#writing this like i dont have a thesis to write instead | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bimboficationblues · 9 months ago

Note

I'm interested in your thesis that liberalism is related to desire for security. To me it seems completely counter-intuitive since conservativism is the primary political ideology that is characterised by desire for rules-based security, and liberalism with its eponymous focus on "freedom" is more of a counter-movement to that. We may have different definitions of liberalism (I'm in Europe) and I haven't read any of the authors you listed, so I dont quite understand where you're coming from. If you'd like to expand on that a bit - especially how you'd place conservativism in that analysis - I'd like to read it. :)

ty for the question it's a helpful one! hopefully I can actually spell out the broad strokes without just starting to write the book. (I'm not sure I can.) this is all preliminary tracings so I welcome comments, questions, criticisms.

let me cut it to the size of a paragraph: my view is that "security," construed broadly, is the implicit or explicit value underlying basically all of liberal political philosophy and statecraft; this claim is fundamentally linked with my reading of liberalism as a form of legalistic, technocratic aristocracy (literally: "rule of the best"), which wears the skin of democracy as long as its rule is not at risk.

okay, so, working definitions of terms.

What do you mean by liberalism? What about conservatism, isn't that a better example of what you've identified?

Liberalism is a bunch of different things falling under an umbrella term. I find the term "ideology" slippery, so I'm going to try and avoid it here.

When I use the term I am referring to a particular lineage within the history of political thought. That includes a lot of different political actors - philosophers and writers, workers and activists, domestic and international statesmen. Liberalism is not just a particular structure of belief or self-identification held by people or political parties. Rather, I see liberalism as the organizational principles of global capitalism, the mode of thought proper to capitalism's sustenance via the management of the modern state.

My view is that the two things you've highlighted are the broad, self-justifying narratives of these different modes of political thought. "Liberalism is about guarantees of equality, rights, and freedoms, and conservatism is about stability through the preservation of social tradition and culture." I will note that when spelled out in the abstract like this, these things are not actually in inherent contradiction with each other. When you break them down in practice or dig through the details of thought, you find a very different picture. Liberal political thought's values, on investigation, are only about freedom and equality and democracy insofar as those things secure property and the rule of capital. Instead, the substantive values of liberalism are revealed as security, private property, aristocracy (i.e. that "the best" should rule), expansionist empire, "the defense of civilization."

The distinction I would draw, if I wanted to distill the two down, is that conservatism demands obedience as an absolute condition of authority, that the possession of the authority is sufficient justification for obedience (the power wielded by earthly authorities, or perhaps capital itself, being a microcosm of the power wielded by a god). Liberalism demands obedience because it claims that existing in society entails a procedural buy-in; the justification for soliciting obedience is grounded in appeals to reason and practicality. (John Locke's notion of "tacit consent," JS Mill's claim that despotism is an acceptable form of governance for "barbarians," or John Rawls' claim that "outlaw states" can be disciplined by liberal democracies for their alleged cultural failings.)

What about security?

If we step back from the ways in which the concept is historically and morally loaded (and Neocleous makes a convincing case why we shouldn't), we can conceive of security as an affect of predictability. We might think about it as the ability to wake up each day and not be worried about how you're going to feed and reproduce yourself, or that you might be hurt or killed or get sick, or that whatever projects you're investing your time and attention and values in will be taken away from you. This sort of risk-calculation can be on an individual or collective level: thinking about the people you surround yourself with, or that live in a given place, or potentially the whole planet as one integrated system.

On one level you might say life is inherently insecure by virtue of our relatively equal vulnerability to harm or death. There's always the hypothetical possibility that you could get really sick or freak weather could ruin your surroundings or you could fall in a hole and die. However, if the place you live is surrounded by holes, that's a very different type of insecurity, and your risk-calculation and predictions are suddenly vastly different from random events; even more so if there is some kind of agent, will, or specific force that can be identified as the cause of the insecurity.

