#made ethically and without exploitation?

[devilsskettle]

just saw someone call horrorstör by grady hendrix “cozy horror” i’m sorry but in what world. you have to be so removed from the reality of what working retail is like to be like hehe cozy horror because it takes place in haunted ikea :) also like. was it so super cozy when that girl gets possessed and starts choking on her own snot lol like some of the shit he describes in this book is so vile so please explain to me what part of the book is cozy

[pericardium-and-glass]

Angry about Lore.fm the "AO3 Audible app"

For those who don't know, Lore.fm is an app that's advertised as "audible for AO3". It uses AI text-to-speech voices to read fics on an app completely separated from AO3 and creates a local copy of the fic audio on your device. It is stated to be non-profit.

1. It's opt-out not opt-in, that alone is a red flag and worthy of suspicion. The only way to not get your fic used without permission is to email them - it is unsafe and dubious to hand out personal email addresses to companies you don't know.

2. It takes engagement and agency away from the authors. Readers using this app don't even need to interact with the original AO3 post. Only a link is needed to generate the audio. An extension would've been significantly more ethical than an app.

3. Valid criticisms towards this project are labelled by the developer as "ableist and classist". Most devices and browsers already have FREE screen readers available. Especially for IOS (since this is mainly advertised for IOS), the existing built-in accessibility screen reader is very decent! I'd know cause I've been using it for more than a decade!

4. The developers show zero transparency. The devs listed for this app are also in a company that made an AI WRITING/STORYTELLING APP called Spinoff. The fact that this information is hidden on the appstore for Lore.fm tells me all that I need to know. I found the source for this on this comment by CupcakeBeautiful. [Edit: Unfortunately, the comment has been deleted by reddit for some reason, so I have removed the link to it.]

This whole thing pisses me off. Once again it shows that people don't respect and don't care about actual fic writers. I wish people would stop exploiting fanfiction authors under the guise of accessibility. Please think carefully if this is a company/project you'd want to support.

I don't usually post things like this on this blog, but I don't think a lot of people are aware of this situation on tumblr. Please feel free to add any information that I've missed. If this post comes off as aggressive, I apologise. I am just very frustrated.

[grison-in-space]

I'm genuinely sorry, I was really tired and couldn't think of the word that mad pride movements use. I'm new to all of this. I thought you would be more open to it because you've reblogged from radical leftists (anarchists and communists both) within the past couple of weeks and they're all for Veganism afaik. The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different. I'm not spamming people with it, but I was inspired by an ask by a nonvegan and started asking popular bloggers why they weren't vegan to open up conversation and potentially change people's views on animals. If I've made you uncomfortable I'm sorry, though I admit I'm really confused by your standpoint. You do know that the only reason communism hasn't succeeded is because of America? Anyway, sorry again, I'm also autistic and I didn't mean to dismiss your legitimate dietary needs. Can I recommend acti-vegan's posts? While I understand that you can't go vegan, perhaps their blog will at least help you understand our points, they're much more well-written than my asks and they have plenty of legitimate science resources at hand. Thanks for listening, I'll take your advice into account. I'm not trying to not listen, it's just frustrating because so many people say they get it but they don't change, and if they truly got it they would, you know?

Okay, I get that you didn't mean to be offensive, and fuck knows I shouldn't throw stones when it comes to forgetting specific words. (This happens to me fairly frequently; it's a thing.)

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

So yesterday I actually wrote out and then deleted a whole paragraph to the effect of "part of my deep, deep frustration with animal rights activism hooks into my commitment to the phrase 'nothing about us without us,' because I frequently see the same kinds of emotional projection without making the effort to listen to animals on their own terms from animal rights activism groups."

The first thing I need to make clear to you is that this--veganism and animal rights activism (ARA) more generally--is not new to me. I am in my mid-thirties and I have never had a job of any kind that did not revolve around animals in some way, I've spent time in rescue spaces and vets and universities, I'm queer and I have spent most of my life in leftish progressive circles, so it's kind of hard to miss.

Essentially, you are proselytizing to me as if you were a newly baptized evangelical convinced I had never heard of Jesus, because if only I had heard and understood his holy word, I would be converted instantly to his light! It's not any less irritating when the belief system isn't explicitly a religion.

More under the cut, because this one is long.

Disclaimer one: Veganism isn't synonymous with ARA ideology, but it's deeply entangled with it, and ARA ideology drives the movement of veganism as a (theoretically non-religious) ethical decision. And I object very strongly to the framework imposed by ARA activists. When I say I am not vegan, I am saying that I have considered the ethical framework that underpins veganism as an ethics movement and I have deliberately rejected it.

The second piece of context you should know that when I talk about being a behavioral ecologist, I mean that I'm a researcher who works on animals and that my framework is rooted in trying to understand animals in their own natural ecological context, without necessarily comparing them to humans. There's a lot of ways to study animal behavior you might run into, including attempts to understand universal principles of behavior that transcend species (animal cognition) and attempts to understand how to better treat animals in human care (animal welfare). You know Temple Grandin? Temple Grandin is an ethologist (the field that gave rise to behavioral ecology, also focused on animals within their species context) who worked on animal welfare (finding ways to make slaughterhouses less stressful to livestock, among other things).

Third point: my profession also means is that I work directly with animals--in my case, currently mice--and that I do not think research with animal subjects is wrong as long as all efforts are made to ensure maximal welfare and enrichment for the animals involved. This is another major bone of contention politically between my entire field and ARA groups, and you should know that I have also spent my entire professional career under the shadow of, well, people who care strongly enough about those ideas to invade my workspace and potentially seize my animals and "free" them into a world they do not have the tools to survive in.

So there's where I am coming from. Let's get back to what you're saying. Here, I'll quote again in case you have the same crappy short-term memory I do.

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

Point the first: Even within humans, I don't think that all brains should be treated the exact same. Especially in a disability context! After all, what is an accommodation if not an agreement to treat someone differently because they need certain things to access a space? Accommodations by definition fly in the face of this "treating everyone the same" understanding of fairness. I think all (human) brains are equally valuable, and I think all brains are worthy of respect, but I do not think that it's wise or kind of me to assert that everyone should be treated in the same way. For one thing, I teach students. If there's one thing teaching has taught me, it's that a good teacher is constantly assessing and adjusting their instruction to meet students where they're at, identify failures of understanding, and keep the attention of the classroom.

Point the second: animals do have different brains from humans. That does not mean that animals are inferior, but it does mean that they are alien. There's a philosophy paper, Nagel, What Does It Mean to Be a Bat, that you might find illuminating on this front. Essentially, the point of the paper is that animals have their own experiences and sensory umwelts that differ profoundly enough from humans' that we cannot know what it is like to be a different species without experiencing life as one, and therefore we must be terribly careful not to project our own realities onto theirs. That is, our imagination cannot tell us what a bat values and what it experiences. That is why we have to use careful evidence to understand what an animal is thinking, without relying on our ability to identify with and comprehend that animal. I have watched ARA groups deliberately encourage people to shut their reasoning brains off and emotionally identify themselves with animals without considering within-species context for twenty years. This is a mainstream tactic. It is not an isolated event and for that reason alone I would be opposed to them.

Point the third: there is a definite tendency in lots of people to care deeply and intensely about both animals and people who are seen as "lesser" in status--children, poor people, disabled people, etc--just as long as those groups never contradict the good feelings that come from the helper's own assessment of themselves and their actions. In humans, when the "needy" point out that some forms of help are actually harmful, the backlash is often swift and vicious. This is why animals are such an appealing target of support and intervention. They can't speak back and say "in fact, you are projecting my love of this frilly pink tutu onto me, and I think it's uncomfortable and prevents me from walking." They can't say "I kind of like it better when I don't have to worry about getting hit by a car, actually?"

(By the way: this is also why it's offensive to compare disabled people to animals, because this is generally done at least in part to silence the voices of disabled people speaking for our selves and our communities. We have access to language, and we use it, thank you.)

