on my own. Actually I started studying math on my own before even taking Calc 1, because I didn't want to wait. I learned about complex numbers and some other stuff from YouTube lectures, but things really took off when I found out about proof-based math and started working through a copy of Herstein's Topics in Algebra in the summer before my junior year. I learned about groups, rings, fields and whatnot, how to write proofs, etc. I loved it and decided to major in math when I got to college.

I still couldn't read regular books at a rate much faster than a couple pages an hour, and I cheated on or blew off all my English assignments. I remain remorseless and regretless about this.

Around this same time I also discovered conlanging, and through that, linguistics. Somehow I started reading linguistics papers when I could find PDFs of them; I still don't really remember how this happened, in an episodic or theoretical sense. Like, I pretty much could not read, right? But I was reading linguistics papers? I think that I was skimming them + looking at the tables + way more interested in them than in books, so I was happy to spend a few hours on them. Plus papers are shorter than books. One way or another I learned a lot of linguistics, and decided I was going to major in linguistics when I got to college.

I was also struggling with some pretty bad mental health issues in my high school years, so a lot of it went by in a blur that I struggle to remember the details of.

I took the SAT three times, over the course of like a month? Or, I think the first two times were practice tests, administered in a realistic environment because I was taking an SAT prep class. I didn't pay much attention in that class, but getting used to the testing environment was kind of wild, because as mentioned, I'd never taken a test before. The first time I took the SAT, I scored dead average. The second time was ~200 points better (this is when the test was scored out of 2400), and the final time I took it I scored... 2100 or 2200? Something in there. I just remember that I got a perfect score on the reading comprehension section. I was a faster reader at that point, but more importantly the passages on the SAT were all short, so I had time to read them. And I guess my comprehension was good.

Other than the really bad mental illness, which had little to do with school itself, I enjoyed my high school years a lot and am glad I went to a hippy school. I think it was directly beneficial to my intellectual development to get to fuck around and place my intellectual energies where I wanted to place them, and I think it was good for my social development to get to blow off responsibilities with relative impunity as a 16 year old. I don't think I would have learned higher math if I had become accustomed to learning things in a spoon-fed way from an established curriculum.

Anyway, after all that, I got into a semi-elite college. I won't say much more so that I can't be doxxed. I had a plan to double major in math and linguistics, which I did. I was actually, before going, completely terrified of having real responsibilities for the first time, of actually having to go to class, actually having to do the homework, as the professor set it out, and not being able to just sort of talk my around the parts I didn't want to do. I had never had that experience before!

Miraculously, it went perfectly fine. I had basically no trouble adjusting to this new way of life, and ended up doing very well in college. I took a lot of hard math classes, and did well in all of them, and found that I greatly enjoyed the fast-paced, lots-of-work-and-lots-of-deadlines life (completely contrary to everything I had experienced up to that point). For this and other reasons, I enjoyed college even more than high school, and had a very good time there.

Uh. But yeah I still pretty much couldn't read, like, in the way other people read. I mostly still can't. In 2020 when I timed myself I was reading at 10 pages an hour but that pace was fucking painful, like it took all my concentration and exhausted me. Books my fucking nemesis. Also got a perfect score on the GRE reading comprehension section though.

[kustas]

really curious what you mean about custas’ identity (is not familiar with dunmeshi discourse)

the TLDR would be: headcanon isn't canon, character inspiration isn't canon, you can't assign blorbo from fantasy comic book with an entire closed culture without thinking it through, which the author did not

What I mean is people self convincing themselves that forms of minority representation in canon when it isn't. I've seen this in dungeon meshi regarding character sexuality but it's a manga with indepth character writing that already depicts these elements and the fans just... collectively gaslit themselves into selectively deciding canon stuff doesn't exist and making up new things? likely as informed copium because the sad truth is that gay rep in the manga is questionable at best.

