#obfuscator

[the-silent-fellowship]

i hope you don’t mind me making another request but could you also make a flag for the term obfuscator? (https://pluralpedia.org/w/Obfuscator)

Obfuscator

[PT: Obfuscator]

“An obfuscator is a masker or prism who is also a persecutor, and forces masking onto the system in ways often detrimental to their attempts to live a healthy life. The obfuscator may prevent the system from asking for help, or allowing the system to divulge any secrets, even when it’s clear that doing so is the healthier choice. The obfuscator may be unaware they are doing this, or that they are even a headmate.” - Pluralpedia

[ID: in Alt text]

[Tags] @system-term-archive, @pluralitywords, @pluralterms, @radiomogai, @plurchive

[ijustwannamakeemojis]

[ID: Six pixel hearts of various flags in order being Lazymate, Obfuscator, Masker, Caesian, Posier, and Faucet. End ID]

@the-silent-fellowship Obfuscator, Masker, Faucet

@polyextranth Caesian

[ursiday]

You're an angel, I'm a dog

[teratomatica]

you always land on all fours

[kenyatta]

For every movement toward enclosure that the law facilitates, there is an opposite, underappreciated movement toward liberation from control—a moment where social activism exposes the need for alternative political economies of information. Today we have moved into a framework of semiotic disobedience, a world which importantly differs from, and yet remains, in the shadow of semiotic democracy. As I argue, the recurrence of market failures within intellectual property has not silenced the marketplace of expression, but merely divided it into two coexisting and ultimately converging markets — one legal, and formally protected by the laws of property; the other illegal, and therefore vulnerable to criminal and civil sanction. And yet the difference between these marketplaces of speech—one protected, one prohibited—both captures and transcends the foundational differences between democracy and disobedience itself. Just as previous discussions of civil disobedience focused on the need to challenge existing laws by using certain types of public and private property for expressive freedoms, today’s generation seeks to alter existing intellectual property by interrupting, appropriating, and then replacing the passage of information from creator to consumer. In many cases, the object of artistic attention is the appropriation and occupation of intellectual, tangible, or even bodily property. I call these recent artistic practices examples of ‘semiotic disobedience’ because they often involve the conscious and deliberate re-creation of property through appropriative and expressive acts that consciously risk violating the law that governs intellectual or tangible property.

- "Semiotic Disobedience" by Sonia K. Katyal, Washington University Law Review (2006)

[feminist-diary]

Why do the standards of human health differ for women? They know that having sex you don’t want every day to survive isn’t healthy. They know that cultures where women’s bodies are highly controlled aren’t healthy. They know that a woman changing her appearance through surgery doesn’t come from good mental health.

They know how degrading and painful all of this shit is. They know that this causes pain. If someone imagines a man being put into these positions, they would sense the inherent horror of it. It’s just that they think women deserve it, that this is woman’s position in society. It’s too normal, the suffering women are put through, for people to recognize its wrongness. But it’s also so normal that I ask, how can you not recognize it?

Why do you view women’s pain differently? Are women not human enough for our pain to matter? Why are you being intentionally obtuse, denying the truth you know deep down?

Patriarchy demands that you deny truth. Feminism reveals truth. Within feminism, there is nothing to hide.

[krillgarden]

take care of it, homura.

[mythmagicetc]

if i had to pick a single moment that encapsulates everything wrong with the episode to me, it would be "everything okay?" "yeah i just have to pick something up for the service"

because we find out right afterward (and really i knew immediately, because i'd seen the trailer and i have a brain in my head) that the "something" is actually chim, drinking straight vodka mere days post-organ failure on the roof of the firehouse. maybe buck didn't have details yet, but he knew he was going to get chim. why would he hide that from eddie and ravi? why bother obfuscating that chim is taking this really hard? these people are experiencing such a tragedy, and the show chooses to distance them all from each other just for the sake of a few seconds of "suspense" before the viewer finds out where buck went. i'm glad we had a scene with maddie and buck, and athena and hen, but the rest of them are barely allowed to support each other. in this specific case, eddie is Trying to reach out, to ask buck if everything's okay, but it's used as an easy segue rather than a real opportunity for connection. i know i'm talking in circles but i just can't understand how all these choices were made in succession

