#(most of them had valid reasons

[oceanwithouthermoon]

i think its weird that i have to make this disclaimer but the internet is crazy so wtvr,, anyway,,

if i say i dont like something, that doesnt mean "that thing is bad and nobody should post it.."

i swear literally every time i even mention that i dislike something, people will go "wow does that mean u fucking hate me cuz i post that thing? ur a fucking stupid bitch and all ur opinions r wrong" LIKE ?? er.. no. just because i say i dont like certain characterizations of certain characters (the saiki k fandom is CRAZY about this cuz i can state an opinion on literally any character and a group of people will still go 'well only we're allowed to post our opinions about them because we're always right!1!1!'), or certain ship tropes (mentioned my hatred of toxic yaoi maybe once or twice on here months ago and people STILL get mad at me as if i said toxic yaoi lovers r evil or something), or certain ships, or WHATEVER, does not mean that i HATE the people who are posting them or that i think they shouldnt post them at all, NO, im just posting about my personal tastes on my personal blog and it would be extremely weird and hypocritical if i decided that i was the ONLY person that was allowed to do that,,

i think the only reason people assume that is because there are a lot of other people on here who ARE like that, and a lot of people toe the line between posting that they dont like something and posting that they think everyone who likes that thing is stupid, annoying, and wrong,, so i guess all i can say is, sorry for whatever made you make these assumptions but they arent true about me so plz leave me alone ʘ‿ʘ ur doing the same thing to me that ur accusing me of but i didnt do it in the first place so ur just actively being a dick for no reason

[theprinceandthewitch]

I'm pretty much done with TOH lol.

A braver and more energetic soul can try giving this show a constructive critique... because I will actually, wholeheartedly lose my humanity while writing out the script.

There is like... a problem this show has that permeates the whole thing: It says its going to do one thing, but then does something completely different. Like how the first two episodes of the series make you believe Luz is going to learn how her inability to separate fantasy from reality is actually inhibiting her growth as a person... only to make her a chosen one and to give her everything she ever wanted without Luz changing the way she treats people.

[moeblob]

Deacon loves two things: Ymber and digging himself a grave.

Fulj hates one thing: Deacon.

[sysig]

Bad time of it, all things considered (Patreon)

[swagging-back-to]

people wonder why artists are leaving the site in droves and abandoning their accounts meanwhile most FANDOM art barely gets 5 likes in two days. barely gets 2 reblogs in the span of half a year.

and im not even gonna TOUCH on what it's like for oc art (which gets no interaction. at all. ever. oops I just touched on it.)

why the fuck would people keep feeding ai companies when absolutely no one is supporting them? when absolutely no one cares about their art? when no one even spares it a second glance? why would tey go through the trouble of glazing and nightshading everything when it gets NO INTERACTION AT ALL. When it's going to rot in the tags buried under hundreds of other ignored pieces of art. when ai generated photos get dozens of reblogs and likes in the first hour.

you people wonder why artists are leaving? You. you are the reason.

[13eyond13]

.

[flightfoot]

ChatGPT produced material embodies the concept of "Death of the Author" in its purest form

I've heard "Death of the Author" invoked many times throughout my years, but I had never actually read the essay that created the term and laid out how the concept worked before. I did so recently, as well as an analysis of that essay, which I will also reference because Roland Barthes original essay (well, translated essay, the original is in French) on "The Death of the Author" is an impenetrable mass of purple prose which can be very hard to follow, despite the essay's short word count of just over 2000 words.

If you wish to read it for yourself, here's a link to a pdf of the Death of the Author essay.

Basically the idea is that authors aren't really creators at all, but instead merely regurgitate and string together already existing writing, that "scriptor" would be a better term in fact.

The Author, when we believe in him, is always conceived as the past of his own book: the book and the author take their places of their own accord on the same line, cast as a before and an after: the Author is supposed to feed the book — that is, he pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it; he maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with his child. Quite the contrary, the modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate; there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now.

and as the essay puts it later on:

We know that a text does not consist of a line of words, releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the AuthorGod), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original: the text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture. Like Bouvard and Pecuchet, those eternal copyists, both sublime and comical and whose profound absurdity precisely designates the truth of writing, the writer can only imitate a gesture forever anterior, never original

Or if you want to read something a little clearer, I like how this essay on filmslie puts it:

The use of the word “quotations” expresses the idea that a text cannot really be “created” or “original”—it is always made up of an arrangement of preexisting “quotations” or ideas. Therefore, the “author” is not really an author, but rather a “scriptor” who simply puts together preexisting texts.

