bohba13-writing-den

[bohba13-writing-den]

NOTICE: As more and more fanfic writers are using generative AI for their works (you uncreative dweebs), I hereby swear on everything I hold dear that I have not and will NEVER use generative AI in ANY of my written work. Everything I post will be organically and creatively my own.

[bohba13-writing-den]

😈 You are not bound by the Hays code.

😈 You are allowed to have evil characters who are not punished by the narrative by the end of the story.

😈 You are allowed to have evil characters who win.

😈 You are allowed to have evil characters who make evil look fun and cool.

😈 You are allowed to make your fun, cool evil character the protagonist.

😈 You are allowed to glorify, romanticize and eroticize evil characters and villainous acts.

😈 You are not obligated to teach your audience a moral lesson.

[bohba13-writing-den]

[bohba13-writing-den]

liberalism as an ideology is fundamentally unable to address the housing affordability crisis because liberal ideology considers it to be just as bad, if not worse, for people to lose money on their housing investments as it is for most working class people to not be able to afford a house.

so you see liberals wracking their brains going "how do we bring down the cost of housing..... without bringing down the value of anyone's housing investments????" which is a fundamentally unsquareable circle, since "the cost of housing" and "the value of housing investments" are quite literally the same thing.

thus the confusion and bewilderment with China's 3 Red Lines policy - "bwuaugh????? China deliberately pushed Evergrande into bankruptcy anf crashed the housing market?? are they crazy? dont they know they're making Line Go Down????" because these clowns forget that economic metrics are a tool, a means to the end of promoting human well-being, not an end unto themselves.

(also a lot of the economic talking heads who express this confusion are stock traders who live entirely off investments and have never done a day of work in their life, and cant even imagine the idea of an economy that isn't run primarily for the benefit of parasites such as themselves.)

[bohba13-writing-den]

Keep pushing. Keep calling. And potentially switch to alternative options.

Pay attention to the particulars of Mastercard's responses, because this a textbook example of how to create plausible deniability.

"Mastercard has not barred any legal transaction" is, technically, a true statement – because Mastercard is not the one processing the transactions in the first place. Mastercard does not deal directly with any merchant, and in fact typically refuses to communicate with merchants at all; there's always a payment processing service sitting in between Mastercard and the merchant, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or any of dozens of other service providers.

Consequently, there are two layers of service agreements in place: the agreement between Mastercard and the payment processing service, and the agreement between the payment processing service and the merchant. That second layer of service agreements, between the payment processing service and the merchant, is where all of these content restrictions are being imposed. Mastercard can thus truthfully claim that they aren't barring legal transactions.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you've probably already spotted the issue: if the content restrictions are being imposed upon the merchants by individual payment processing services and not by Mastercard, why do all of those payment processing services seem to have exactly the same content restrictions?

That's where the critical sleight of hand comes in: while Mastercard's own terms of service do not require payment processing services to bar transactions of particular types, their ToS does require payment processors to bar transactions which could be damaging to the Mastercard brand. What constitutes damage to the Mastercard brand is not defined; it means whatever Mastercard wants it to mean. The payment processing services are thus in a position where they can be held in breach of Mastercard's terms of service for basically any reason, which gives them a strong incentive not to test any boundaries.

And that's why Mastercard can truthfully say they have never barred any legal transaction: they're never the ones doing the blocking. The layer of payment processing services that sits between Mastercard and the merchants are enforcing those content restrictions, based on a series of unwritten handshake agreements between the payment processors and Mastercard regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable content – and because the particulars of those handshake agreements aren't in writing, Mastercard can assert that their terms of service do not compel payment processing services to bar any legal transaction and technically be telling the truth.

[bohba13-writing-den]

You would instead need to attack the rule itself, which is far more costly, and something a judge is not going to be as willing to play ball with, making resistance against this far more involved.

Pay attention to the particulars of Mastercard's responses, because this a textbook example of how to create plausible deniability.

"Mastercard has not barred any legal transaction" is, technically, a true statement – because Mastercard is not the one processing the transactions in the first place. Mastercard does not deal directly with any merchant, and in fact typically refuses to communicate with merchants at all; there's always a payment processing service sitting in between Mastercard and the merchant, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or any of dozens of other service providers.