and im seeing the attitude come up more with witch hat, to their credit it is absolutely a series concerned with positive media representation of minority groups when DM isn't, but fans are still out there repeating information that's straight up wrong. regarding custas: he's a brown kid and a traveller, that part is canon and undeniable. the author happened to mention this last year in a fan interview that his writing was inspired by minority groups including the Romani, which is lovely confirmation but kind of a "yeah, duh" when you see the character. and thus the telephone game began, from "he's rroma" (not exactly) to it including his father (never mentioned in the first place) and people are using that to advertise for the series nowadays on top of the usual telephone results of "my favorite ship means gay representation is real"

ultimately i should touch grass and this isn't a real problem but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, these are minority groups that have historically and still today faced extreme discrimination because of how real life society hates them and I believe if wha was indeed true to how people describe it it would be a bigger deal, bc wha is not a subtle series regarding how it mentions discrimination. it's also giving credit where credit isn't due to me. finally and this might be my hot take but as a fantasy fan i am really not fond of the "fantasy as a metaphor" regarding topics that to this day get people singled out and killed so I am pretty thankful the series "only" (in quotes bc i believe that what wha Does actually do is wonderful) uses real life inspiration for a lot of harsh topics and touches on RL stuff carefully and deliberately.

coding is a muddy thing

[potatooni]

There's no seperation between art and artist

Title says it all really. It's been a discourse that's been bothering me for a while now so here's the lowdown. The concept of seperating art from the artist is actually an analytical approach by wich a piece of art is essentially observed in a vacuum, meaning without the context of who made it; how it came to be; why it was made and in wich environment it was created, in order to discover another angle to it. Outside of this academic context it's absolutely impossible to seperate art and artist since they're ultimately fused together. Absolutely every single piece of art, even commercial ones and comission work, is intrinsically infused with the creators ideology, mind set, philosophy and experiences on a fundamental level. From the chosen subject matter to the approach to the technique there's never an aspect of art that doesn't have the creators unique fingerprints on it. Even the most wild and bizarre persona still contains loads of it's creator (Paul Reubens and PeeWee Herman for example weren't that different upon closer inspection). Or in other words: if you know someones art you know them, no matter how little they try to put of themselves into it. (Suck it Bo Burnham, everyone knows you like the back of their hand you pretentious shithead.) And before anyone is yelling "but Neil Gaiman..." THAT jackass is actually a perfect prime example for this issue. Now, first things first: outside of some comics he just happened to have written (mostly single issues of DC comics) and the Coraline movie I've never really interacted with this guy's work. I do however own a copy of Good Omens wich I randomly bought years ago and never read. So while I'm not super familiar with him I know for a fact, through happenstance aswell as having read some of his comic work, that Mr. Totally-Real-Feminist(TM) already roused alot of suspicion among many of his readers for the way he approached topics regarding female characters and female centric storytelling and the way he wrote about themes like rape and feminism aswell as female agency because it was always done in a somewhat exploitative and dismissive way, calling his supposed feminist allyship into question. So even if it's in the details, an artist is ALWAYS infusing themselves into their work in one form or another. ALWAYS. So why am I going on about this? Simple: there's too many fucktards out there who're basicly like "oh yes the creator is evil but I don't condone it so it's fine to still consume the work and buy the merch" wich really is a massive load of intellectual dishonesty right there. It's essentially those people saying that they aknowledge the bad things but also don't really care. That's like.... virtue signaling but in reverse? It's a bizarre and half asses mindset to have and honestly: it'd be better if those people would just openly say that they don't give a shit instead of wibbly-wobbly-ing around the issue like that. It's like they despearetly try to convince themselves that they're still a good person despite liking someone heinous. It's an ego thing. I guess... I just don't like the vague spineless hypocrisy of it. TLDR: you CAN'T seperate art from the artist. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Accept that you like something made by an evil evil piece of shit and move on. Don't try to twist reality like a silly straw. The art is the artist and the artist is the art. (I'd also like to point out that this is really about the actual creators of something and not really ALL people involved in the process because an artist can't possible have control over everything that happens after creation. Like, for example, the producer of the LotR trilogy is appearently a serial rapist but a producer is just a glorified manager and numbers guy so he basicly didn't create shit. So if you favourite book was printed at a company that ignores all safety precautions and workers get harmed it's not really the fault of the actual writer. Usually. Just wanted to make that clear.) .... That's it... that was my statement on the subject matter. Potato out.

