#part 2 whenever

[back-to-louis]

*HUGE SIGH* - Part 1

(Or: the poll has spoken)

“I love to discuss (argue).” - The Larrie OP

That’s one of many differences between us, and why ultimately this is a waste of my time. I’m not here to argue. I didn’t start this blog to argue. I have always simply tried to get people to consider the harm of their behavior in propagating the conspiracy theory of Larrie. By stating up front that the goal is to “argue” (read: get attention), it’s clear that the OP is not operating from a position of being willing to reflect or change their mind. That’s why this is a waste of time. All I can do is point out the flaws in the arguments, with the best case scenario that I teach the OP how to make better ones next time. I’m certainly not willingly giving them the attention they wanted.

I’d like to suggest readers take a shot (or if you do not drink, a sip of something unpleasant! a squirt of lime in the mouth or something, lol) every time the argument does this thing where they have already determined the crime being committed, try to force an equivocation between that crime and the thing they’re linking to/quoting/discussing, and then interpret the gaps in what they are presenting, or the mention of the other item, to be evidence of the thing they have imagined.

“People commit crimes” is not a black box into which you can insert whatever specific crime you imagine and work backwards from there. There will always be a crime you can imagine being committed. A conspiracy theorist has no reason other than the CT they’re trying to “prove” for asserting THAT OFFENSE is the one being committed. It could be, by those standards, ANYTHING. They would need to explain why they haven’t looked into why XYZ crime isn’t being committed rather than their pet ones. (The answer is in their header)

I’m breaking up the arguments into more manageable chunks, so there will be multiple posts. I will not respond to further baiting about this. Go play with yourself if you want to keep going.

Em, Admit You Were Wrong Because Lifetime Contracts Do Exist! a) Starts off with this DELIGHTFUL SELF OWN:

“Pls don’t tell me that you actually think there’s a single person behind everything and a NAME can be NAMED 😶”

That… is a conspiracy theory, not evidence. Do you know what a conspiracy theory is? Do you know what evidence is?

[slaps self] No, no! I promised myself I would not ask any more questions. I will instead make a statement. A person *gestures* (not saying it's the OP but not NOT saying it) can say anything they want to say, but the statement itself does not constitute evidence. If one such person were to say, “crimes are being committed,” and the response to the question “by whom?” is, “you are very silly, as if there is a person one could name as being responsible for the crimes,” what you have is a conspiracy theory, not evidence of a crime.

If one could simply assert “crimes are being committed” and that one could never actually identify who has committed them, then absolutely ANYTHING ONE COULD IMAGINE could be inserted for “crimes,” according to the accuser’s desire, and ABSOLUTELY ANYONE the accuser imagines could be committing them. Which is what is happening here. The crimes being imagined are according to the larrie’s tastes. If the crimes could be ALL OF THE CRIMES, why SPECIFICALLY closeting? Because that is what the larrie wishes to imagine is being committed. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

b) Quote from Rebecca Ferguson in response to (let’s be real, a larrie) asking: “maybe it’s too exaggerated but can a musician be trapped in an abusive contract for life???”

“Yes 100%”

Now, this is going to blow your mind, but “a musician being trapped in an abusive contract for life” is NOT the same as “lifetime contracts exist” and HERE IS WHY.

There are many items that can be in a contract for a record label, among them obligations for the artist to perform certain actions –(oooh, the larries salivate, this can super duper include anything we imagine like faking a baby or birth certificate or obituary or faked co-habitation etc!)-- such as, I continue on, delivering a certain number of singles, or a certain number of albums, or performances, or tours, or appearances, etc. These are just off the top of my head, surely there are more and others, although I would not insist that just any old thing I can think of will fill that black box.

If an artist bound by such contract, say for example, is obligated to produce ten (10) albums, and never quite manages to get there because they do two and they’re overworked and need a break, mentally or physically, or they’re out of money, or they have a mental block and can’t write, or they don’t want to work with the producers the label instructed them to work with (let’s say because the producer is an abuser and rapist - like that KE$HA connection referenced but not linked, and I wonder why - it’s very easy to find using Google. Here: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/kesha-dr-luke-case-highlights-hidden-side-of-record-contracts-113491/ – btw, ALSO not a “LIFETIME CONTRACT” - it’s about her producing music) or any other number of plausible and implausible reasons why the artist is “unable to deliver” upon the requirements of the contract in a PRODUCTION sense. They aren’t just relieved of the contract because they can’t or won’t deliver (as further elaborated in the article linked above). They’re bound by the contract until they deliver. If they can't deliver or get out of the contract until their death, then the contract is in effect until then.