When I say security is the central liberal category, that's not to necessarily say that actually having "security" is bad. Experiencing emotional security might be good (though maybe not ideal if you are actually extremely insecure); likewise, feeling "insecure" does not necessarily imply the actual absence of security. What's relevant is how liberalism defines security and its absence.

~~~~

My position is that liberalism, and its antecedent political economy, has a fundamental worry - conscious or unconscious - that class society (or "civilization") is inherently insecure or unstable, and offers specific answers for resolving that tension.

What I mean by "inherently insecure" is that the struggle between classes consistently generates a mass of people that have little to nothing, and a minority of people that have everything. See J.S. Mill, bemoaning this as a problem in Considerations on Representative Government:

In all countries there is a majority of poor, a minority who, in contradistinction, may be called rich. Between these two classes, on many questions, there is complete opposition of apparent interest. We will suppose the majority sufficiently intelligent to be aware that it is not for their advantage to weaken the security of property, and that it would be weakened by any act of arbitrary spoliation. But is there not a considerable danger lest they should throw upon the possessors of what is called realised property, and upon the larger incomes, an unfair share, or even the whole, of the burden of taxation; and having done so, add to the amount without scruple, expending the proceeds in modes supposed to conduce to the profit and advantage of the labouring class?

See also Hegel, in Elements of the Philosophy of Right:

When a large mass of people sinks below the level of a certain standard of living - which automatically regulates itself at the level necessary for a member of the society in question - that feeling of right, integrity, and honour which comes from supporting oneself by one's own activity and work is lost. This leads to the creation of a rabble, which in turn makes it much easier for disproportionate wealth to be concentrated in a few hands. [...] Poverty in itself does not reduce people to a rabble; a rabble is created only by the disposition associated with poverty, by inward rebellion against the rich, against society, the government, etc. It also follows that those who are dependent on contingency become frivolous and lazy, like the lazzaroni of Naples, for example. This in turn gives rise to the evil that the rabble do not have sufficient honour to gain their livelihood through their own work, yet claim that they have a right to receive their livelihood. No one can assert a right against nature, but within the conditions of society hardship at once assumes the form of a wrong inflicted on this or that class. The important question of how poverty can be remedied is one which agitates and torments modern societies especially.

This is not a very tenable or secure long-term situation - it will lead to unpredictable confrontations between classes - unless the parties involved find some solution that makes it tenable.

In my view, liberalism offers a very adaptable solution: the modern state and legal system. Instead of the collection of scattered/inefficient/arbitrary systems that characterize pre-industrial power - heredity, honor, sumptuary codes, ritual, personal relationships, traditional obligations - we find (or rather, make) a geographically bounded, unified nation that operates on a set of general principles, a common language both literal and political.

Things like money, markets, a robust system of positive law and mechanisms to enforce it, and the potential for reform strike a balance between 1) formalized, impersonal, predictable outcomes that ensure the sanctity of property goes undisturbed and the "rule of the best" continues - contracts and elections follow the same basic principles, and evaluating harm can be boiled down to "amounts of money" or "years spent in prison" - and 2) allowing for enough adaptability to respond to new circumstances, new innovations, and new crises. For an example, see Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

Would you awaken the industry of the man who seems almost dead to ambition, it will often be to no purpose to describe to him the happiness of the rich and the great; to tell him that they are generally sheltered from the sun and the rain, that they are seldom hungry, that they are seldom cold, and that they are rarely exposed to weariness, or to want of any kind. The most eloquent exhortation of this kind will have little effect upon him. If you would hope to succeed, you must describe to him the conveniency and arrangement of the different apartments in their palaces; you must explain to him the propriety of their equipages, and point out to him the number, the order, and the different offices of all their attendants. If any thing is capable of making impression upon him, this will. Yet all these things tend only to keep off the sun and the rain, to save them from hunger and cold, from want and weariness.

In the same manner, if you would implant public virtue in the breast of him who seems heedless of the interest of his country, it will often be to no purpose to tell him, what superior advantages the subjects of a well-governed state enjoy; that they are better lodged, that they are better clothed, that they are better fed. These considerations will commonly make no great impression. You will be more likely to persuade, if you describe the great system of public police which procures these advantages, if you explain the connexions and dependencies of its several parts, their mutual subordination to one another, and their general subserviency to the happiness of the society; if you show how this system might be introduced into his own country, what it is that hinders it from taking place there at present, how those obstructions might be removed, and all the several wheels of the machine of government be made to move with more harmony and smoothness, without grating upon one another, or mutually retarding one another’s motions. It is scarce possible that a man should listen to a discourse of this kind, and not feel himself animated to some degree of public spirit. He will, at least for the moment, feel some desire to remove those obstructions, and to put into motion so beautiful and so orderly a machine.

In legal terms, liberalism entails a commitment to specific kinds of procedural guarantees (formal equality and formal liberty as guaranteed by law) that allow for different substantive content to fill in the gaps between those procedures. A philosophical way to look at it is that liberalism adopts agnosticism on what "the Good" is besides a floor-threshold of what is acceptable (rights), in order to allow for "the Good" to be worked out through time and practice.

This is something I regard as both the central strength and weakness of liberalism as a philosophy of governance: its procedural flexibility allows for the reuptake of hostile forces - anti-liberals are pushed to fight on liberal terrain or risk irrelevance - but also allows competing movements that are designed to undermine some aspect of the liberal project.

To be clear, the liberal answer is not the only possible one, it is just the one that most characterizes modernity. A different answer might be religion, or some form of arbitrary authority: your proper place is servile, but your reward will be eternal bliss in the hereafter, or the favor of your lord, or the emotional satisfaction of doing what you're meant to do. (This is what I would describe as "the traditional conservative answer.")

Another answer, that of the Hitlerites, synthesizes the liberal and the religious answer and ramps a few things up: all of existence is inherently insecure, and made even worse because we are besieged with enemies within and without. but we can secure a future for that nation, for your children, through expansion and purification. (This is the "reactionary" answer.)

A final answer says that there is no true solution that can make class society tenable: that we have reached a point in the history of class conflict where we, every day, reproduce and participate in a spiraling system that depreciates all the things it needs to function, that constantly absorbs more raw material into its maw, and while the ruling classes and the managers can shift crises around or find innovative ways of managing them, the crises themselves can never truly be resolved so long as the rule of capital is maintained. It can only end in revolutionary upheaval "or the common ruin of the contending classes."

To be clear, that's what I think the stakes are of the project: the capitalist security state is in the middle of a substantive upheaval in its priorities as climate change worsens and the hegemonic role of the USA begins to wane, manifesting in prominent battles over the family/reproductive labor and immigration. All of these are fundamentally about the modern state's sense of insecurity as a result of problems made by class struggle. The ruling classes are competing between the right-wing, who want to build extensive fortresses as a buffer against climate refugees while hyperexploiting a terrified, disciplined underclass of migrant, domestic, and third-world labor, and the "liberals," who want to figure out a techno-managerial fix like geoengineering the planet (and making decisions about who, and where, will receive the "benefits" of that "mitigation") while hyperexploiting a terrified, disciplined underclass of migrant, domestic, and third-world labor.

