naranjapetrificada

[naranjapetrificada]

[naranjapetrificada]

Ok so. Unfortunately I can’t go to Glasgow after all and I need to give away my ticket for Rhys Darby’s show on Saturday. 😭💔

Anyone interested in going? Or maybe know of another person who’d want the ticket?

Don’t want the seat to stay empty.

[naranjapetrificada]

tfw the co-worker who always reminded you of your shitty dad tries to hit on you in the middle of a work meeting

[naranjapetrificada]

people on this website be like “it’s actually school’s fault that i don’t know how to read because i wanted to write my essay on the divergent trilogy and that BITCH mrs. clarkson made us study 1984 instead. anyway here’s a 10 tweet thread of easily disproven misinformation about a 3 year old news story and btw, who is toni morrison?”

[naranjapetrificada]

me whenever I see posts about how canon is shit and can be discarded

[naranjapetrificada]

[naranjapetrificada]

That explains exactly why I was confused, because (surprising absolutely no one) I don't think I have a hesitating bone in my body. Anyone with more than 3 ofmd posts to their name has been in that situation with the canyon, and it never occurred to me to shrink myself in response to them the way you describe. I totally understand that most people don't have as thick of a skin as I do, especially when it comes to the prospect of self-expression. When we're told our whole lives not to make waves (or even risk making waves), some people hang back and some people cannonball right into the water.

fox guide to dealing with people who keep trying to control the fandom discourse & silence any opinion that disagrees with them:

say whatever you want

when they complain block/mute them

say it again

[naranjapetrificada]

every time someone points out that "reject modernity, embrace tradition" is a literal nazi phrase there's like 4000 white people in the replies who all cry and sob and need to be comforted because their ~comfort meme~ is ~problematic~ and it's very very funny. i say thru gritted teeth

and no, you're not 'taking it from them' when you put it on a funny meme. you are normalizing it. you are helping develop it into a dogwhistle. and you deserve teeth in your grey matter

[naranjapetrificada]

A federal judge has sided with Anthropic in a major copyright ruling, declaring that artificial intelligence developers can train models using published books without authors’ consent. The decision, filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sets a precedent that training AI systems on copyrighted works constitutes fair use. Though it doesn’t guarantee other courts will follow, Judge William Alsup’s ruling makes the case the first of dozens of ongoing copyright lawsuits to give an answer about fair use in the context of generative AI. It’s a question that has been raised by creatives across various industries for years since generative AI tools exploded into the mainstream, allowing users to easily produce art from models trained on copyrighted work — often without the human creators’ knowledge or permission. AI companies have been hit with a slew of copyright lawsuits from media companies, music labels and authors since 2023. Artists have signed multiple open letters urging government officials and AI developers to constrain the unauthorized use of copyrighted works. In recent years, companies have also increasingly reached licensing deals with AI developers to dictate terms of use for their artists’ works. Alsup ruled on a lawsuit filed in August by three authors — Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson — who claimed that Anthropic ignored copyright protections when it pirated millions of books and digitized purchased books to feed into its large language models, which helped train them to generate humanlike text responses. “The copies used to train specific LLMs were justified as a fair use,” Alsup wrote in the ruling. “Every factor but the nature of the copyrighted work favors this result. The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes.”

[naranjapetrificada]

not sure where exactly i'm going with this but something i always think is interesting about ofmd s2, and very unlike a lot of fic & speculation from before the season dropped, is that they chose to make the previous ed-izzy relationship completely implode BEFORE stede is back in the picture. by the time stede, ed and izzy are all conscious and present on the revenge at once izzy has already permanently given up on the idea of re-creating the sort of relationship he used to imagine he had with blackbeard.

from a doylist pov this is partly just because the writers pretty clearly never had any interest in playing stede-ed-izzy as love triangle in the way that a lot of fandom saw it. but it does something interesting to how the redemption arc goes.