All forms of animal welfare intervention going right back to the founding of the first RSPCA have been incredibly prone to being hijacked by classist, racist, and otherwise bigoted impulses. This is because animals offer an innocent face for defense that conveniently cannot criticize the actions taken by their champions, and they therefore provide a great excuse for actions taken against marginalized members of human society. Think about the very first campaign the RSPCA ever did, which was banning using dogs as draft animals: a use that is not inherently harmful to dogs, which many dogs actively enjoy, but also one that was specifically used by poor Londoners and which in fact immediately resulted in a great butchery of the dogs that Londoners could no longer afford to feed rather than allowing poor people and their dogs to continue working together. No one was, of course, challenging the particular uses of dogs or any other animal favored by the wealthy. This kind of thing is so, so, so common. Obviously it doesn't mean that all interventions to prioritize animal welfare are inherently bigoted, but it does mean that we have to be critical about our choice of challenges.

On top of everything, the animal rights activist movement's obsession with "exploitation" is a function of the idea that humans are sinful or otherwise Bad in how we interact with animals by definition. For example, take the chicken rescue near me that is so obsessed with the possibility that some human somewhere might benefit from an animal in their care that they implant every hen they adopt out with hormonal implants such that the hens no longer lay eggs--a function that is normally a natural byproduct of a chicken's reproductive system, fertilized or not. A mutualistic relationship involves both parties benefiting, and that is the case for an awful lot of human relationships with animals. In general, the idea that associating with animals is a thing that can only harm animals rather than being a trade between two species to enrich one another is all over these groups. It's just so myopically focused on human shame that it prevents practical interventions that might benefit everyone, and often promotes interventions that don't directly benefit animals but sure do make humans miserable. For example, this kind of thinking is why groups like PETA are absolutely awful at effectively rescuing unwanted dogs and cats: they think pets living in "bondage" with humans are an essentially sad outcome, rather than one that might be mutually enjoyed by all parties.

I'm tired and my meds haven't kicked in, so I'm not currently going to handle the communism thing except to point out that while the US absolutely did destabilize a number of leftist regimes in South America and Africa, Russia and China between them have certainly not treated their own people kindly, either (and more so their own client-nations, as with the former members of the USSR). Please do some reading about the Holodomor and Lysenko in Russia (and frankly all of the details of Stalin's regime) and the Cultural Revolution in China in particular. Khmer Rouge might be worth looking into, too. I am not saying the US's hands are clean, you understand, because they are not; they're as steeped in red as anyone else's. What I am saying is that for people living on the ground, communist revolutions have this nasty habit of turning into bloodbaths and arbitrary slaughters. Do not let your distaste for the US's bloodsoaked imperialism (which, yes, is and was bad) let you fall into the trap of becoming a tankie.

And if you don't know what a tankie is, you really, really should take some time to learn.

[mayakern]

In light of finding out that there's actually people out there being jerks to you in your inbox, I wanted to tell you how much joy you've brought into my life without even knowing about it! My girlfriend introduced me to your art and your clothing and I've been a huge fan ever since! Your art makes me feel more comfortable in my own skin and see beauty where I hadn't thought to look before, and watching you succeed puts a smile on my face. I wish you and your wife a long and happy life full of joyful memories and interesting stories!

aw thank you, this is so incredibly sweet 🥺🥺🥺

we did have a couple ppl being weirdly combative at the combo of me asking why ppl hadn't purchased from the canada store (this was a genuine question to see if there were issues we didn't know about, which there were) and then me talking about what a rough position the business is in currently, but largely people have been nothing other than extremely kind and supportive and wonderful.

i think it often comes down to the sad reality that when a small brand like us, which is more expensive than fast fashion in large part because we use certified ethical labor, talks about our financial/sales issues in a time when most people are struggling, people sometimes get defensive.

even if i am not being aggressive or mean or blaming our customers--i am also a non-wealthy person who lived through 2024, i have not at any point been unaware of just how difficult things have gotten and i don't blame anyone for their financial situation--because of the type of business i run, seeing me or the business fail can make people feel guilty. because even tho a lot of people try not to think about it, when you buy a fast fashion shirt for $5--or when you buy several, knowing that they'll fall apart after just a few wears--there are so many "invisible" costs. knowing that you can afford a shein clothing haul because someone was, at best, paid pennies to make the garments wears a person down. knowing, too, that that piece of clothing that was made by exploiting other humans is going to end up in the trash relatively quickly also takes its toll.

for a lot of people, fast fashion is all they can afford. and also for a lot of people, they have convinced themselves that buying a higher quantity of cheap garments that will fall apart quickly is more affordable or a better deal than saving up for one more expensive piece that will last them multiple years. after all, buying a single garment that you'll wear for years doesn't give you nearly as much of a dopamine hit as getting an entire clothing haul that costs the same amount up front.

and i think because of this--because a lot of people make this choice and do not feel proud of it--when they see me or my business struggle, they project their own feelings of guilt and assume that i must be blaming them personally. that i am figuratively breathing down their neck and haunting their closets.

the truth is, i know the path i have chosen is not the easy one. i could probably make a lot more money and live a lot more comfortably if i operated on a business model that more closely resembled fast fashion. but for as long as i can afford them, i would like to stick to my ideals. and i don't blame other people for not being able to do the same.

[genericpuff]

I'm sorry, but this should come as a shock to absolutely no one.

Just a little bit of 'insider info' (and by 'insider' I mean I was a part of the beta testing crew a few years ago) Webtoons has been messing with AI tools for years. You can literally play test that very same AI tool that I beta-tested here:

Mind you, this is just an AI Painter, similar to the Clip Studio Colorize tool, but it goes to show where WT's priorities are headed. I should mention, btw, that this tool is incredibly useless for anyone not creating a Korean-style webtoon, like you can deadass tell it was trained exclusively on the imports because it can't handle any skin tone outside of white (trying to use darker colors just translates as "shadows" to the program, meaning it'll just cast some fugly ass shadows over a white-toned character no matter how hard you try) and you just know the AI wouldn't know what to do with itself if you gave it an art style that didn't exactly match with the provided samples lmao

And let's be real, can we really expect the company that regularly exploits, underpays, and overworks its creators to give a damn about the ethical concerns of AI? They're gonna take the path of least resistance to make the most money possible.

So the fact that we're now seeing AI comics popping up on Webtoons left and right - and now, an actual "Webtoon AI" branding label - should come as zero shock to anyone. Webtoons is about quantity over quality and so AI is the natural progression of that.

So yeah, if you were looking for any sign to check out other platforms outside of Webtoons, this is it. Here are some of my own recommendations:

ComicFury - Independently run, zero ads, zero subscription costs (though I def recommend supporting them on Patreon if you're able), full control over site appearance, optional hosting for only the cost of the domain name, and best of all, strictly anti-AI. Not allowed, not even with proper labelling or disclosure. Full offense to the tech bro hacks, eat shit.

GlobalComix - Very polished hosting site that offers loads of monetization tools for creators without any exclusive contracts or subscriptions needed. They do offer a subscription program, but that's purely for reading the comics on the site that are exclusively behind paywalls. Not strictly anti-AI but does require in their ToS that AI comics be properly labelled and disclosed, whether they're made partially or fully with AI, to ensure transparency for readers who want to avoid AI comics.

Neocities - If you want to create your own site the good ole' fashioned way (i.e. HTML / CSS) this is the place. Independently run, offers a subscription plan for people who want more storage and bandwidth but it only costs $5/month so it's very inexpensive, and even without that subscription cost you won't have to deal with ads or corporate management bullshit.

Be safe out there pals, don't be afraid to set out into the unknown if it means protecting your work and keeping your control as a creator. Know your rights, know your power.

[americancitizen2025]

"

Since Trump’s presidency, Don Jr. and Eric have been involved in major cryptocurrency projects,

Trump family STOLE from a children's CANCER charity.

read here

particularly in Dubai and the Middle East. These ventures are not just side hustles; they are multi-million-dollar deals, setting the stage for new financial pipelines that directly benefit the Trump family.