~~~~

to give a rough sense of those different authors, hopefully to clarify how they relate to the project:

Landa’s book The Apprentice’s Sorcerer examines the mechanics of fascist political thought and finds its direct antecedents in "economic liberalism," basically the strain of liberalism that felt its democratic/political twin had gone too far. Through the commitment to formal freedom and equality under the law, liberalism had given the masses the opportunity and language to articulate their interests, fight for those interests in government and civil society, and potentially win (in the process disrupting society and the balance of class power). In some places - particularly France, Haiti, and Russia - the masses went way, way too far for economic liberal comfort!

Fascism then enters the picture as an alternative way to direct the masses, neutralizing that insecurity produced by mass politics - to “save liberalism from itself.” While fascism would deploy the language of anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism (usually in the form of a structural anti-Semitism a la the Strasser brothers, as well as various workerisms or producerisms), in practice, it was and is all financed by the usual Junkers and industrialists as all nationalist projects, and commits to norms and goals that were and are entirely typical of liberal states. Oswald Spengler (the guy who thought Hitler didn't go far enough because he still made appeals to the public) is my favorite example: his "Prussian socialism" is literally just the doctrine that work in service of the nation's wealth makes life meaningful and that workers should be grateful to have it. In other words, what Spengler calls "socialism" is just English political economy with a Prussian nationalist twist.