A “lifetime contract,” in contrast, would be one in which the artist is supposed to be bound to the record label until they die, regardless of deliverables or performance of duties. 

Now, MARRIAGE contracts? Those are for life. “As long as we both shall live/until death do us part?” that’s a LIFETIME contract.

What we have here is that the larrie read a thing and cannot, for the life of them, consider that the thing they read can be true in a way that doesn’t specifically confirm their conspiracy theory. It’s a lack of imagination, frankly. Also, take a shot.

So, no, I don’t think I will “admit” lifetime contracts exist, because you haven’t proven they do.

2. By asserting something very emphatically, the OP thinks they have made it fact.

    In response to another tweet by Rebecca Ferguson (I have no idea why this larrie is so averse to using text instead of images, but I’ll type it out again.)

“No more sexually assaulting women in hotel rooms! No more covering up sexual assault for your seedy friends no more grooming 17 year old boys who are confused about their sexuality! No more taking people out of circulation as if they are cattle… #Netflix #Documentary” a) “You are wrong again. Grooming 17 year old boys to remould their sexuality isn’t closeting then I don’t know what is. (Is it even legal?)” 

    i) Well, you said I was wrong, so I guess that settles it?

ii) The larrie seems very sure that the grooming of he 17 year old boy who is confused about their sexuality is about making the boy heterosexual, appear heterosexual, or think they are heterosexual. We don’t know what the grooming behavior being referred to is, in this case - either Rebecca didn’t elaborate or this larrie has not chosen to share it, but either way, I can’t make that conclusion from what has been shown here. Is the grooming molestation? Is the grooming showing porn? Is it gay porn? Straight porn? Like, if it could be reasonably said that Michael Jackson groomed young boys, was he making them straight? Was he closeting them? This statement is a very big “NEEDS MORE INFORMATION,” not a slam-dunk case of “grooming 17 year old boys is closeting them,” which leads me to

    iii) “If grooming someone is not closeting them then I don’t know what it is” - yeah, it’s very clear you DON’T know what grooming is! https://theconversation.com/grooming-an-expert-explains-what-it-is-and-how-to-identify-it-181573

Take a shot, readers. Just because grooming is a form of abuse, and the larrie has pre-determined that closeting is also a form of abuse, they’ve just slid the two together and think that the declaration that grooming is happening is the equivalent of the other. This is a fallacy.

    iv) “(Is this even legal?)” I was going to ask if the OP even looked up whether grooming was illegal or was this question meant to be rhetorical, but since they don’t even seem clear on what it means, I guess that’s a no.

v) As a side note, re: my comments about choosing which crimes to be outraged about. Look at what's listed in that litany by Rebecca. Look what OP CHOOSES to be most incensed about, blog about day in and day out. Not even the crimes actually listed, crimes that can be charged, litigated, sentenced (I bet Rebecca could name names, there's no mysterious "they" doing these things!). Nope, they're concerned with the one offense they can imagine to be defined therein, which is specifically the one they went in looking for.

~end part 1

[silkysong]

aym instinct but this time the whole story

[otaku553]

Ok so I have been stewing this crossover au in my brain nonstop for the past few days and. I am nothing if not committed to the bit, so. Volume cover redraws :)

Here are the originals:

If you want to read more about my one piece spy x family crossover, keep reading!

So the idea is simple! Crossover reincarnation au where ASL is reborn in Spy x Family. They’re each born separately and none of them are born with the same names as their previous lives, and with no way of finding each other, they each find their own thing to do in the world.

Sabo, too used to the dangers of being a spy, eventually finds a cause to devote himself to again, in preventing war from engulfing the country he was reborn in. Ace, drawn to fire as he was in his previous life, used arson as a means to rob rich people for sustenance and survival, and is eventually scouted and hired by Garden as a fire specialist and assassin. And Luffy, though born in perhaps the poorest condition, grows up happily and takes whatever part time jobs he wants to do.

The thing about Sabo is that, as much as he seems like a young man of good repute and high standing within society, everyone in WISE knows that he is a massive nuisance. Nobody knew in the beginning how a child less than half the age of most of their veteran agents could have the same skills and knowledge in their profession. Sabo was— and still is— hyper competent, and by the time WISE figured out just how much of a menace to society he was, it was too late.