Consequently, there are two layers of service agreements in place: the agreement between Mastercard and the payment processing service, and the agreement between the payment processing service and the merchant. That second layer of service agreements, between the payment processing service and the merchant, is where all of these content restrictions are being imposed. Mastercard can thus truthfully claim that they aren't barring legal transactions.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you've probably already spotted the issue: if the content restrictions are being imposed upon the merchants by individual payment processing services and not by Mastercard, why do all of those payment processing services seem to have exactly the same content restrictions?

That's where the critical sleight of hand comes in: while Mastercard's own terms of service do not require payment processing services to bar transactions of particular types, their ToS does require payment processors to bar transactions which could be damaging to the Mastercard brand. What constitutes damage to the Mastercard brand is not defined; it means whatever Mastercard wants it to mean. The payment processing services are thus in a position where they can be held in breach of Mastercard's terms of service for basically any reason, which gives them a strong incentive not to test any boundaries.

And that's why Mastercard can truthfully say they have never barred any legal transaction: they're never the ones doing the blocking. The layer of payment processing services that sits between Mastercard and the merchants are enforcing those content restrictions, based on a series of unwritten handshake agreements between the payment processors and Mastercard regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable content – and because the particulars of those handshake agreements aren't in writing, Mastercard can assert that their terms of service do not compel payment processing services to bar any legal transaction and technically be telling the truth.

[bohba13-writing-den]

Itch is seeking alternative payment processors who are willing to allow payments for 'adult' content.

Still keep up the pressure though.

in keeping with the continued purification of the internet, itch io has shadowbanned or outright deleted all adult games.

[bohba13-writing-den]

Brutalism is functionality. Form follows function. Function dictates method. And method dictates form.

And thus, the unique vaulted ceilings of the DC Metro. Because behind those panels? The substrata the metro was drilled into.

Brutalism is about not hiding how you, the archatecht, built something. To force you, the observer, to put the whole thing together in your head.

As for the warm lighting? It keeps your eyes from straining, and compliments the color of the bare concrete, which also dictates the warm browns of the tiles and the off-black signage.

It's weirdly comfortable, maybe even cozy. Especially when compared to the harsh white-blue of the NYC metro. Also, every station is like this.

It's not as apparent as artistic like neo-classical or neo-gothic, but it is art.

How I feel when talking to people about brutalist architecture

[bohba13-writing-den]

THIS WAS ON A FRIEND’S PAGE: An anguished question from a Trump supporter: ‘Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?’

THE SERIOUS ANSWER: Here’s what the majority of anti-Trump voters honestly feel about Trump supporters en masse:

That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought "Fine."

That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, "Okay."

That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, "No problem."

That when he made up stories about seeing Muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, "Not an issue."

That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn't care, you exclaimed, "He sure knows me."

That when you heard him relating a story of an elderly guest of his country club, an 80-year old man, who fell off a stage and hit his head, to Trump replied: “‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away. I couldn’t—you know, he was right in front of me, and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him. He was bleeding all over the place. And I felt terrible, because it was a beautiful white marble floor, and now it had changed color. Became very red.” You said, "That's cool!"

That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest thing you ever saw.

That when you heard him brag that he doesn't read books, you said, "Well, who has time?"

That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, "That makes sense."

That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, "Yes!"

That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man's coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, "What a great guy!"

That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, "Thumbs up!"

That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, "That's the way I want my President to be."

That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they're supposed to be regulating and you have said, "What a genius!"

That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, "That's smart!"

That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was in the middle of water and you have said, "That makes sense."

That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, "falling in love" with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, "That's statesmanship!"

That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids, has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas - he explains that they’re just “animals” - and you say, “Well, OK then.”

That you have witnessed all the thousand and one other manifestations of corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise.

What you don't get, Trump supporters, is that our succumbing to frustration and shaking our heads, thinking of you as stupid, may very well be wrong and unhelpful, but it's also...hear me...charitable.

Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering.

- Adam-Troy Castro

(To all who agree with its content, I ask that you PLEASE SHARE IT on your own post, and ENCOURAGE OTHERS to do the same.)