And as it puts it later on:

The death of the Author is the inability to create, produce, or discover any text or idea. The author is a “scriptor” who simply collects preexisting quotations. He is not able to create or decide the meaning of his work.  The task of meaning falls “in the destination”—the reader.

As such, the author's actual presence as a person is not required, as the speech they utter, or rather the words they write, exist independently of a person to actually write them. From the Death of the Author essay:

Finally, outside of literature itself (actually, these distinctions are being superseded), linguistics has just furnished the destruction of the Author with a precious analytic instrument by showing that utterance in its entirety is a void process, which functions perfectly without requiring to be filled by the person of the interlocutors: linguistically, the author is never anything more than the man who writes, just as I is no more than the man who says I

Meaning is derived not from what the author intended, as their existence is unneeded, but instead from whatever meaning the reader chooses to impose on what they read.

Doesn't this fit well with what ChatGPT and other AI "writers" do? There is no question after all that they merely copy and string together writing that already exists, creating a "tissue of citations", as Barthe puts it. There is no particular "author" of a work in this case, but merely the tool that strung them together, a "void process" that does not need a mind behind it. The meaning of a piece of writing that ChatGPT produces doesn't lie in anything that it intends, as it has no meaningful intentions to begin with, but is instead given to it by what the reader interprets from it.

ChatGPT and other AI like it make a reality what "The Death of the Author" posits that all writers do. When looking to apply the concept of Death of the Author to a piece of literature, simply pretend for a moment that instead of a human mind behind it, an AI created the work instead, and analyze the work's meaning accordingly.

[spottedmischief]

Shenzi: *tells him the truth about Scar*

Cheezi: Okay, I think we made a mistake.

Shenzi: *asks him to join her clan so they can be safe*

Cheezi: how dare.

[studionakamoto]

I know I’m speaking into an empty void because most of my mutuals aren’t following Boys Planet,, but when Lee Daeul said that him picking teammates would of been pointless if they changed his part really rubbed me the wrong way

[floralovebot]

Do you think the fandom is too hard on Sky?

Mmm, no and yes?

I think people have a lot of good reasons to hate or just kinda dislike Sky. Even if you ignore the Diaspro situation, he has a lot of moments where he just... isn't great (to say the absolute least). Spying on Bloom, immediately assuming she's going to cheat or leave him, directly saying she can't hang out with other guys, implying that he can't trust Brandon, making fun of Stella, literally everything he says to Riven. And I mean that's like the major stuff off the top of my head yknow? Sky just isn't a great person and while he does get called out, it's never in a way that would actually make him change his behavior.

However, I think people also exaggerate his actions and intentions a lot. Instead of recognizing that Sky has practically no control over his life and that he couldn't just break up with Diaspro or tell Bloom the truth, a lot of people make him out to be some serial cheater that always intended to cheat on Diaspro or lie to random girls about his identity. Or when people think he's the worst friend ever because he occasionally doesn't trust people when his entire life he's been at risk of assassination and people getting close to him to yknow. kill him. Like no, implying that Brandon is a spy or that Riven wants to murder people isn't cool. But he's also only like that because there's a history of people trying to kill him, not because he just hates everyone.

Listen, I'm not saying that Sky is a good person or that his actions are justified OR that he's a horrible person who deserves a shit ton of hate. But I think the fandom in general tends to go with very absolutist claims when it comes to Sky. It's either he's the worst character ever and deserves to die or he's a misunderstood baby who's better than Riven. It's literally always one of those two - no in between. Imo, there are reasons to dislike Sky but the fandom also heavily exaggerates the reasons and makes him out to be much worse than he actually is. And on the other side, it's also annoying when people completely ignore all of his faults just to make him look better. He's just as complex and nuanced as the rest of the characters and acting like he's either 100% Evil or 100% Innocent is never fun (for him or any other character).

(i didn't really know how to fit this in but I think a lot of sky discourse also comes from riven stans which makes the situation so much worse. like it's never a fun discussion or debate, it's always just "well he was mean to riven so he deserves to die actually" which then makes riven antis foam at the mouth so they start to defend sky Exclusively to make riven look bad, not because they actually like sky. it's a mess man)

General disclaimer that this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to force it on anyone and it's fine if you disagree.

[lord-squiggletits]

I think one of my least favorite takes on Optimus annexing Earth is the surprisingly common opinion "he should've just left Earth alone and minded his own business because they didn't ask for help," not because it doesn't have truth in it but because it's a massive oversimplification of the whole situation and seems to pretend that Optimus annexing Earth was just completely stupid and had no reasoning whatsoever.