Geoff Mann’s analysis of Keynes’ General Theory and Keynesianism more broadly treats Keynes as participating in an intellectual legacy (preceded by Hobbes, Robespierre, and Hegel) of immanent critique of liberalism, one that currently sets the terms for "left politics" as hesitancy and fear of a revolutionary scenario because of the insecurity it would bring. All liberalism wrestles with the fundamental insecurity of class society, but Keynes is the rare one that sees this insecurity as essentially irresolvable (though Mann admits that Keynes couldn't quite name it as such). Keynes further regards the fundamental task as saving civilization from itself while avoiding the revolutionary alternative. From In the Long Run We Are All Dead:

“If an immanent critique is one that accepts the basic principles of its object, Keynesianism is simultaneously an immanent critique of liberalism and of revolution. It is the liberalism of those who (however reluctantly) acknowledge the continued historical legitimacy of revolution but claim to render it unnecessary, to “revolutionize” without revolution. One certainly might say this is impossible, and perhaps, in the long run, that is true. But, as Keynes himself said—and his point was not metaphorical—“in the long run we are all dead.” In the endless “short run” moments of deferral between now and then, the problem of maintaining civilization itself is the most pressing task of all.”

Mark Neocleous writes extensively on the concept of security and its relationship with the state, building his work around a younger Marx's claim that "security is the supreme concept of bourgeois society." This has obvious connections to this project. However, a lot of his focus is specifically on the more overt forms of state power, specifically war and police powers - I want to take things a step further (through legal philosophy) and argue that this emphasis on security is embedded in the structure of law itself, and not merely military force or the police power.

#long post

179 notes · View notes

shiki-jin · 1 year ago

Text

YOUR CELESTIAL MAJESTY • SAGAU

(part 0 here)

was listening to TruE on loop while writing the last part of this, it's genuinely such a good song ugwvdya

also can you spot the contradiction ;D it's plot relevant i promise

not proofread, dont bully me ill write a thesis on why youre a meanie

—

you had long deleted genshin, since you had other things to do. you had wanted to go back to the game for a while now, now that you were less busy, but there was just one little problem.

it was now taking up nearly triple the amount of space that it was when you uninstalled it. around 300 whole gigabytes.

jesus christ, what phone can even handle this???

your phone, apparently. because as you opened the game to see if maybe a miracle would happen and that if maybe they would just, like, remove half of the things in the game, it just… kinda loaded?

no installing new files, no checking for anything, no nothing…. just an immediate pan to the gates of celestia.

you decided to check if it was the right genshin since this was just way too weird, but countering your judgement, every link you found led you to the same game, leading you to believe it not to be a bootleg or an illegal version.

guess i’ll trust it then.

you clicked on the gates which opened smoothly, and your screen turned white. then, the symbols of the seven elements appeared in gray.

and then the game just… opened. no loading time, once again. no getting stuck on the geo symbol, nothing. nada. just a smooth entrance into what you had to assume to be teyvat — but your surroundings didn't really support that claim.

the grass was brown and just looked off, the sky was gray. a darker shade than, say, mond’s walls, but it was like one of those game crashes.

well, except you could still move around.

you moved your current character around (the traveller? since when were they the only one in your team?) and decided to open the map after not figuring out where you could possibly be.

hold on, this is springvale? since when?

eveything looked dead, like it had been rotting for a century. you tried to ignore it though, and teleported to the inside of mondstadt. surely this was just some glitch, right? one that would fix itself if you teleported?

maybe the world loaded incorrectly, maybe the fact that nothing took time to load meant that it couldn't load, maybe this or that, maybe…

maybe this really was how the game looked normally. you hadn't done any quests though, so you wondered if it could be restored.

you took a screenshot of the your surroundings — the stone, worn down and dirty. the houses which looked to be in a horrible state, and… the npcs, all sickly and pale, like they were starving.

you went to reddit (yes, reddit), and posted the screenshot, asking if it was normal.

you closed the game and decided to take a nap, too tired to really deal with this shit any further.

while you slumbered, people replied to your post.