Ahead of Donald Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, Don Jr. and Eric were already there, locking in agreements for new Trump-branded hotels, golf courses, and resorts across the region. This is not speculation; it’s documented fact. They are using the Trump name and connections to secure massive developments in countries that are simultaneously engaging with Trump on diplomatic terms.

Let’s be clear—before Trump took office, Don Jr. and Eric had never been involved in these types of business ventures. Their meteoric rise in the cryptocurrency market and Middle East real estate sector only began once their father assumed the presidency. Now, they’re moving ahead of him, making deals before Trump even sets foot in these countries.

Don’t forget Following Trump’s time in office, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, run by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This is the same crown prince that Trump saluted at the royal court—breaking presidential protocol—and praised for his “strong leadership.” And the timing of that $2 billion? Right after Trump leaves office.

While the Trump family is busy cashing in, Trump is openly doing favors for Saudi Arabia. From lifting sanctions on Syria to making public displays of loyalty, it’s the kind of quid pro quo that screams corruption. Deals are made, money is exchanged, and Trump’s policies shift accordingly.SubscribeShare

Trump and his family accuse Hunter Biden of profiting from political connections, yet the Trumps themselves are cashing in on every possible opportunity. This isn’t just an accusation—it’s an observation.

While Hunter Biden’s business deals were dragged through congressional hearings and media spectacles, Trump’s family doesn’t even bother to hide their money grabs. It’s as if they know they’re untouchable within their own echo chamber.

I testified in Congress that Hunter Biden was a victim of political manipulation and Russian disinformation. I was there. I saw the lies spun out of whole cloth to tarnish his name. And yet, here we are watching the Trump family do far worse—brazenly and without consequence.

This blatant hypocrisy should offend anyone who claims to care about corruption and cronyism. If you’re genuinely upset about a politician’s family profiting off connections, then be consistent. Condemn Hunter Biden if you must—but spare a thought for Don Jr., Eric, and Donald himself, whose profiteering is right out in the open.

Trump himself has a long history of exploiting political power for personal gain. Whether it’s negotiating real estate deals while in office or leveraging his political brand post-presidency, the strategy is simple: demonize the other side while doing the exact same thing, but louder and with more bravado.

The Trumps accuse Hunter of being shameless. But when you look at what they are doing—raking in cash through business ventures, foreign deals, and media influence—it becomes clear that the entire campaign against Hunter was never about ethics. It was about projection.

We are watching this hypocrisy unfold in real-time. Trump and his family are turning American politics into their personal ATM, exploiting political power for financial gain. They are selling America’s foreign policy to the highest bidder, and they’re not even hiding it anymore.

The only way we can stop this is if we unite and stand together. That’s why I’m calling upon each and every one of you to bring three or four people who want to hear the truth. Re-stack, share this letter far and wide.

ShareSubscribe

If you’re not already a subscriber, join the movement. If you can become a paid subscriber. Contribute to Venmo @lev-parnas. " See your hypocrisy MAGA? YOU need to be screaming about this

All the while daddy is golfing 25% of the time (about $10 million a month) and getting payoffs with dark money ($Trump and his newest coin) from dictators that support terrorism like Qatar. https://www.pennlive.com/news/2025/03/donald-trumps-new-golf-tab-for-taxpayers-hits-incredible-milestone.html

Meanwhile DOGE is causing security breaches

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/whistleblower-org-says-doge-may-have-caused-significant-cyber-breach-us-labor-2025-04-15/

[unitedwestand2025]

" Since Trump’s presidency, Don Jr. and Eric have been involved in major cryptocurrency projects, particularly in Dubai and the Middle East. These ventures are not just side hustles; they are multi-million-dollar deals, setting the stage for new financial pipelines that directly benefit the Trump family.

Ahead of Donald Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, Don Jr. and Eric were already there, locking in agreements for new Trump-branded hotels, golf courses, and resorts across the region. This is not speculation; it’s documented fact. They are using the Trump name and connections to secure massive developments in countries that are simultaneously engaging with Trump on diplomatic terms.

Let’s be clear—before Trump took office, Don Jr. and Eric had never been involved in these types of business ventures. Their meteoric rise in the cryptocurrency market and Middle East real estate sector only began once their father assumed the presidency. Now, they’re moving ahead of him, making deals before Trump even sets foot in these countries.

Don’t forget Following Trump’s time in office, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, run by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This is the same crown prince that Trump saluted at the royal court—breaking presidential protocol—and praised for his “strong leadership.” And the timing of that $2 billion? Right after Trump leaves office.

While the Trump family is busy cashing in, Trump is openly doing favors for Saudi Arabia. From lifting sanctions on Syria to making public displays of loyalty, it’s the kind of quid pro quo that screams corruption. Deals are made, money is exchanged, and Trump’s policies shift accordingly.SubscribeShare

Trump and his family accuse Hunter Biden of profiting from political connections, yet the Trumps themselves are cashing in on every possible opportunity. This isn’t just an accusation—it’s an observation.

While Hunter Biden’s business deals were dragged through congressional hearings and media spectacles, Trump’s family doesn’t even bother to hide their money grabs. It’s as if they know they’re untouchable within their own echo chamber.

I testified in Congress that Hunter Biden was a victim of political manipulation and Russian disinformation. I was there. I saw the lies spun out of whole cloth to tarnish his name. And yet, here we are watching the Trump family do far worse—brazenly and without consequence.

This blatant hypocrisy should offend anyone who claims to care about corruption and cronyism. If you’re genuinely upset about a politician’s family profiting off connections, then be consistent. Condemn Hunter Biden if you must—but spare a thought for Don Jr., Eric, and Donald himself, whose profiteering is right out in the open.

Trump himself has a long history of exploiting political power for personal gain. Whether it’s negotiating real estate deals while in office or leveraging his political brand post-presidency, the strategy is simple: demonize the other side while doing the exact same thing, but louder and with more bravado.

The Trumps accuse Hunter of being shameless. But when you look at what they are doing—raking in cash through business ventures, foreign deals, and media influence—it becomes clear that the entire campaign against Hunter was never about ethics. It was about projection.

We are watching this hypocrisy unfold in real-time. Trump and his family are turning American politics into their personal ATM, exploiting political power for financial gain. They are selling America’s foreign policy to the highest bidder, and they’re not even hiding it anymore.

The only way we can stop this is if we unite and stand together. That’s why I’m calling upon each and every one of you to bring three or four people who want to hear the truth. Re-stack, share this letter far and wide.

ShareSubscribe

If you’re not already a subscriber, join the movement. If you can become a paid subscriber. Contribute to Venmo @lev-parnas. " See YOUR hypocrisy MAGA?

[mothyandthesquid]

A selection of sock yarn with cotton instead of nylon. It adds durability without nylon and also has the fun property of not taking up the dye so you get this stunning visual effect.

I’ve handed in my university work, given my talk, and had my annual progress review for my PhD, so I took a day off yesterday. Obviously, I still had to post in the morning as my livelihood depends on it. I went into town to get treatment for my skin problem and then afterwards, as I had half an hour w/o wait for a train, I did something I haven’t done in over a decade and went to some fast fashion shops.

OMG, that stuff is so cheap and cute it’s no wonder folk overlook the exploitation and environmental impact! I see why I can’t get sales while their shops are teeming midweek. You can buy so much disposable fun for the price of a skein of yarn.

I seriously wondered if I am crazy for paying higher prices for ethically made stuff and it really gave me a bit of a crisis of thought. I didn’t see anyone poorly dressed buying one sensible item they probably needed and I thought those were the folk who still used these shops.

I think I’m trying to reassure myself that I’m not silly for not joining in the consumption party. I mean, I don’t think it would bring me fulfilment but can that many people be mistaken? It hardly as though they would be bad people or anything, they all seemed lovely and happy.