Like, it just bothers me when people talk about it as if Optimus leaving Earth alone would've been the not-bad-guy thing to do despite the fact that the Decepticons were literally about to try colonizing Earth again under the command of a guy who was literally from the Golden Age generation that made colonizing and genociding organics popular, Galvatron. I mean Galvatron was literally there saying "so when are we going to kill these fleshlings" and even being a Functionist asshole to Soundwave's cassettes. The last time the Decepticons invaded Earth in All Hail Megatron they killed literally a billion human beings. Are there seriously people in this fandom that are out there believing with their whole ass that "Optimus should've just ignored the openly genocidal Decepticons returning to a place they had already tried to colonize just a few years ago because it's none of his business and the humans can handle themselves" like what.

[seilon]

you know im realizing now. with the exception of a few resident psychiatrists, ive had like. no good experiences with mental health professionals

[pepprs]

beaver gnawing on wood noises

[demi-queen]

Help!

So in my most recent dnd session, my character (Taveral; rogue Eladrin with a noble background) died, but one of my fellow party members (Leo; wizard half-elf who was also a professor) ended up performing a spell/ritual that literally traded his life for mine. Now, Taveral has some complicated feelings about this for several reasons: first and for most because they had been tasked with spying on Leo, and while they weren’t being super active about doing it, it was still happening.

Here is where I need help. As far as us party members know, he doesn’t have any family members, but we still want to have a funeral/burial. While we obviously are going to try and follow the half-elf funeral traditions, I don’t think it would be out of place for us to incorporate some of our own traditions. So, what kind of funeral/burial/mourning traditions might an eladrin have that wouldn’t be completely taking over the funeral? Would it make sense for me to bury him with a protective magical item that would ward off anyone trying to mess with his body? Should I have some kind of thing I wear or have that reminds me of him and his sacrifice for me? Is there a certain period of mourning I should be upholding? More experienced DnD-ers, grant me your wisdom!

[mbat]

if the character youre drawing doesnt have a big nose youre doing something wrong

[ohara-n-brown]

As a late diagnosed autist I will say one of the most damaging but transformative experiences I've ever had was being misdiagnosed with BPD.

Everyday my heart goes out to people with BPD.

The amount of stigma and silencing they face is astonishing and sickening.

I took DBT for years. Therapists use to turn me away because of my diagnosis.

I would be having full blown autistic meltdowns, crying for help literally - but because I was labeled as BPD ANY time I cried I was treated as manipulative and unstable.

As if the only reason I could be crying was if I was out to trick someone.

95% of the books out there with Borderline in the title are named shit like 'How to get away from a person with Borderline', 'How to stop walking on eggshells (with a person who has BPD)'

I was never allowed to feel true pain or panic or need.

That was 'attention seeking behavior', not me asking for help when a disability was literally inhibiting my ability to process emotions.

There were dozens of times where I had a full meltdown and was either threatened with institutionalization or told I was doing it for attention.

My failing relationships weren't due to a communication issue, or the inability to read social cues. No, because I was labeled borderline, my unstable relationships were my fault. Me beggong nuerotypicals to just be honest and blunt with what they meant was me pestering them for validation.

Borderline patients can't win.

And the funny thing is - I asked my therapist about autism. I told her I thought I was on the spectrum.

BPD is WILDLY misdiagnosed with those with autism and I had many clear signs.

Instead - she told me 'If you were autistic we wouldn't be able to have this conversation'. She made me go through a list of autistic traits made clearly for children, citing how I didn't fit each one.

And then she told me that me identifying with the autism community was the BPD making me search for identity to be accepted - and that I wasn't autistic, just desperate to fit in somewhere.

I didn't get diagnosed for another ten years. For ten years I avoided the autism community - feeling as if I were just a broken person who wanted to steal from people who 'really needed it'.

Because of my providers - I began to doubt my identity MORE, not less.

Ten years of thinking I was borderline and being emotionally neglected and demonized by a system meant to help me.

To this day, I still don't trust neurotypicals. Not fully.

I know I'm not borderline now - but my heart aches for them. Not for the usual stuff. But for the stigma. And the asshole doctors. And the dismissiveness and threatening and the idea of institutionalization hanging over their head.

I love Borderline people. I always will. I'm not Borderline but if you are I love you and I'm sorry.

You're not a bad person. You're not a therapists worst nightmare, you are a human with valid feelings and fears.

Borderline people I'm sorry.