╰┈➤ lol me too anon, me too

╰┈➤ isn't the game closed or wtv? how'd you get this wtf

╰┈➤ they're trolling

╰┈➤ o makes sense oops

╰┈➤ So we’re all still mourning huh

╰┈➤ jokes aside that's a super impressive edit ngl

you remained unaware of the truth, but you'd find out soon enough.

actually, you'd find out now, apparently…

what the fuck?? why is my bed so hard now?

you groaned and forced your eyes open, seeing a dark, nearly black sky.

the only light was a single star, lingering right above you.

“since when was i outside...?"

a voice spoke to you, answering your question.

“you always have been, have you not? but would you like to head inside, my lord?”

... huh? i recognize that voice...

—

p.s. place your bets on who it is, i’m thinking of one specific character but if there's a fan fav i'll make it them instead since i haven't written anything beyond this point (⁠・⁠_⁠・⁠;⁠)

p.s.s. don't expect updates to this series too quickly, i wish i could write as quick as i think of ideas but sadly that's not the case orz

#genshin impact #genshin x reader #sagau #yandere x reader #yandere genshin impact #yandere genshin x reader #yippie #genshin self aware #genshin self aware au

219 notes · View notes

choccy-milky · 6 months ago

Note

Okay so I read your entire fic in three days and I LOVE IT!? ITS SO GOOD!?! I am supposed to be studying for finals and instead have spent 72 hours definitely not doing that. I originally got into your fic because I saw your drawings from different scenes and OH MY GOD THEYRE AMAZING. The way you draw Seb makes me want to bang my head on the table (in the best way ever)…that boy does things to me. The whole thing is just uGHHH chefs kiss amazing work love it love you amazing

AWW TYY IM GLAD YOU LIKED IT SM (ENOUGH TO BINGE IT AND IGNORE SCHOOL) AND THAT YOU LIKE HOW I DRAW SEB TOO💖💖😍😍😍

LMAOO but fr as a procrastinator and horrible student myself, im pleased with this theme of interfering with ppls schoolwork/thesis/whatever else to read my fic...im dragging yall down with me...just stop using your brain and enjoy sexy seb aha😜 (ILY TOO GOOD LUCK ON UR FINALS)

@jstfndmthngs omg thank you for such a long and in depth ask i hope u dont mind i just screenshotted it and cut it into 2 BAHAHA but THANK YOUU im glad youre enjoying it so far!! 🥹💖AND YESSS BAHAHA IVE ALSO BRAINWASHED YOU TO SEE SEB AND CLORA WHEN YOU SEE A BLONDE + BROWN HAIR COUPLE mission accomplished😈😈 and I LOVE THAT YOU DAYDREAM ABOUT SEB AND CLORA TOO!!! people thinking about your fic/art when theyre not actively reading it is the highest honour fr...😭🙏 AND BAHAHA I REMEMBER THAT COMMENT THREAD ABOUT LEANDER AND HIS LITTLE GARDEN PATCH LMAO and him and seb competing as neighbors/dads over who has the better yard...LMAO im putting in my oneshot that leander lives close by, i might try and find a way to allude to that if i can LMAOO speaking of IM GLAD YOURE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE ONESHOT 💖💖 ive been working on the outline every day the past few days and its 24k words AND THATS JUST THE OUTLINE😭😭LIKE DAWG i was planning on this oneshot to just be short and sweet BAHAHA but i forgot im fluent in yappanese...then i just kept thinking of cute pregnancy moments i wanted to add so it spiralled....BUT ANYWAY I HOPE I CAN FINISH IT SOON!!🙏 also im so impressed you only read 1 chap of my fic a day BAHAHA i admire the self restraint bc i could never...but i feel you with wanting to make things last. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CATCH UP!!🥳AND TY AGAIN!!💖💖

omg anon this is diabolical...at first i was imagining it as seb being the one caught in the time loop and going crazy, but i actually think its better if its clora... because the idea of seb watching her slowly spiral into semi-insanity while knowing its bc of some weird time shenanigans and he doesnt know how to help would also make SEB go crazy BAHAHAH. i dont think ill ever write this but i just wanted to tell u i love this idea LOL

aw TYYYYY!!! i’m honoured u think so omg😭🥹💖 you sent this a while ago (before all of the recent family posting ive been doing) BAHAHA so i hope youre enjoying the kid content bc u manifested it girl🥰 and trust me i aint doing work for the fandom, the fandom is doing work for ME!!! by continuing to humour my brainrotted ass😔🙏