Ace forgot for the first few years of his new life that he wasn’t made of fire, and consequently, received multiple accidental burns. This did not deter him, however, from growing up to be a very skilled arsonist, well-practiced in every which way to start a dumpster fire or house fire. As a teenage he would use this often to draw attention as he robbed rich people blind. When he was caught, he was given an ultimatum by Garden: join them and receive payment for starting fires and causing problems under contract, or face the government and authorities for his crimes. Begrudgingly, he joined Garden, but eventually comes to appreciate that he can make substantial money in his element.

Luffy is Luffy. No telepathy or experimentation, no fancy schools, no gimmicks or secret identities. But he has still lived an extremely colorful life in this world, full of fascinating and kind individuals who have helped him grow up healthy and relatively happy. He goes where he is free, and he takes whatever part time jobs he wants in order to make the minimum he needs to survive.

Ace and Sabo find each other first, in their late teens, and neither of them realize that the other remembers their previous life, but both refuse to separate. (Sabo thinks Ace doesn’t remember, because Ace didn’t recognize him. Ace never saw Sabo grow up past 10, however, so he doesn’t recognize older Sabo immediately. By the time he does realize who exactly Sabo is, Sabo has backtracked and pretends to know Ace from a dream, or from somewhere else.)

Sabo’s attachment to Ace, predictably, causes problems between Sabo and WISE, but by then, Sabo is indispensable to the organization, and they make an exception for Sabo to be able to remain with Ace, so long as Ace never finds out what Sabo’s actual job is. Ace, on the other hand, hides his job because he doesn’t want his brother, who he has just found and who does not know Ace well enough yet, to know that he makes a living from killing people.

And they find Luffy sometime afterwards, prior to the beginning of the Spy x Family canon. Luffy figures out, not long after moving in with his brothers, both of his brothers’ secret occupations and the fact that both of them remember their past memories. He thinks it is common knowledge, however, and so he never brings it up.

[teamsasukes]

the chunin exams arc was so interesting for how it portrayed sakura's potential and how people in her life influenced it. kakashi lying about the team-based enrollment criteria because he thinks sakura would be likely to sign up only to appease sasuke, and being genuinely surprised when she shows up anyway. naruto being completely oblivious when sakura was upset preceding the exams and also after she cut her hair in the forest of death. naruto literally dreaming about saving sakura from enemies, being the hero to her damsel-in-distress. sakura moulding herself into a perfectly feminine lady because that's what society demanded and what she thought sasuke would want. versus sasuke calling her out for focusing too much on romance instead of her skills like she should be doing. sasuke picking up that she was upset because she felt inadequate and reminding her of what she was best at -- maybe even better than him -- and never begrudging her for it. ino hacking into her mind because she was sure, not a single doubt in her mind, that sakura would know the answers to the impossible questions on the written exam. ino and sasuke both stepping in to save her during her fight with the sound nin, but only after being spurred on by the brutal beating she took. ino and sasuke getting frustrated with naruto when he commented on how her haircut looked because it made sakura trivialize her experience and offer a fake explanation about women being fickle. the flashbacks revealing to us that ino affirmed that she would one day bloom into a beautiful flower. ino and sasuke serving as a catalyst for sakura to get stronger before pt 1 and pt 2 respectively. idk do you see what i'm seeing

[lemon-wedges]

Its been a while since I updated this little project but heres the dealio. I got "mysteriously" sick for the last 2 months and it kinda halted my work on getting this thing physically printed. BUT IM BACK and ready to start this up again. I'm really hoping i get everything done by Jan. or very latest feb (mostly anticipating for holiday slow down)

In the meantime i got a few questions on my interest check asking if i would offer a digital version of the zine. and the answer 2 months late is YES I WILL YOU CAN GET IT NOW ACTUALLY ON MY GUMROAD OR KO-FI HURRRAYYYYYY!!!! 🥳🥳 GO CHECK IT OUT ITS $3

GUMROAD | KO-FI

[rainedroptalks]

If there’s one thing Adaine and Kristen are probably great at, it’s casually saying the most batshit and concerning things from their childhood in random conversations

[melmedarda]

We need something revolutionary, Elora. Something to put Piltover on the map.