because it really changes izzy's arc for the season to have ed reject him while stede is firmly out of the picture, while both ed and izzy have no reason to think they will ever see stede bonnet again. because if stede had been there when izzy said "i have...love for you" and ed scoffed, izzy would have thought ed was rejecting him in favor of stede. he'd think, if only stede weren't around this wouldn't have happened. i think in that circumstance izzy would have never given up hope that if stede were removed from the picture somehow then he could resume his pre-stede-bonnet relationship with ed.

but what happened instead is ed made it absolutely clear that EVEN IF STEDE IS NOT AN OPTION he still does not want or need the kind of relationship with izzy that izzy wants the two of them to have. he would in fact literally rather die.

and then i thought about it a little more and, well, almost the next thing izzy does is blame ed's behavior on "your feelings for stede bonnet," right? and taken literally what he's blaming on ed's feelings for stede is the atmosphere on the ship, the way ed's treating the crew, etc. but actually i don't think that's what he means.

i think he's still - understandably - stewing in rejection at that moment, and he wants to find a narrative that lets him understand why it happened and save some face, if only to himself. so he really wants to think, edward rejected me because of his feelings for stede bonnet, if it weren't for that homewrecker he would have accepted my love confession. so he wants to believe that, and he starts to say it out loud. he pretends he's talking about the atmosphere on the ship, but he doesn't mean the atmosphere, what he means is you rejected my love because of your feelings for stede bonnet.

and ed shoots him before he can finish that sentence.

i don't think either izzy or ed really consciously understands what izzy was trying to say there. i'm not sure ed even subconsciously understands it either tbh. so i don't think ed like intended to send a message about izzy's love confession there, he just wanted to make sure izzy didn't get stede's name out right here in front of everybody. but narratively, symbolically, that gunshot is shattering the lie izzy wants to tell himself along with izzy's kneecap.

and this makes a bit more sense out of why izzy tells stede first that ed shot him for mentioning stede's name, and then later that ed shot him for saying he loved him. because he knows the first one is literally what happened. but there's a reason he feels like it was the second, and he's not exactly wrong to think of it that way.

[naranjapetrificada]

just read back through a bunch of ofmd posts from 2022 like right after the show dropped and people were constantly making jokes about izzy behaving like an overprotective father with a shotgun trying to stop his daughter from sneaking out to meet her boyfriend. its actually hilarious people acted like the father figure stuff in season 2 was some kind of new idea

#522.

[naranjapetrificada]

Can you make your ears rumble?

(voluntary ear rumbling, is the ability to produce a low, rumbling sound in your ear by contracting a specific muscle. /the tensor tympani muscle/)

[naranjapetrificada]

HEY

so if you know someone who went to the LA protests today no you don't actually! All of those people have no identity. You've never been to a protest, you've never seen someone at one, and you certainly have never known the names or faces of any individuals associated with the protests.

[naranjapetrificada]

underappreciated aspect of the izzy-mary parallels is how just like stede and mary, ed and izzy are only ever able to have one healthy and emotionally intimate interaction in their entire relationship and it's at the moment they both acknowledge that their relationship was always fundamentally bad at the root, that it never could have been what they were trying to make it, and they will never again be part of each other's lives from this moment on

i mean it. this probably sounds like a dunk on the canyon and that's why i won't say this on main but i genuinely think this is a deeply meaningful payoff for the parallels that were set up in s1

#514.

[naranjapetrificada]

if you’re going to claim to be an anti-racist ally, it helps to listen to actual fucking words POC say instead of picking a token to prop up. stop using us to cover for the fact that you haven’t formed any actual opinions or learned anything from us

are you actually paying attention, or are you just checking to see if someone’s brown enough to be worth listening to?

[naranjapetrificada]

sound on! tw flashing lights! tiny ed and stede are still living rent free in my head and that's rly the only explanation I have for this idk

inspired by the collab a few days ago between me and @bird-divorce and @blakbonnet, all credit for the adorable goldfish car design goes to eli <3

[naranjapetrificada]

"Oh, that's the shape of love."