"they're my legal parents now" followed by "so anyway can you draw them going down on each other" LMFAOOOOO💀💀💀thank you i love you anon. and i HAVE been wanting to draw this for a while so YES!! i just cant guarantee when...but the day SHALL come rest assured🫡😇

#ask #goddammit as i was answering this ask i just remembered a scene i wanted to add to my oneshot that i forgot to include in the outline #GOD!! THAT MEANTS ITS GONNA BE EVEN LONGER THAN 24K WORDS!!! HELP!!! NO MORE!!! NO GOD PELASE NO #i rly should have expected that a oneshot all about seb being excited to get clora pregnant and then being overprotective would ramble on #ive been googling so much stuff about pregnancy and side effects and what happens during which trimesters #i really dont want my search history to think im pregnant LMFAO

132 notes · View notes

jules-makes-stuff · 5 months ago

Text

Been seeing ppl on reddit argue about magic in fantasy for a while and I don't want to lose 3 hours bickering over there but I have *thoughts*

By now hard and soft systems are pretty well known but people ague againt hard systems because it "takes away the, well, MAGIC of magic". I think people aren't considering tone and the overall goals of a work and are conflating personal taste with truth again.

In my mind it really depends on the above though. Say you are Hoffman writing The Golden Pot. You want your work to be dreamlike, ethereal, like a half remembered song. Everything operates on dream/fairytale logic and emotion is reality. You should absolutelt NOT explain magic. It should be a strange force adhering only to narrative and emotional forces.

If you are writing a magical realism piece, like One Hundred Years of Solitude, the magic again is there to emphasize the absurdity of reality people at the time faced. Explaining anything takes that away. Same with horror or something like Metamorphosis. You don't know why this is happening and that means you cannot stop it or it doesn't matter how it happened, only the consequences.

Then there are more classical fantasy stories like Lord of the Rings. Magic is something ancient and grand and mysterious.... and none of the hobbits have it besides stray magic items. That is what people miss, I believe, when using this example. Gandalf isn't our pov character. Most characters there do not have magic or only have limited magic w very specific limitations, tools essentially. So we can follow along and anticipate how these will be used. There is big, scary, unknown magic, but it is usually something used by the opponents or characters that come in and out of the narrative. And I think that's a good balance! Its fine that we dont know the science of magic, because we understand enough when we need to, we can make predictions and there is enough wiggle room for something like Gandalf the White to happen. A looot of fantasy had followed this setup: the mc has only a few well defined spells and magic items, the world has more deep magic.

But, I personally do like harder magic, if the mc is supposed to be a wizard (or the equivalent). I would call most battle shonen hard magic (I think this is where ppl might want to kill me) becauss in a good battle shonen we know what everyone can do and we can plan along with the characters and predict how the fight will go. When a problem is solved in an interesting way we can go "I should have seen that comming!"

In BAD versions people yell really loud and whoever yells loudest about friendship (once we wasted enough screentime to call the third act done) wins. And this here is my problem. Because I have seen stories where characters do the same with magic and it breaks my immersion. When magic used by the mc can suddenly do anything and everything what is the point? I'm no longer following a story w interesting twists and turns, Im waiting for the author to say "ok thats enough we can push the win button now". And listen, obviously its a made up story, none of this is real or matters, but its the authors job to keep the illusion alive that it isnt.

This is different from creating a mcguffin that can do anything once and having a quest about it, there getting the item is the challenge, not using it.

And a system being hard doesnt mean we need to know the science behind it, just that we need to know what it can do and the limits. In avatar they can manipulate the elements w martial arts. Period. Why? How? The spirits said so. Most ppl fuck up hard magic imo by starting to write a thesis about magical physics or overcomplicating it instead of taking 1 simple idea and exploring all the cool things that it can do. Witch Hat feels super magical and yet all there is to magic is drawing magic circles and we actively learn how to draw them in the series and the way the characters problem solve w magic and their try-fail cycles are super fun!

The point of this ramble is that I need structure that fits the narrative goals of the work. If we're doing a dream like narrative throw away explanations. If Im a wizard playing mind chess w other wizards you better tell me what chess pieces we have.