[bohba13-writing-den]

New writing rule: Checkov’s friend

If you introduce a named character with a relationship to a protagonist, their character arc must be resolved in a way that feels reasonable and satisfying

Which is to say: they can’t just dissappear when they’re no longer a convenient plot device

[bohba13-writing-den]

Is that the same episode as this?

do any of you remember that gumball episode where darwin becomes mega paranoid after watching a health and safety video so to quell his anxiety he goes out of his way to make everything kid friendly and inoffensive by propositioning it as being for the children and then he becomes a fascist at the end

[bohba13-writing-den]

What the hell was this? And what did this person do to get nuked?

[bohba13-writing-den]

"teens are prone to tantrums and are emotionally unstable" - okay, yeah, puberty is real, and emotional regulation is a difficult skill to learn. but also. any adult person would be pissed if their opinions were disregarded, they had no say in what happens to them, their emotions and feelings were downplayed and their privacy were intruded on.

[bohba13-writing-den]

I'm often really dedicated to the visual quality and authenticity of the memes I make, but like idk if I could ever make another human being care about that. I used the proper font and color picked the correct color and sized everything correctly and used the alignment tool to get the spacing right and redrew the background behind the text and spent way too long messing with the drop shadow settings to mimic the original text. Skyrim media literacy 0 skill meme. If you care.

[bohba13-writing-den]

Iirc there is a bit where she does figure out Bruce's Identity and she goes to the Joker to tell him because she mistakenly thinks he wants that info. Joker's reaction was... Predictable.

But it does establish that she knows it. Again, not only did she get a doctorate in psychology, she got it fast.

Clark Kent finally goes to get therapy but the only person who knows both of his identities AND is in any way actually qualified is Harley Quinn

[bohba13-writing-den]

its maddening to me when people discusss school issues and you can tell they dont give a single thought to disabled kids, institutionalised kids, untold scores of dead kids whose graves are etched with fantasies written by their parents. it's always appeal to some median presentable child stripped of interiority, inherently oppositional against learning for no motive, transformed into property which must be totally controlled for their own good. i don't care about your imagined construct of the median child. the system should be built for the most vulnerable children who are stripped of their voices and erased from reality. i think we should sacrifice bureaucratic efficiency if it means less kids get killed and institutionalised. i think standardised testing should be stripped bare (less frequent, results completely anonymised to parents and schools so they have no individual incentives for results). i think homework should be minimised even if it meant worse learning outcomes (which it doesnt in the majority of cases) so that less kids get killed and institutionalised. these are sacrifices which should be uncontroversial to anyone who isn't a eugenicist, and who recognises that the current education system is a disability filter

[bohba13-writing-den]

It's not only that. The 'Canon Warrior' phenomenon which drives this is not exclusive to the Bleach fandom. It isn't a coincidence that the people who do this to those who ship non-canon ships also glaze the creator of the media.

They are authoritarians. Their declarations of the canonicity of something and that being the end all be all with no regard for critical analysis or attempts to understand the flaws of the things they love tip their hand.

The fact they put Kubo up on a pedestal of infallibility says everything.

They are the ones who make the mistake of following the Lisan al-Gaib, without acknowledging the flaws of their 'leader.' They are the ones who think one strong person can fix the world, refusing to acknowledge the fallibility of those very same people.

Funnily enough, this is an attitude Bleach is unkind to. Soul Society is a place of 'necessary evils' upheld by people who simply accept the way things are. Who don't ask how the world could be better, let alone even try.

Nobody asks if the evils really are necessary. They only accept that they are so. They do not critically analyze their world. Just as these canon warriors don't analyze the work. Or at least they don't dig deep enough.

very well, many people have said that those who prefer Ichihime only fight with the Ichiruki fandom in general and it's really not true in general because that goes way beyond that. It's really annoying not only to be able to ship two characters quietly but also to be forbidden to ship anyone else involved in the "canon" and let's be honest, is it really necessary to give an opinion that you know doesn't count in a publication where your ship has absolutely nothing to do? because yes, it is not only with the Ichiruki but with any ship that is not faithful to the "canon"

My God, they're so toxic and annoying in such a way that they literally invaded an Ulquihime post like this, it's terrible. Although well, that only proves us right, Ichihime had so little chemistry and such no development that they cannot accept that both Ichigo and Orihime had a deeper connection with other characters, so they take refuge in commenting and hating every post that does not belong to the "canon", to feel more secure regarding their poorly written "couple"

Sorry For My English, isn't my first language