It was weird.

http://www.mothyandthesquid.com

[naamahdarling]

Guys, I apparently explicitly have to say this again? I don't use any sort of genAI. I don't buy products created with it. I call out companies and people using it without disclosing it. I call out companies using it to replace artists. The technology is being abused, artists are struggling, it's creating gnarly legal issues around copyright, AND as someone pointed out, it's made Google image search more useless than Pinterest did. It could be a useful tool, but as it exists right now, it isn't easy for individuals to explore ethical use, and the people trying to do so are not the ones with the money or the power. Industries have zero incentive not to abuse it and cannot be relied on to restrain themselves. I'm not sure how to fix any of it. The bullying over this subject, on both sides, is absolutely unacceptable.

I'm not "pro-AI." I'm anti-exploitation-of-human-beings and pro-artists-having-jobs and deeply in favor of people being paid what they are worth. Because I'm an artist and a people.

[gallusrostromegalus]

Soul Society is top heavy when it comes to power. With rare exceptions (Ikkaku), the gap between captains and rank-and-file troops, let alone normal citizens, is astronomical. How does Soul Society handle the reiryoku classism problem in and out of the Rukongai? Do the lower seats think of themselves as cannon fodder? Are there any major political factions that try to tackle the issue (ethically or not)?

So the gotei-13 is actually kind of a solution to this problem on accident.

The thing is, as powerful as the captains are, there usually only about a dozen of them, and a maximum of 2600 shinigami total. They are VASTLY outnumbered by literally everyone else, and because they need drastically more food than others (everyone in soul society needs to eat, but shinigami are at a drastically higher calorie demand and risk of starvation), they are VERY dependent on the rest of society. Zaraki made a fair fist of being a roaming menace but even he had to bow to the economy and work jobs to eat.

Hence, there IS reiryoku discrimination but it's largely in the other direction- shinigami are extremely exploited as workers, and that's the GOOD job. Other psychics are frequently drafted, kidnapped, enslaved for imprisoned so the rich and politically powerful can exploit their abilities. Even if a captain class individual were to say, take out a whole clan in self-defense, the rest of society would come down on them like a hammer and kill them or let them starve.

Yamamoto didn't found the Gotei-13 all at once. Originally it was just him, Sasakibe, the 200 spiritually aware students in his dojo, and the dojo was there to train the postal workers how to defend themselves against people trying to kill them for the messages they were carrying, but secondarily so spiritually powerful people didn't get press-ganged into serving the noble houses.

The first organization for psychic souls Yamamoto ever made was a... Relatively Safe Haven. He was also up against a wall dealing with the noble houses and other political factions so he needed anyone who could push back to do so, so a psychic would be expected to serve in at least some capacity. But the souls under his care were free to marry who they chose if they wanted or have children or not, or travel if they felt safe doing so, and even to just be weird without major repercussions, which was a vast improvement over the way they'd be treated as livestock by the noble houses. Even 1000 years later, Byakuya had to fight his family to marry who he wanted. Imagine what a psychic born in a random village and no legal protections would be facing.

So everyone with even an ounce of spiritual capacity was joining the postal service for his protection. It was a boon to the non-psychic messengers too- not knowing if a random Mail carrier could set would-be attackers on fire with their mind made all carriers safer.

...and them the Quincy attacked.

Yamamoto was now even more up against a wall because while having a united front had been helping him it was now a problem-the Quincy were attacking psychics specifically, something that endangered his ENTIRE organization.

...so he hired every spiritually powerful person he could find, including thriteen real bastards directly off of death row and organized them into an army to fucking deal with Yhwach.

Once yhwach was gone though, he had an army. And a lot of nobles looking to exploit or destroy that army.

Fortunately, one of the real bastards he'd hired had fallen for his peculiar charms and become his wife, and what Lady Tsubaki lacked in battle prowess, she more than made up for in political shrewdness. Be magnanimous, she explained. Be generous and speak of peace in our lifetimes and extend the olive branch to those who harassed you for so long. They won't realize it's bait.

So with her help, Yamamoto proposed that his army become the COURT GUARD in charge of protecting the very real and definitely alive Soul King, as well as all the people of soul society from the hollows and other misfortunes that may befall them. Finally, *proper* employment for all those spare heirs and potentially dangerous village psychics, doing the noble work of protecting society.

Why, he even helped found the central 46, a council of sages and scholars and general brain trust to work on the greater problems of soul society (a problem later but at the time, a VAST improvement over the eternally warring clans), that Yamamoto himself would be beholden to, just to show how civic-minded he was.

And just to finally, fully bury the hatchet- Yamamoto offered five of the captain's seats to the five remaining great noble houses, to be passed from scion to scion, ensuring each line would have a place in the direction of this army... Not realizing it was a trap to trick them into handing over any psychics they had, but also the high mortality rate of captains would kill scion after scion and gradually weaken the clans to the point of irrelevance.

And it WORKED.

By the time Ichigo turns up, the scion of the Shihouin clan is in exile with no plans of returning, the Shibas are reduced to a roaming band of pyromaniacs, the Tsunyashiro clan has been gone so long they don't even appear in the manga, and while the ISE and Kuchiki clans still both have representation within the captainacy... The Ise clan only has a brother-in-law and the Kuchiki are at a genetic dead end, and both those men are FAR more loyal to Yamamoto than their own clans.

Yamamoto has done what he set out to do- make a safe haven for the spiritually powerful to work the (not great but still best) protected jobs in the afterlife, destroyed his enemies the great noble houses, and largely wrested government control from them.

It's not perfect, but you can't fault the man for his accomplishment.

[anarchblr]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by civilization? Native people's communities are also civilizations. The Mik'maw, Yaqui, Otomi, Sápmi, etc, were their own societies. The city that is now only the Cahokia Mounds across from the Mississippi River was estimated to have a population of 15-20 thousand. Treaties with native tribes simply weren't honored by the colonies or the newly formed nation... Or the current nation. :/

Computers could be made without human suffering with proper regulations. No part of the process requires suffering - but it's more expense and more work and more care to do so. Those who don't care about others won't bother if they don't have to.

I don't think anything about this is besides the point. You are fighting an uphill battle, and every single thing you say will impact how you are taken and whether your message is actually heard. Like obviously you're just a study blog here on tumblr and that's not what your blog is about, but if you are actively arguing with other people online, what could your purpose possibly be other than to convince them of your correctness? Good speechcraft needs to account for the listener as well.

Saw you mentioned you were translating something from French in a different post. Are you French? I've heard (at least for prose) that French often prefers more florid and beautiful language. Is that true? Would you say there's anything noteworthy or different about your writing styles in different languages? This is not connected to the prior points at all for most people, but I can never separate how language structure can impact not just your worldview but also the way you think about things because it is interesting to me.

Addendum to the last ask about the computer part: Computers should not be made without human suffering. I don't think we're anywhere close to living in a civilization that will actually make computers ethically. Humans clearly don't know how to see the species as one singular "tribe" yet, and we're horrible with scale - but they *could be*. I think it's important not to conflate the two together. If there are computers in a future utopia, it's because humans stopped making them with exploitation and eventually got it right. A nice little sentence that makes it sound easy, but obviously to do so in real life would require a change to our ways of life that people will fight. Everyone feels like they're entitled to the little luxuries they've gotten used to in life. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

1. Yes. You are misunderstanding what I mean by civilization, from the first response to biotipo i defined it as, "a series of interlocking and mutually conditioning set of relations and systems, most notably capitalism and the State —the economic and the political—"; this is not a the first time I've defined it as such, I've said before that "for me Civilization is the culmination of both The Economical and the Political, i.e., Capitalism and the State. You can criticize one without the other, focus your criticism on one side, but in doing so you still attack Civilization, to me anyways. Some uninitiated will simply abstract 'Civ' to mean community, or society, or technological advances"; and that, "civilization is the violent enclosure of the commons, everything else is just built on top of that. It’s not having good manners, it’s not having etiquette, it’s not having a culture, it’s not living inside structures, it’s not having complex tools or intricate machinery, it’s not transportation nor any of these other things commonly confused with civilization. It is the violent enclosure of the commons, a project that has not yet been completely realized. 'Bringing Civilization' to peoples has always meant bringing private property-based relations into those cultures, alienating them from their surroundings . . . It does us no good to keep on confusing matters otherwise."