#also partially inspired w fantasy where magic is just “focus and imagine and it will just work uwu”#ok but thats boring to me #gimme a price #gimme something that differenciates a novice from a master #then again some retro fantasy has some reaaaaal big “chosen one w 2 weeks of training defeats everyone” problem

47 notes · View notes

mcytblrconfessions · 1 year ago

Note

Hi, little hater here from earlier. At no point when writing that out did I think it was misogynistic, but like. Yeah it might have been a little bit. Idk if I would care enough to yap about it if it had been just another guy being added. Maybe I am holding her to higher expectations then I would for a male creator.

I was hoping for other female creators to get in, and maybe since she was the final person announced in the 6 we expected I'm salty cause she 'took' the hypothetical slot that other creators I was hoping for for lifesteal. And that's stupid, and looking back I know that that's stupid. And that's not on Kab, that's on Lifesteal for adding 6 guys and 1 girl, and that's on me for bitching about it in a public place.

I've been watching her for a while now, and I really do want her to succeed. I think some of my hesitancy for her in Lifesteal is the sort of lack of commitment to real storybeats that we saw in the final stretch of s5, and Kab deserves to be in better stories. She's at the top of the artform of mcrp, and so far Lifesteal has not been. I want Lifesteal to do better, and maybe Kab can bring some of that to the server, but like unless they can reach that level idk if its the right place for her. I just don't want to see her on a server that refused to meet the energy level she brings to things.

Idk man. I'm not that pressed about it, just between seasons is the time to yap cause theres no streams to watch to focus on instead, by july 7th I'll be hyped to see her there. I'm sorry about that prior ask. I will be paying Kaboodle the unfair hater tax in the form of a gifted twitch sub tonight.

first off, thank you for the apology.

i dont have any real bias for lifesteal or kaboodle. i started watching lifesteal this week and im not familiar with kaboodle at all. and the reason ive stayed away from pvp focused mcrp is because it's so heavily male dominated especially lifesteal, ive been making jokes that there's a secret no girls allowed rule since ive heard abt it.

this fandom has a long history of not treating women well and when a woman is a fan-favorite she's really only allowed to be 1 of 3 things, a fighter, a girl-boss, or ur soggy poor wet little meow meow. its just not fair to creators to be essentialized and treated as support for their male peers. made to fit into men's stories instead of getting recognized and respected for their own. and smps themselves have horrible ratios, my favorite is hermitcraft but 5(4?) out of 27 is less then 20 percent! that's terrible! there's so many wonderful women ccs out there yet so little space is made for them. 2(3? idk squiddo's gender) out of 31 is the ratio for lifesteal 6. i dont need to point out how bad that is.

so to get an ask with "I just don't think that the vibes are going to be right with her there" put me really on edge. it's putting the fault on her, and it's ignoring that there was a group of lifestealers who already agreed that she was a good fit because she's on the smp! she's on the team! the difference between "the vibes arent going to be right with her there" and "they can't reach her level" is huge. but you know lifesteal better then me. if you say they cant match her energy i believe you! but if it's true, her and lifesteal dont work out because she did put her all in and they didnt that is still completely different from the thesis of your original ask

ive turned off the reblogs of the other post but i hope moving forward we can be more critical and careful with how we treat our women creators. there's already so little space for them in creator spaces let's not push them out of community spaces too.

#mod response #not a confession #im leaving rbs on for this one incase other people what to add on