⸻ MEL MEDARDA, Arcane

[lesbiancarat]

want to give my two cents on the AI usage in the maestro trailer--

i think seventeen doing a whole concept that is anti-AI is very cool, especially as creatives themselves i think it's good that they're speaking up against it and i hope it gets more ppl talking about the issue. i also understand on a surface level the artistic choice (whether it was made by the members, the mv director, or whoever else), to directly use AI in contrast to real, human-made visuals and music in order to criticize it. i also appreciate that they clearly stated the intention of the use of AI at the beginning of the video

however, although i understand it to an extent, i do not agree with the choice to use AI to critique AI. one of the main ethical concerns with generative AI is that it is trained on other artists' work without their knowledge, consent, or compensation. and even when AI generated images are being used to critique AI, it still does not negate this particular ethical concern

the use of AI to critique also does not negate the fact that this is work that could have been done by an actual artist. i have seen some people argue that it's okay in this context because it's a critique specifically about AI, and it is content that never would have been done by a real artist anyway because it doesn't make sense for the story they're trying to tell. but i disagree. i think you can still tell the exact same story without using AI

and in fact, i would argue that it would make the anti-AI message stronger if they HAD paid an artist to draw/animate the scenes that are supposed to represent AI generated images. wouldn't it just be proof that humans can create images that are just as bad and nonsensical and soulless as AI, but that AI can't replicate the creativity and beauty and basic fucking anatomy that's in human-made art?

it feels very obvious this was not just a way to cut corners and costs like a lot of scummy people are using AI for. ultimately it was a very intentional creative decision, i just personally think it was a very poor one. and even if some ethical considerations were taken into account before this decision, i certainly don't think all of them were. at the very least i feel like the decision undermines the message they want to convey

i would also like to recognize that i myself am not an artist, and i have seen some artists that are totally on board with the use of AI in this specific context, so clearly this is not a topic that is cut and dry. but generative AI is still new, and i think it's important to keep having these conversations

[mattodore]

everyone say hi jordan ✌

[spamsandsuch]

self reflection (2) preview

[theabominable]

Hi! How do you think the brothers would react if they overheard mc in their room while they have a friend over and they're talking about crushes and they hear them say they like one of the brothers ? Love your writing :)

LUCIFER goes to gently knock on your bedroom door to tell you and asmodeus to keep the giggling down, but stops when he hears the mention of his name.

"okay... don't tell him, but i've had a huge crush on lucifer for the longest time." you say to asmo, your face heating up.

"i knew it!" asmo says and you playfully push him - was it really that obvious? lucifer smirks from behind the door and walks back to his room, he's known of your little crush for a while now, you're not exactly subtle with your longing looks and lingering touches. lucifer opens up his DDD and quickly texts you.

"MC, i have some free time tomorrow. would you like to go on a date with me?"

MAMMON awkwardly lingers outside your room, leaving against the wall waiting for you to finish getting ready so you could hang out as usual. he distantly can hear you chatting to your friend over facetime. it's not really anything new; how hard that potions test was, the new movie that's coming out today (aka, the one mammon's taking you to see) and how it's getting hard not to kiss him whenever you see him- wait what? mammon chokes on the spearmint gum he's chewing and you abruptly stop your monologue when you hear his coughing.

"um.. i gotta go! i think someone heard me.." you quickly whisper shout to your friend and and press the end call button. you roll off your bed and hesitantly open the door, ready to attack whatever monster was making those strange noises outside your bedroom.

but it's just mammon, wheezing a little but still leaning against the door trying to look cool.

"..hey! so- AHEM... ya' mind if we make today a date?" he asks and you can't tell if he's bright red from overhearing you or from all that coughing.

LEVIATHAN only left the call for a few seconds, just to grab a glass of water, but as he put his headset on and heard his name his heart sunk. you and his other online friends were talking behind his back. of course you were. who would even want to play with someone like him? he should just leave the call, no one wants-

"levi? of course i like him, what are you talking about?" your angelic voice instantly halts his train of thoughts.

"haha, but we all know you like-like him. come on, don't act like we can't see you in the private voicechat flirting away?" a snickering voice replies.

"c-come on guys! it's not like that. i just feel.. a lot closer to him lately. he's really sweet.. and cute and he's fun to play with and i just-"

levi accidentally pushes a soda can on his desk as he brings his hands to his face, trying to cover his blushing face and a loud crinkle noise rings in the call.

"oh. oh my gosh." you whisper and an explosion of laughter erupts, you've never left a call faster in your life.

levi barely manages to type a private message to you with his shaky hands,

"did you really mean that?"

[shinozaki-ayumi]

i was skimming a blood drive stream (mostly looking for ayushiki crumbs, it's been a while) and was reminded of one of the best interactions in the franchise

[dailyrickastley]

Once upon time in 1987...

[fihas]

compilation of all the 2001 aso bits ive made over the past few weeks. for fun

[gh0stlain]

scenario smp clowns! (pt.1)

sneve design that inspired the rest of these guys is by max!! (i just gave him a hammer)

[bfdifan26]

i can help you!!