This, of course, is a contested term even within the anti-civ discourse which is why, I hope you see, I've aimed at clarifying the matter, at very least to myself. In doing so, I hope you recognize that I do not readily equate Society to Civilization; I agree that native communities have their own society, but that not that all of these societies are Civilizations. In fact, I wrote something addressing this as well which I think goes to your point:

Proponents of civilization, understandably, react to anticiv critiques if we take into consideration, in part, a fantastic anti-racist stance devoid of historical accuracy of what “civilization” is; should be noted here, something they, eventually bring up themselves against anticiv anarchists or otherwise demonstrate their ignorance by conflating anticiv with primitivism or civilization with health, stability, or otherwise some idealized form of material, complex progress by way of alleviating hardships of the human race. This anti-racist position is instinctual due to an education inculcated into them that the White Man™ “brought” “civilization” to the “savages” of the Americas. This education at some point became considered outdated by them themselves, and later they were taught that they used to be taught that but that that was offensive because indigenous peoples were “civilized” in their own right, and what European conquistadors and colonizers was genocide, and in doing so, showed themselves as less “civilized” than the peoples they brutalized, raped —genocided. Of course, this is the wrong way to understand “civilization” since it is an academic category and not solely a racist, moral one. Civilizations very much existed in the Americas when Europeans arrived and it's a shame that they're held up as a sort of defense or pride by mestizo nationalists or otherwise misguided anti-racist colonizers because they don't realize that what they're upholding is actually simply intra-amerindian colonization; the “Aztec”, better understood as Mexica, held sway over multiple peoples who were forced to pay tribute, man power, and participate in forced “flower wars” which served, in part, to lessen their potential military force; the Inca would not tolerate refusal to being denied what can scarcely be called “willful admittance” to their empire in pain of being forced into it. I'm less learned on the Maya treatment of their defeated, but they can hardly be considered exemplary given the quickness of their descent which heavily implies a class struggle between the rulers and ruled. Of the Cahokian, much the same from what I've read. The Mexica ruled, or tried to, over multiple peoples some of who manages to maintain some autonomy through struggle such as the Ñantho/Hñahñu otherwise known by the Mexica as Otomí; the Inca rather included and tried to assimilate their conquered so that they felt themselves as part of the empire, a completely different tactic the Mexica took that instead fostered conflict with their conquered. None of this takes away that these peoples where eventually subjugated by European conquerors, for European crowns. Simply pointing out that American Civilizations, understood here by the academic consensus as a society with clear-cut, enforced, social stratification. that is to say, by Class Struggle. You will understand, reader, that Civilization is Class Struggle. Civilization is dependent of subjugation of Peoples. Thus, one nation or more nation's subsistence dependent of the labor of one or more nations. Class Struggle. Thereby, you will also understand, reader, that a certain proponent of Civ will react violently to the spectre of ‘anticiv’ well as they've they been thought to equate “un-civilized” peoples with the “barbarian”, the “savage”, or otherwise a grossly uncouth, offensive understandings of human behavior that deserve to be eliminated from the conversation of what humans ��human nature— can do or is capable of; offensive to “civilized” sensibilities. However, we know that ‘bringing civilization’, for example: displacing indigenous peoples as exemplified by the Trail of Tears or the Conquest of Mexico, which was the killing of millions of peoples that would've been the slate upon which European control of what was immediately Indigenous lands/control over who says who can live where, thereby effectively relegating indigenous peoples to near animal/non human status. What is offensive to proponents of civilization is exactly what civilization exacts of its subjects.

1.2 Perhaps some elaboration is needed,

I'd argue that a stronger definition is that Civilization is the creation of economy and State. Not every economy has been capitalism, not every State has been a Nation-State; but everywhere there is an economy there has been a State. [..] the Aztec or Inca [are] acknowledged as civilizations, [..] “Empires” —at very least they are acknowledged as civilizations by acknowledging them as empires. Only civilizations can make empires. If nothing else, the Mexicans certainly regard their native forefathers as a Civilization, brushing aside all the other peoples subjugated under the Mexica triple-alliance. (If there's any that don't get acknowledged as civilizations it is the groups that created the chinampas which would later go on to be expanded upon by the Mexica.)

1.3 To the point of the Cahokian mounds, there was this bit of clarification by one my mutuals,

As I understand, though scholarship on Cahokia has many conflicting theories, there's a significant argument that it was not a civilization or state in the regular understanding, but a meeting-place for hunter-gatherer nomads of a shared cultural tradition. They did farm, and moreso than other cultures, but less so than the major empires in Mesoamerican and Andean cultures. Sort of similar to some of the ancient Old World cultures that developed agriculture but didn't create farm-based civilizations, engaging in something closer to permaculture in a supporting role to hunting and gathering rather than replacing it. I think under that theory, the reasons for its collapse aren't any particularly dramatic class conflict or climate crisis, but just a gradual diversification of cultural practices that made the large-scale cooperation necessary for Cahokia more difficult. (Though I'm sure the Little Ice Age had an influence on this.) There's not much archaeological evidence for large scale wars and conquest in the Cahokian era Mississippian culture, which we would expect if it were an imperialist city-state civilization.

I hope this drives home what my position on what Civilization is, which I had already defined from the first comment I made to biotipo. As Samuel B. wrote:

My understanding of the true nature of industry and civilization did not come instantly. It started, as with all anarchists, with an understanding of state and capital. But here is where most anarchists also stop. The critique and rejection of authority is partially widened to other areas like that of the patriarchy. But industry and above all that underlying authority of all authorities, civilization, remains largely untouched by anarchist analysis. I think this is in large part because the term 'civilization' is poorly understood and falsely described as social-togetherness. If this is the case then consequently there has only been civilization throughout all of human history, since people have always lived together. Yet civilization can be given a particular date: the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution. Humans first started to erect civilization 10-12,000 years ago and laid aside their 'uncivilized' lifeways bit by bit. Civilization was and is not a specific event in history. It has continuously developed and it continues to do so today. From urbanization to governments, states, borders, social stratification, colonialism, expansionism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, police, military, surveillance, control, genocide, and ecocide… all of these are essential features emerging from civilization. A civilization is not shaped by social-togetherness but rather by the centralization of power in a few people. Why then is the authority of civilization not recognized and rejected by most anarchists, who allegedly are against all authority? [A Black Critique of Civilization]

I hope this conclusively shows how I have been using the term "Civilization" and why I disagree with you. Certainly there have been civilizations outside of Europe, but they have carved out this from their most nearby neighbors' subjugation and in no way can be simply equated to the broader sense of "community" or "society".

2. One should hardly be surprised that the treaties weren't honored; what was done to the Amerindian peoples was something that Europe had already experimented with before, the enclosure of the Commons,

As late as 1608, in the newly conquered North of Ireland, the legally established communal ownership of the land served the English as a pretext for declaring the land to be ownerless and, as such, escheated to the Crown. [Friedrich Engels, MECW vol. 24. 1.V, pg. 46]

Per Marx,

. . . when workers were displaced by the means of labor--horses, sheep and so on--direct acts of violence functioned chiefly to make the industrial revolution possible. Workers were forced off the land; then the sheep arrived. The large-scale theft of land seen in England (and elsewhere) supplied large-scale agriculture with the space needed to operate. When this transformation of agriculture was in its early stages, it thus looked more like a political revolution than a revolution in production. [Capital: Critique of Political Economy Vol. 1. Prince University Press, 2024. pg. 397]

Per Engels,

This applies to Germany too. Wherever large-scale agriculture exists in our country, hence particularly in the East, it has become possible only through the clearing of peasants from the estates ('Bauernlegen'), a practice which became widespread after the sixteenth century, and especially after 1648. [Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. 1. Penguin Books, 1976, 1990. pg. 557]

In the same way, treaties were made --if at all-- only to then be disregarded by the colonial powers, is a continued expression of that same centralization of land and resources first experienced by the European peasantry at the hands of their Lords, States, and Bourgeois, something that is now called "Original Accumulation", ursprungliche Akkumulation in German.