[olderthannetfic]

Ok, wow, this is NOT the type of ask you seem to get usually, but this appears to be my best option...

I'm seeking out a post that is not particularly fandom-y in nature, but I was reminded of it after reading the earlier anon who was burned out from AI discourse - I totally feel the same way, and there was a really great lengthy textpost I reblogged a few months ago (read: "I read it any time from, like, April 2024 to almost a year ago......sorry") that I cannot find on my blog nor on tumblr in general - either because the post has been completely nuked from the internet OR because I'm just bad at SEO searches and remembering the keywords that were actually IN the post. I'm hoping it's a me issue or, if the post IS nuked, at the very least someone here remembers it and has an internet archive link or screenshot or something????

to get to the point, there was a post that was like (paraphrased, quote marks are not literal quotes):

"When it comes to the anti-AI crowd on tumblr, there's basically two schools of thought: people who completely hate AI and everything about it and are opposed to all forms of AI without even learning what AI really is. These people are stuck in their ways and generally can't be reasoned with.

Then there's a second group who are against AI for pretty good reasons - they really are worried that AI is gonna completely take over and steal artists' livelihoods, those who criticize it for environmental activist reasons, etc. These people generally can be reasoned with as they're truly misinformed, and in fact they would be - or already are - receptive to a less harmful AI."

The post then went on to compare AI to other forms of automation and made some really great parallels; such as bringing up the fact that stores that have both self checkout AND cashiers tend to be the best business models, because people who have their preferences can choose how they want to shop, AND we can utilize automated checkouts without completely getting rid of cashiers, which is obviously good for a lot of reasons.

It also debunked a lot of common fearmonger-y arguments against AI, i.e. explaining what "training AI" really entails, with some general copyright-critical philosophy in general. (I don't know the actual, like, political term, if one even exists, but basically they were talking about flaws with "intellectual property" as a concept - or at least how IP works today and why it works the way it does.)

There was also a really good addition to the OP's thoughts that I liked, with another user talking about: Essentially people who are gonna use AI would likely have done something else sketchy anyway, even if AI as it stands today didn't exist. For example, chatGPT isn't to blame for plagiarism. The people who use chatGPT to do their homework would, in an earlier time, likely go on Chegg / pay someone to write an essay / reuse their old work / etc. Likewise, the people who tell open AI to make artwork for them likely wouldn't make (or try to make) their own artwork anyway, nor would they even commission someone. They talked about how since fandom is so damn divided on the topic of AI, that the artists who DO feel as if their commissions are being taken away from them, or the writers who DO fear AI taking over fanfic.......well, to put it nicely, those people likely wouldn't really be losing many fans in the first place. You didn't lose a commission to AI - that person never would've commissioned you in the first place, and the people that do commission you hate AI as much as you do. You're not losing readers to AI - people who choose AI fics over yours are likely already the impatient type who can't handle waiting more than a week for an update, so they just make AI feed them 10k in one sitting! And the people who DO comment and read on your stuff, also hate AI!

I definitely did not agree with every single point made on the post (ie i dont think the self checkout metaphor was a great direct parallel logistically, but I def picked up what they were trying to put out and overall agreed with the general sentiment), overall it made a lot of really, really, really good points about the AI debate that I'd truly never considered before.

I know I've damn near rewritten the whole post myself now at this point but I also know there's a lot of stuff that I'm missing or that I just can't word and I'd love to know if anyone else has seen this post or has it on their blog in some capacity.

--