[bittsandpieces]

Can we please see the lovely nails?

took this this morning!! I think I did pretty good, considering i did them myself and I've only been painting my nails consistently for a few weeks now

[eregar]

the subversion of the wise & long-lived elven companion with yrliet is so funny to me. like she is one or perhaps even two hundred years old. she speaks with the soft, lyrical tone of a mythical sage. and only via context clues from her clansmen do you realize she’s a gullible, rebellious prodigal daughter, her opinions seen as beneath any real consideration. she falls in love with you if you engage in never before seen activities for her like, being considerate to her. listening to her. and extending her basic empathy. it’s an age gap relationship where the centuries old being is in a vulnerable position to me, a literal infant on equivalent timescale.

[quietwingsinthesky]

the thing is, i don’t disagree that what and how you choose to write about things is a reflection of you, the writer, and cannot be divorced from your beliefs and biases. but to assume that anyone can perfectly pick out your beliefs from a piece of fiction you’ve written is an extremely weird and paranoid thing to claim, especially if you’re positing that the secret truth is that the writer is a dangerous person and they’re “revealing” that through fiction that upsets you, personally. at the end of the day, the artist is not the art, and no matter how upsetting, no matter how much you dislike it, no matter how much it disgusts you, you don’t know the person who made it and you can only guess how who they are shaped what they made.

like, really, is it more likely that the secret “belief” that’s being revealed when you’re reading something that is really upsetting to you is that the author is a secret Bad Person™️ who wants all of this fantasy to happen in real life, or that the author knows it’s a safe and normal thing to create upsetting works of fiction and so did that.

[cogentranting]

The thing that almost never gets brought up in "banned books" conversations but that I think is essential to address, is the distinction between "students shouldn't be allowed to read this" and "students shouldn't be required to read this".

There is a wide gulf between removing a book from a curriculum list and removing a book from a library but I almost never hear that acknowledged.

[i-am-a-stupid-robot]

they are sending each other little notes on yahoo! pager

[corseque]

can't believe after 10 years we still don't know any concrete details about Solas. Who the hell is he anyway lmao

[menlove]

Andy: Just like most artists, really. I mean, there’s obviously no reason at all why you should answer any questions about what your songs are about, because the songs should be the statement, and obviously when you start talking about the particular meanings of something, without the music, without the context, it doesn’t sound right.

I certainly noticed with Brian Ferry’s songs that he expresses, reveals, far more of himself in songs than ever in a conversation, and he does it in a way that it’s always surprising – a quite extraordinary amount of revealing things. That’s particularly him. I know that that doesn’t apply to you.

Paul: But, you know, isn’t that what a lot of stuff, this “so called art” is about, isn’t it? You know that someone in a picture will be able to do something, express something you can’t do. Yeah, I think I find it easy, I mean, the same way a lot of people have stutters but don’t stutter when they sing a song. That always amazed me that, and I think it is the same way that you can have things said in a song. I mean, I would never have looked at John Lennon and kinda said, “I love you”, because it wasn’t about that, you know, it was nothing about that. But in a song, in the particular way they’re written today, I kinda easily say, “I love you”, almost as a throw-away, because it doesn’t seem embarrassing in that context. I can always deny that it was ever written about him. Burn the tapes, and delete the…

Paul McCartney, interviewed by Andy Mackay in 1982 about his album "Tug of War" (source)

(note: bold mine, but he did trail off there/was interrupted by Andy by another question. it's unclear which one from the transcript. but nothing has been cut off)

[cincidious]

A web of fear shall be your coat To clothe you in the night