65 notes · View notes

transgenderer · 10 months ago

Text

in a somewhat...precarious, stressful situation with my advisor because like. so the reason i TOLD him i wanted to leave is because of the like academic environment where there are like no other phd students here who share my research interests and care about math. cuz theres like maybe 5 students total here who care about math. so. odds. and that is true. but the OTHER reason i want to leave is that there's no one here whose research im interested in, including my advisor. and if i dont get in anywhere else, im PROBABLY going to masters out. but i wanted to leave open the option of staying here. however i have this other research project collaboration long distance (hopefully a paper soon!!) that actually holds my interest (unfortunately, not with ppl who have a faculty position, so cant jump ship to them), and so ive been spending all my research time on it instead. and also my advisor STILL hasnt finished reading my VERY SHORT paper. cmon man. but yeah he keeps giving me advice and hassling me to do things that make sense from the false perspective ive given him. i should PROBABLY just tell him that i want to change topic when moving locations. but then he'll be like "thats a really bad idea, youre already so far in this topic" and then the only explanation i can give is "this topic bores me". so. bad. also, we were planning for my quals to be this winter. but they were going to basically be a formality, because he thinks im ready for research. except now hes saying he thinks it would be worthwhile to have this one guy at a nearby school on my thesis board or whatever it's called, and he thinks that guy would want me to know a lot more in the field. and like. it just doesnt really make sense for me to dedicate that much time and effort to quals for a thesis im not gonna write.

uuuugh theres gotta be a path here.... i made some really poor choices and it seems like the best case scenario is going to be burning at least a year of phd progress, if not like...3 years (because i wouldnt be starting somewhere else until the fall semester next year...). which is really bad. but also, idk. germany was really cool. so. 6 months of good at least, out of so far 2 years of massive fuckup

32 notes · View notes

foggieststars · 4 months ago

Note

I half agree with the "pro-ai" anon, specially when it's used more as a tool to improve the writing or discuss how the plot will shape out to look, i dont think you can argue that its not your own work if youre asking for english corrections or for "criticize this text" type of answers. I do recognize there's many ethical concerns with generative artificial intelligence, and I do wish the content (specially visual art) wouldn't be so pushed by everything everywhere, and that companies weren't scraping copyrighted material, which is 100% wrong imo. Yet there are many ways in which it can be used as a tool instead of just using it to do everything for you.

But yes an environmental costly tool :/ it's the one thing that makes me pause before using a llm. My first time using an llm was before chatgpt existed & also in the context of a machine learning thesis so it's also probably why I cannot buy into the complete demonization of it.

Ik I'm all over the place with this anon, but my views conflict a lot. I wish it was done differently and better, because it could be with the models that have been developed (for example a locally ran model powered by solar energy, with reusable cooling, optimized and trained on your personal texts, open source), but everyone behind those companies seeks profit no matter what.

Finally for the artistic part. One way to put it that really stuck to me was this: really sick to live your life viewing art as a consumable item, or even worse, as a problem to be solved.

i understand your point about 'i dont think you can argue that its not your own work if youre asking for english corrections or for "criticize this text" type of answers' -> sure, technically it is your work. but i guess i just wonder (and this isn't necessarily aimed at you, anon, i'm just reflecting in general) why would you want to use a machine for this?

does it not feel wrong to you to do that? would you not rather engage with another human being about your ideas? i understand the rhetoric about AI being a tool, and to an extent i can see where it can be helpful (though i really don't think using it to correct your english is a great idea - you won't learn anything if something else does it for you automatically, rather than using a spelling/grammar check and going through your mistakes one by one). however, when it comes to creating art, be it visual media or written, i can't help but ask why? why do you need to talk about it with a machine that has no ability to meaningfully engage with your ideas, that can't understand the emotion or impact of them? art is supposed to come from you! if you look at the greatest works of art and literature in history, how many of them were created by engaging with a machine? asking the machine to pick up on what the machine thinks is wrong with it (which it has learned through scraping of inherently biased datasets), seems like a pointless endeavour to me.

it might be cringe, but one of my favourite movies since i was very young is the dead poet's society, and in that movie, we're invited to think about art, in particular poetry, as necessary to sustain life. 'we don't read and write poetry because it's cute, we read and write poetry because we are members of the human race, and the human race is filled with passion.' that quote is what this makes me think of! art is inherently self-generative - we create art because we're humans and it's what we do - and at the same time shaped by the environments/people/places around us. i just don't think the input of a machine can assist that

and yes, maybe i'm making it too deep, but i feel earnestly about this. it's just talking about fanfiction and AI, but i do have a kneejerk response to it as a result. i understand that AI can be a useful tool for some things, but i'd encourage you to ask yourself why you need a tool for things like this, when for the entirety of human history works of art have been created without it

#ask #tl;dr it feels like a shortcut to me and that's not what art is about

9 notes · View notes