So then we can see why property relations developed in Mexico, as an example of the treatment that their indigenous communities are treated like the Yaqui, etc., the way they did under bourgeois rule:

The legal definition of a corporation "included the governments of the traditionally rural towns, or municipalities whose communal property where to be decided from that point on.” The government imposed by the Reforma sought to simulate the private sector and private property, which was befitting of the liberal economists given that during this time frame [..] it was about intensifying the nationalizing process of communal land. Thus, the range of communal property that had been conserved since the precolumbian epoch, the colonial period, and the first years since the [wars of] Independence, were finally sacrificed to the demands of liberal entrepreneurship. Despite the imposition, the dispossessed did not cede in the least, the clergy lost a good chunk of if its economic and political importance, but the military and large landowners survived the expropriation and for the rest of the century enjoyed mostly the same power and social prestige they did beforehand.“ [Fernando Méndez Lecona, "Las Rutas Del Primer Socialismo En México” transl. (2015)]

To conclude this part: No treaty was ever going to be sufficient to hold back the death drive that is the need for capitalist profit, something that can only exist within a Civilization that creates the political and economic. There's no Civilization that has that interest at its heart, especially not in one in which society is dominated by the capitalist mode of production.

3. You are once again misunderstanding things or otherwise misreading my previous responses re: Computers being besides the point.

You see, I never said that computers can't be made without human suffering, however, going back to my responses to biotipo, I said that,

If the anti-civ position is that we stop the production of computers, let it be so because we, anarchists, abhor child slavery and human degradation in all its facets . . . True, you will not find a position explicitly for computers, but that's quite besides the point: the aim of socialism is not to ensure a computer to every single person but rather to upend the logic of capitalism that curtails and contours life such as it exists in order for the accumulation of capital and its consequent effects. If this means an end to workers tied to a monotonous assembly line and the unrelenting extraction of precious metals and resources, then I readily accept that --as said in my previous response . . . I will say that insofar as my studying goes, it certainly doesn't seem possible, at least not in a long-term, sustainable manner that is both in line with a communist set of affairs regarding the abolition of classes nor with a serious ecological commitment to maintaining the planet in any sort of sustainable equilibrium for either human and non-human flora and fauna . . . HOWEVER! [biotipo is] not me, and in fact . . . [writes] that: [They] can think of ways of making computers that don't involve this immense human suffering, that; Computers CAN be built without it; and moreover, that, [they] know people who are actively fighting for it such things. This is, of course, wonderful! Please, tell me, in as precise detail as humanly possible, how exactly is that.

I hope you understand, then, that I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say, "If there are computers in a future utopia, it's because humans stopped making them with exploitation and eventually got it right. A nice little sentence that makes it sound easy, but obviously to do so in real life would require a change to our ways of life that people will fight."

That is a big "if", however.

3.2 Moreover, with my last statement, I made two points:

I am unsure if computers can be made within communism since I take a perspective that is highly skeptic of this; and,

If biotipo 'can think of ways' in which it is, in fact possible, to then lay it out.

As I said in my last response to you, "I'm asking him to spell it out. I certainly don't know how to even make em today, much less in the glorious tomorrow that is anarchy. I think it's fair for someone from the proletariat to ask such questions to would-be 'vanguard' politicos. Afterall, if they want to lead, and lead me, I want to ensure I'm in good hands. This is practical, no?"

I will admit that this was a facetious line of questioning, but I was only responding in kind to biotipo; let us not forget that he, in clearly bad faith asked me, "Can you think of a way of dismantling "civilization" that doesn't involve the deaths of billions of people? Can you tell me the ecological advantages of reducing the world population to either subsistence farmers or hunter gatherers? Can you explain to me why anyone would desire and fight for a world without medicine, without computers, without access to knowledge and science, without sounding like a RETVRN traditionalist?"

What you should take away from this is that, I, and mine, are at least honest in saying that we don't know how things will be organized in the future, in contrast to people like him to pretend to but when set to task instead say,

yo, personalmente no, porque las operaciones mineras son cosas que involucran a cientos o incluso miles de personas "will you get permission" concepto totalmente irrelevante en un estado socialista donde se hacen las cosas para el beneficio de la población en general . . . "are you so charismatic to convince them to work" no, porque los gobiernos no se hacen a partir de un líder despóta carísmatico sino a partir del mandato de las masas que no viste Monty Python "you know people who are fighting for this thing can you name 5" HAY PARTIDOS COMUNISTAS SOCIALISTAS Y DE IZQUIERDA CON CIENTOS DE MILES DE MIEMBROS, ALGUNOS ADMINISTRAN NACIONES ENTERAS Y OTROS ESTÁN EN LUCHA POLÍTICA E INCLUSO ARMADA, NO TODA CONCEPCIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA INVOLUCRA A 5 BOLUDOS MANDANDOSÉ MAILS ENTRE ELLOS

This is, evidently, a long-winded way of saying that, no, they don't in fact know anything about what they mean any better than the people they criticize, but worse off: they don't even want to, but prefer to have someone else involved in the actual process of anything they advocate, to have someone else do it for them: the "hundred or even thousands of people involved" or the "socialist state" or the evergreen "the masses" that these kinds of idiots love to invoke, knowing none of them, not even being able to name five.

I asked of them no more than they asked of me. Surely you can see that.

If you think it can be, and then you also inherit the the explanation. It is only practical, imo.

4. You are right, I am fighting an uphill battle; however, which communist isn't?

D'ya think Marx or Engels or Lenin or anyone else on the actual "left" --for as nebulous as that term is-- had it easy?

This is not a worthwhile criticism in the least;

In any case we will have on events the kind of influence which will reflect our numerical strength, our energy, our intelligence and our intransigence. Even if we are defeated, our work will not have been useless, for the greater our resolve to achieve the implementation of our programme in full, the less property, and less government will there be in the new society. And we will have performed a worthy task for, after all, human progress is measured by the extent government power and private property are reduced. And if today we fall without compromising, we can be sure of victory tomorrow. [Errico Malatesta, Anarchy]

5. Re: my translating in French,

No, I am not French,

Yes, the French, especially in the 19th century, use an overly flowery style,

No, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about my writing styles in any language except that I am more adept/have a bigger vocabulary in some than in others; my speaking does differ rather noticeably in different languages I've been told.

However much linguistics impacts worldview i do not think it does it to any meaningful manner that can't be compensated by in other ways.

6. Happy new years!

[ecoterrorist-katara]

I really liked your meta about bloodbending, this is a big ask but how do you think that the whole bloodbending storyline could/should be rewritten? It’s clear that the writers are using bloodbending as a metaphor for slavery but it rarely comes across that way, and poor Hama was failed spectacularly by the writing

hello anon! thank you for this fabulous question & hope you don't mind that it took me ages to get to it.

TL;DR: I think making Hama into a serial killer/abductor was a terrible narrative choice. If it were up to me, Katara would have a (child-friendly) ethics discussion about bloodbending with Hama, who then joins them on the Day of the Black Sun. After the war, bloodbending becomes a lynchpin issue when the North attempts to colonize the South, but Hama and Yugoda find healing uses for bloodbending in the kerfuffle.

