makimacult

[makimacult]

now that i have malice in my heart forever and no hope for the future i can finally relax

[makimacult]

dennis also tries to scam ppl but he sucks at it

[makimacult]

The difficulty of trying to poke at people's assumptions about what is "real life" and what is not; why "online" life must be abjected compared to "real" life; why certain fields, activities, works of fiction &c. have "value" and others do not; why certain questions are worth asking, and others are not—

the difficulty of trying to work 'upstream,' as it were, to question all of that, is that people always have the option of shutting down the question by retreating to a previously assumed position, rather than actually attempting to answer it ab initio. Their opinion is already the cultural default idea! They can just gesture back at it and act as if it's obvious, rather than engaging with your argument.

"Life that occurs online is less valuable than real life" -> "Why is that?" -> "Because it isn't real" -> "How do you define 'real'? Why are certain activities that a person can engage in more 'real' than others?" -> "They are different because some are real and others are not"

"Activities that involve physical movement are more real and valuable than those that do not" -> "What makes activity that occurs on a couch or in a bed less 'real'?" -> "Because you are just stuck inside rather than being in the real world" -> "What about disabled people? If you cannot leave your house, is your entire life less 'real' and 'valuable' than that of somebody who can?" -> "Oh my god, please go touch grass"

"These people are getting excited about their internet fanfictions and little video games instead of having real sex like normal people" -> "What is the idea of 'normalcy' doing for you here? Why is it better to be 'normal'? Why are, say, sexting, sexual role-play through instant messaging, and writing and reading pornographic material, less 'healthy' or 'real' sexual behaviors than having 'real' sex? What contributes to your ideas about the categories of 'real' versus 'fake' sex, what belongs to each category, and the relative health / normalcy or pathology / abnormality of those categories? Can we historicise these ideas?" -> "Oh my god, someone clearly needs to get laid"

"Smut is rotting these people's brains" -> "Why is pornographic or otherwise sexually explicit content innately noxious or valueless?" -> "It's smut!" -> "What about Lolita or Lady Chatterley's Lover?" -> "That's different!" -> "Why, other than cultural prestige, is it different? Can you create, from first principles, a general analytic that would allow you to, when presented with a work of fiction, decide whether it was 'smut' or whether it had value? Are you certain your analytic would always agree with what the literary establishment had decided?" -> "I mean, it's Lolita. I wasn't talking about Lolita"

"Oh my god, look at this article title! 'Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl'!? What are humanities coming to?" -> "Why is that absurd?" -> "Jane Austen and masturbation?" -> "Why do you think these two things are so antithetical? What makes historical medical ideas about masturbation an inherently infelicitous lens through which to view Austen's works? What is it about Austen, or about masturbation, that makes this combination laughable?" "I mean, just look at the title of the article! 'Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl'!!! It's ridiculous!"

"The New Historicists are off talking about contemporary ideas about race and gender and medical science rather than doing the work of a literary critic!" -> "What is the work of a literary critic?" -> "To critique literature!" -> "What does that entail? Why should any one analytic lens be the only one that constitutes 'literary critique'? We can trace the historical development of different analytic lenses throughout the creation and sequestration of "literary analysis" as an academic field—so why should some of them be 'real', and others spurious?" -> "They are making articles like 'Little Dorrit and the Medicalisation of Disability in Science Periodicals of the 1850s' instead of explicating the characters, plot, and themes of the work in itself without reference to contextualising discourses!" -> "What is bad about reference to contextualising discourses?" -> "It's not literary critique!"

"There is a difference between low and high culture, and high culture is better" -> "What is the difference? Why is 'high' culture better?" -> "High culture inspires people to think deeply about life and art" -> "Is it impossible to think deeply about 'low' culture? Can the analytic lenses applied to 'high' culture not be applied to 'low' culture? What would be infelicitous about such an application? Are these lenses innately not suited to 'low' culture, or is the perceived mismatch a matter of cultural ideals that can be historicised, politicised, problematised? Is your reverence for 'high' culture due to some innate quality within the work itself, or due to what obedience to these standards can buy you?" -> "No, it's not about cultural standards, some works are just better than others" -> "What about cases where something is considered 'low' culture at one point of time, but later re-evaluated and considered 'high' culture? Has the work itself changed due to its changed designation? Would you have new respect for a work you had previously dismissed if its cultural evaluation changed? If so, how can you claim that your reverence is due to a quality innate to the work itself, and not to your desire to have your engagement with culture respected by others?" -> "So you think your 100k word slow-burn enemies-to-lovers Stucky fic is as good as the Mona Lisa? Please get a life"

[makimacult]

i think substack kind of reveals the problem with a lot of young writers and it's that they have nothing to talk about beyond writing and weepy little bits of introspection about "the unbearable fragility of young adulthood" or their failed relationships or living in new york that all say the same things. idk maybe training just to Write doesn't give you much to say

[makimacult]

good post, but unfortunately you alluded to an ideal parent that a child does deserve rather than condemning the familial power structure altogether. as such I won't be reblogging have a nice night

[makimacult]

wait im curious

[makimacult]

like a solid 60% of weird fandom tropes were invented by women who needed slightly more avant garde ways to fuck spock.... wanting to fuck spock is in many ways a load bearing pillar of fandom like if u took it away the source code would just break theres like a molecule of wanting to fuck spock or reaction to everyone wanting to fuck spock within the heart of fanfic all fanfiction is about wanting to fuck spock except fanfic about wanting to fuck spock which is about women in stem

[makimacult]

i feel like 10 years ago it was normal to be annoyed about stuff like workplace icebreaker questions and acknowledge that everyone just lies and makes up some shit to sound normal because it's social interaction at economic gunpoint so it's just really funny to be like oh my godd what if someone used chatgpt to do that. oh the humanity. first our drudgery emails now our pointless trick question wastes of meeting time what will the robots rob us of next

[makimacult]

NATASHA ROMANOFF and YELENA BELOVA BLACK WIDOW | 2021

[makimacult]

Playing with my watercolor brushes again. Some tgcf things. Original orientation was horizontal but of course that won't work on tumblr 😁.

[makimacult]

[makimacult]

This is from a post with a lot of reblogs yet I can't find a single person in the notes pointing out how insanely racist the entire second paragraph is. Hello??

[makimacult]

No, I would not steal a car. However, if I had the ability to create a copy of someone's car that I could have for free while the other person retained their original car, I would definitely do that.

[makimacult]

Still can't believe he weighed in on thot daughter versus gay son

[makimacult]

[makimacult]

Saw a post where someone made fun of another persons atypical way of typing and when they were then told that the person in question type like that because of a disability, they went “how was I supposed to just know that?” - and in case anyone wasn’t aware the answer to that kind of fuckery is: 

“You’re not supposed to know that, you’re just supposed to not make fun of anyone’s harmless differences regardless of whether they’re disabled or not. You’re not supposed to be able to tell “weird” abled neurotypicals and disabled/mentally ill people apart, you’re just supposed to treat people with respect generally speaking. It’s not that hard. “I didn’t know they were disabled” is just not the excuse you think it is cause you’re not supposed to make fun of anyone for completely harmless differences regardless of whether said differences are related to a disability or not.

[makimacult]

if i were a dead wife i would want my husband to fag out kinda. i would be fujoing out from hell