But first, my "ATLA bungled colonialism themes" soapbox: to me, bloodbending is a metaphor on two levels. The storyline about how Southern Waterbenders are captured and then transported to the FN certainly seems to reference the Transatlantic Slave Trade, like you said, though without the labour exploitation aspect; the storyline about Hama and bloodbending feels like an allegory for guerrilla resistance in general. Imo the narrative kind of cheapened these potential real-world connections by making The Puppetmaster a spooky Halloween special with a dash of “an eye for an eye” parable. The narrative's treatment of bloodbending, and Hama, feels like an unintentional reflection of “unacceptable” colonial resistance and "dark" knowledge of the colonized (fearmongering around Vodou etc). A common colonial narrative is that the colonized are sinister and underhanded for engaging in things like guerrilla warfare, which is either too violent or too cowardly depending on what’s more convenient for the colonizers’ narrative at a specific point in time. I think ATLA’s approach to bloodbending reflects this general sentiment, especially since Hama is drawn as this creepy Hansel & Gretel-style witch, a keeper of a sinister / untrustworthy / threatening type of knowledge. I also really don't like the part of the story where Hama became a serial abductor out of this indiscriminate thirst for revenge. While it's possible in real life for a colonized, incarcerated person to make those decisions, and good fiction can explore that effectively, a children's show is not the place. ATLA's target audience and general tone couldn't handle all the complexities around that, so they turned Hama into a cartoon witchy villain. Groundbreaking.

Anyway, I think the start of The Puppetmaster is actually very promising. Hama's story, and the children's discovery of her SWT roots, was touching. Katara's growing sense of unease at discovering the "darker" uses of waterbending (taking water out of flowers) is interesting. Katara is the perfect character to explore the intricacies of "how far is too far in colonial resistance." Because she's not a pacifist, like Aang, but she's also not a total pragmatist, like Sokka or Suki, and she cares about the fates of random people more than Toph. She's angry and compassionate in equal amounts.

I would love a conversation between Hama and Katara about bloodbending -- not in the dead of night while Katara has to protect her friends, but where Hama talks about the genuine hopelessness she felt in the Fire Nation prison. And Katara could talk about why she thinks bloodbending is wrong -- taking away someone's agency -- and Hama can ask Katara what she would've done in that scenario; maybe she can point out that she could have made the FN guards kill each other, but she only made them open her cell door, so it was the least violent escape she could have done; and I think, framed that way, Katara would have started to see bloodbending not through a lens of fear and disgust, but sheer pragmatism, and realize that all bending can be good or bad.

During the war, I think Katara and Sokka could convince Hama to join them on the Day of the Black Sun: Hama, for the first time in decades, has hope, and she gets to see some of the people who used to be just little kids when she was kidnapped from her home.

After the war, bloodbending would become a hot button issue in North-South relations. I could easily see the Northern waterbenders being horrified at bloodbending, in the same way Medieval Europe & puritan America have been horrified by witchcraft and other feminine-coded knowledge. I could envision the Northerners using bloodbending as justification for why women shouldn't be allowed to waterbend, and justification for why the South is backwards and therefore needs the North's influence (which would also tie nicely into the North and South comic). While Katara is busy with the political BS, Hama is swapping notes with Yugoda the healing master, and then they would eventually arrive at the conclusion that bloodbending could be used to heal.

(I can't take credit for the "Northerners horrified at bloodbending" idea, btw -- colourwhirled's Southern Lights has a storyline around it.)

Anyway, Hama deserved so much better. I like seeing her in AUs where she never had that stupid "kidnapping FN civilians" plot, like the aforementioned Southern Lights, or Lykegenia's The Things We Hide (which I read earlier this year and loved!). Hama and Jet's storylines are why I don’t trust ATLA’s politics, nor the politics of its creators. As much as I love Zuko and find his redemption arc to be an incredible story of a conscientious objector in the heart of the empire, Hama and Jet should have also gotten their redemptions too.

[whencyclopedia]

The Horse: A Galloping History of Humanity

Timothy Winegard’s "The Horse: A Galloping History of Humanity" is a sweeping study of the transformative role horses have played in shaping the course of human history. Beginning with their domestication in the grasslands of the Eurasian Steppe about 5,500 years ago, horses, argues the author, have “steered and dominated every part of our existence” and served as the “pinnacle instrument of profit and power.” This is a multifaceted work offering a 360-degree perspective of this unique animal.

Spread over 16 chapters, the author delves into how the horse played a key role across cultures and geographies changing the course of agriculture, warfare, transportation, travel, the rise and fall of empires, and even colonialism. According to the author, without the horse, the Silk Trade connecting the East and the West and serving as an economic lifeline for millions could not have happened. Nor could Alexander’s exploits across continents, the rise of the mighty Mongol Empire, and Cortez’s defeat of the mighty Aztecs have materialized.

A noted historian and the author of the New York Times best-selling work The Mosquito (2019), Winegard is currently an associate professor of history at Colorado Mesa University. He draws upon a wealth of research from diverse fields, including literature, genetics anthropology, archaeology, biology, and sociology, to craft a narrative that is as much authoritative as it is informative. Winegard’s discussion of the biology of the horses including their natural instincts, intelligence, and physical attributes, and how these attributes made them ideal partners for humans is compelling and insightful. The author’s discussion of the horse’s place in myth, art, and literature adds an extra valuable dimension to the narrative. The work also incorporates scores of photos and charts that serve as an important aid to the discussion and analysis.

Written in engaging language, this work should be of interest to diverse readers, including experts in animal studies, university students, and general readers interested in broadening their horizons. An extensive bibliography reflects the depth of research that went into the work. A surprising omission in the work is any reference to Michael Morpurgo’s fascinating novel War Horse (1982), which recounts the experiences of Joey, a horse bought by the British Army for service in World War I, serving as the basis for Steven Spielberg’s film adaptation of the work in 2011.

Even after the arrival of trains, planes, and automobiles, horses, as the author documents, continued to play an indispensable role in various areas including warfare. More than a million horses were deployed by the Allied forces alone during the First World War serving as indispensable transport horses towing artillery, armaments, rations, water, and any other conceivable articles of war.

Some of the merits of the book also serve as its weaknesses. The author could have delved more into analysis than presenting an overabundance of facts which many average readers might find overwhelming. The author also tends to over-romanticize the role of horses as if they were the sole forces in historical transformation. Lastly, the staggering costs and ethical dimensions of using horses in human pursuits are largely absent in this work while the author himself admits that the First World War was the “bloodiest conflict for horses in the history of warfare.”

Despite these limitations, this book is a major contribution to our understanding of the role of horses in effecting historical change. It is a valuable complement to other recent works in the field: Raiders, Rulers, and Traders: The Horse and the Rise of Empires (2024) by David Chaffetz, and Hoof Beats: How Horses Shaped Human History (2024) by William Taylor. All three works came out within only a few months, enriching and deepening our understanding of this unique and trail-blazing theme in human history.

Continue reading...

[phonefaceenthusiast]

An topic i always wanted to ramble about: How Dee's death (Deeath) went down

It's actually a LOT more elaborated than you would think; There's multiple cutscenes and small lore tidbits that add so much more to it. I'll contextualize what was going on first:

June XX, 1973 - Henry killed 2 kids at Fredbear's Family Diner, leading them to possess the Spring Freddy and Spring Bonnie suits (i believe it happened on june 19th, as that would make it less than a week before y'know what); He then convinces William to help him get rid of the evidence (this is BEFORE he was lobotomized, back when he still had a moral compass and acted as a fairly normal person. This detail is gonna be insanely important so keep it in mind). Worth noting that the robots aren't agressive, likely because the fat iguana knew how to keep them controlled by exploiting their fear.

June XX, 1973 (june 20-21th is where i think it makes the most sense) - Henry's original plan was to rig Will's Springbonnie suit and then frame him as the murderer but William Fucking Afton always comes back HOWEVER this was even better for Henry as it made Willy a perfect labrat to Miller's research… That's a topic for another day though.

Afternoon June 23, 1973 - Jack leaves Dee at the Diner for her 6th birthday and goes home, buries his dead dog and then drinks 'till he passes out.

6 pm june 23 - The party's over, the restaurant is closing down, almost everyone went home and now Dee is left alone. Henry sees this as a opportunity to kill a third kid so he uses the Spring Freddy suit to lure her into an employees-only room (not the saferoom; likely the maintenance room as this was before cameras where put everywhere)... except Dee actually tries to fight back. Henry does injury her but he's playing it safe, not taking any chances that she might set off his springlocks.

After a few minutes of unsucessfully trying to kill her, Henry instead leaves her locked and bleeding out in that room and tells William about the situation, asking for his help. Willie hesitates and even tells Henry "Why can't you do it yourself?" to which Henry replies "She keeps struggling". He then forces Dave to do it.

Reminder: he HAD morals, THIS is the moment that they get shattered. He wasn't just hesitating, he was crying his eyeballs out. Hell, i think part of the reason flipside Dee forgave him fairly easily is because she saw the sheer agony he was in because he HAD to do it. this deeply traumatized him, Davetrap freaks out in the evil ending when Jack brings up Dee because THIS is what broke William and turned him into Dave; It was his first kill, what led to him questioning Henry's ethics and ultimately getting lobotomized. Deep down he WANTS to redeem himself but his devotion to his "father figure" - the closest person to him - prevents him from doing so.

When Jack got there, She was still alive. He was THIS close to saving her and yet... he couldn't. (Also the reason Dee must have been at the maintenance/backstage is because Jack died in the saferoom and she wasn't there, at least not initially)

When he was dying in the spring freddy suit, he SAW Henry carry Dee's corpse and put it in the SpringBonnie suit (it's literally her hair style; also the focus of that cutscene is showing why Blackjack attacked Henry, and it's because of what he did to him and his family: first, it shows Jack bleeding out in the saferoom, then Peter dying wearing the Rat springlock costume and finally the scene we're talking about, which Blackjack seems the most pissed off about, like out of the three deaths this was the one that hurt him the most).

Henry kept Dee's body in the springbonnie suit until he finished building the puppet. A explanation i seen why is when they left her without a vessel her ghost started haunting the Diner, trying to do whatever she could to expose/draw attention to Henry and Dave, like possessing objects to signal that there was something wrong, maybe even trying to point out to incriminating evidence. Henry notices this and starts building a vessel for her so that he can control what she does with controlled shocks and even shutting down the metal/eletronics parts in the puppet so that she's unable to do anything. since there's no spare costumes, he temporarily puts her in the springbonnie to prevent any further troubles since he knows how to deal with the possessed robots/costumes.

TL;DR: Dee's death is basically THE moment the lore revolves around; it's essential to Jack, Dave, Henry, Blackjack and (obviously) Dee's characters, adding so much depth to them just from how they were impacted by it.

Just wanted to lore ramble and i don't think anyone ever went in depth into this as i just did so… Thanks for coming into TED talk (:

[eugenedebs1920]

The current psychological state in American society to day is a mix of fear and uncertainty, guilt and embarrassment, sadness and remorse. On the other side is vindication and entitlement, smugness and self absorption, cockiness and superiority.

Before we succumb to these emotions let’s just remember who we’re dealing with.

Trump. A man who forever wanted his father’s approval but could never obtain it. His low sense of self esteem manifested itself into bullying and preying on those without the financial, physical, or influential status he was born in to. Trump wasn’t smart enough, nor did he possess the integrity, to become successful through legitimate means so he took to a life of a conman. Trump is so pathetic he would call into radio shows pretending to be someone else and express his admiration for himself in disguise, telling the radio host how handsome Trump is, that he would be at a particular club at a particular time, inquiring why Trump wasn’t given awards. HE BANKRUPTED HIS CASINOS, squandered his inheritance and got in deep debt to Russian and Italian mobsters. He was chosen, after many actual business people declined, to be the lead in a reality television show. The makers of the show described their shock to find the offices of trump tower in shambles, outdated, and rundown. He accidentally won the 2016 election and had no idea what he was doing. He tanked the economy (Deja vu) completely failed during the only real crisis he faced, then, like a petulant child, threw a tantrum, lying about election results concluding with a failed coup on Jan 6th 2021. We see how it’s going now…

Musk was given the capital to pursue his business endeavors by his father whose wealth came from the exploitation of black South Africans in the gem and diamond mines he acquired during the apartheid era. With help, PayPal was a success. He made a few good acquisitions but was never an engineer or creator. Musk is the largest recipient of U.S. government subsidies ever. Using the attempt to confront the climate crisis as a vehicle for financial gain. Which would be fine had he remained ethical and not used his vast taxpayer provided wealth for political influence. He is unable to maintain a romantic relationship and many of his children despise him. He now artificially inseminates women half his age because he doesn’t have the personality to create a bond with them. His theories are that of someone who spends too much time in alternate realities and not in actual reality. He betrayed his clientele then wonders why the left is so mean and boycotting his car company. He had potential but blew it with his trans hate and right wing, racist ideology.

These are broken people. Losers who have to project their worth by putting others down. Selfish, greedy, immoral, rude individuals who hate themselves so they want others to be as miserable as they are.

These aren’t great military men, or social heroes, they inherited what they possess, they didn’t earn it. Don’t stress these clowns. Keep on them. Keep ridiculing them. Keep standing up to them. When a bully fronts on you, the only way to stop them is to push back, and pop em in the face if they continue.

This rendition of Cake’s “he’s going the distance” (he’s rigging the system) is fantastic!! Thought I’d share.

Keep up the fight. Light drowns out dark. Love overpowers hate. Good is stronger than evil.

🇺🇸

[forestlingincorporated]

I saw a post talking about how media like Detroit Become Human that use robots as a metaphor for racism never quite hits the nail on the head because, well, robots aren't people and the fear of being replaced by automation is a legitimate one.

And it made me think about Rockman-san.

Which is coming out very soon as Mr. Megaman, in English, so might as well talk about it now!

For a gag comic, Rockman-san has a very melancholy tone to it. It often touches on concepts like deterioration, obsolescence, and... well...

Automation.

The original Robot Masters of the Rockman-san comic are sentient. They can think, they can feel, they can love. It's a staple of Rockman/Megaman media for its Robot Masters and Reploids to be self-determining, but Rockman-san takes that to its extreme and, without getting into spoilers, has a real blurring of what it means to be human and what it means to be a machine.

Their humanity is what labels them as "dangerous," and that type of robot is being phased out and replaced with robots that can't think or feel. Yup - AI took the AI's jobs. The RMs are largely struggling with employment - some are having difficulty holding down a job, while others have been pushed out of the industries they were made for and find the work they took up to survive unfulfilling, while others are finding fulfillment in repurposing their hardware and programming to a new career. They have a variety of ways they experience the hardships of the world that... honestly hit me pretty hard, my first time reading, because it was probably the first time I'd read a story that felt like it was really talking to my actual lived experience as an adult.

By including these more real world ai machines, it reminds the audience the RMs are fantastical and highlights what the narrative is trying to analyze - "what does it mean to be self-determining? what does it mean to be sentient? is it a blessing or a burden? what rights does a fully aware, self-determining, sentient being have if it is not human? when do they become a person? what do you have to strip away from a human to make them no longer a person?"

Rockman-san manages to balance a narrative of robot discrimination while acknowledging that the presence of robots in their world is harmful to humans. It acknowledges that, by making the robots sentient, the scientists have accidentally created an underclass of person - the robots are thinking, feeling people who have to work to survive, to pay for energy, pay for repairs, pay for a place to live, pay for recreation. Robots work longer hours for less pay and have no legal recourse.

Rockman-san hits the nail on the head that this benefits the wealthy and harms the working class. Capitalism rears its ugly head yet again. The sentient robots get exploited, abused, and tossed aside. The working class suffers and dies. The wealthy profit.

And the finger gets pointed to the exploited underclass rather than those in power, as it so often does. But then... how would one ethically close Pandora's box? What changes would allow humans and robots to coexist? Can they coexist?

Just, something about how Rockman-san handles its robot rights narrative resonates, y'know? It doesn't rely on cheap parallels that don't really work. It's mostly asking questions of Megaman's premise. There's a lot of varying life experiences and opinions expressed by the characters, and it doesn't really ask you to agree with any of them - not even Rock or Dr. Light. We're not trying to come to definite answers, just exploring what it means to be alive and how to live in a society, how it works and how it fails.

I dunno. I'm not about to say it's a perfect narrative, but there's something about it I like.