#I don't feel like I have any authority to deny or invalidate the experiences of self diagnosed schizophrenics

[evil-jennifer-hamilton-wb]

I see it because it's on most tags in any social media that relate to schizo-spec disorders, psychosis, delusions, because people flood those tags with "delulu" and "schizoposting" and "girl interrupted syndrome". It's hard enough to find community as is, it's upsetting.

The other times I see it is talking to people in the flesh because my peers who use tiktok take that trivialization of our issues with them to the material world. This isn't a rag on you or anything OP, just my experience as someone who is not really able to mask psychosis most of the time.

proof that i am getting old/losing touch is how i have not once heard or read the phrase "delulu" outside of those posts talking about how fucked up it is that everyone is saying "delulu" now

[minipisi-is-dumb]

idk y'all but the whole "saiki does not fall in love because of his powers if you take them away he would be normal" and similar variations of those arguments against aroace saiki headcanons (which. why do you feel so attacked for a hc that you need to bend canon in weird ways to justify ships that make no sense) make me so uncomfortable bc they feel just like when people say that ppl who are aspec wouldn't be aspec if they weren't ND or traumatized or mentally ill or whatever similar.

like ok nobody knows if me being ND is what makes me aspec or trans or what but i know i AM regardless. also you can't fucking separate my neurodivergency from me that's not how it works i am not a separated person from it IT LITERALLY CHANGES NY BRAIN STRUCTURE but whatever

wether you see saiki as autistic, gifted (i know i do lmao), both or any other type of ND you cannot deny the man's got HEAVY coding, and that coding comes along with his powers

like if you have watched the show you would 100% get it but the guy is so ND is actually pathetic (affectionate) and part of the feeling of separation is enhanced by him being a literal psychic whose powers work as an extension of his symptoms (the whole "i can hear every thought in a 200km ratio and it physically exhausts me to not be able to filter thoughts" is such a latent inhibition deficit MOOD okay)

so what if he's aspec because of his power/neurodivergency? does that mean he's less aspec? that his experiences in the show are less real? nah they're not

and I'm not saying this all because ooooo having a pink hair anime guy aroace in fan communities is so important oooooo but more like. the entire reasoning of people invalidating it all. like the mentality and the obsession with shipping him just bc he's the protagonist. that type of invalidation can pass onto real life stuff

like ive lived good ol aphobia and dismissal of me being ND going together, not always but truly a handful so that this entire thought process pisses me off but ugh whatever works are stupid everything is stupid is not like anyone who ships saiki in generic romcom style while hating on any and all aspec hc of him are even gonna care that a lot of their arguments instead of being "nah i just don't personally interpret him like that death of the author or whatever" go to "he is actually NOT because his POWERS ARE TO BLAME that he doesn't see people he just sees their bones because of XRAY and he doesn't like kokomi because he READS HER THOUGHTS!!!!!" like have anyone in this app heard what a metaphor is

eh whatever im tired i just wanted to get it off my chest i need to cook my dinner n rewatch the show

[schizosupport]

I apologize if this is too personal, but what does it feel like to be multiple people at once? (Please correct me if my wording is off or ask for clarification if necessary)

Hey! So I think that this feels incredibly different for anyone who has this experience, and I don't think that my experience is particularly typical.. But at the end of the day I am only the authority on my own experiences, so I will talk about those.

For me, it's like. I'm rarely multiple people *at once*, though it does happen. Most of the time I'm kind of no-one. I have a hard time conceptualizing myself as a real coherent person, I'm somewhere outside of conscious existence. And then sometimes I'm someone. And when I'm Someone, it's not always the same Someone.

For me it started when I was struggling a lot with taking care of myself. I was living on my own, and the combination of adhd, negative symptoms and disorganisation meant that my living space was rotting around me and I was barely eating etc. I would spend hours upon hours just lying on my sofa and looking up into the ceiling.

At that point a dude named Elias started to be a thing. His name came from the word "alias" because he was like a secret alter-ego. Elias has higher standards than I did. And he was grumpy about it, but ultimately he was there to help me. Sometimes he would "take over" and break us out of the funk. He would feed me, try to make my space less of a health hazard, etc. Elias was also having an identity crisis of his own, because WHAT is he, WHY is he?

Around this time I had lost contact with a friend who had been my main social interaction for the past 11 years. It was a pretty toxic relationship, and one of the ways we "made it work" is that we would come up with roleplay characters who didn't hate each other and who didn't abuse each other, and then we would pretend to be anything from loving siblings to friends to lovers. It meant I had spent years cultivating different personas that were a necessity to my mental safety. They felt very real to me. When I fell asleep as one of them I would have their dreams etc.

So I think partially my brain was struggling because now I was "me" all the time - and who was I?

So there was Elias. Then came M, who was a direct descendant of one of the characters that I had used to be around my ex-friend.

And on top of this, I always have had the tendency to experience age-regression which may or may not be related, but would over time get entangled with this other thing.

In the beginning I was very cruel to Elias and M. I didn't consider them real people, but rather some fucked up play pretend of mine, so I thought I could abuse them freely the way I would abuse myself.

Things changed slowly after I met my fiancé, who was a DID system when we met. They didn't push me about it, but I could sense that they disapproved of the way I treated my "others". And so could the others. Elias bonded strongly with the main alter of my then-girlfriend. Eventually they would become a couple, and it wasn't until years later that I (Quinn) started dating said alter. So in a way it was also my brain's response to the divided identity of my loved one.

Anyways that's all just lore but like how does it feel... Well it's kinda just like. Sometimes I'm a different person with different sensibilities and exact relationships and vibe. And when I'm in such a mindstate, some of them have declared their own name and autonomy, and I don't think I get to invalidate that even though in my current mind-state it feels "not real". Because by now they've been telling me that *they* feel real for years, and who am I to deny them their existence?

At the end of the day the body/brain is real and we are all just different variations on that theme. Any of us is as real as anyone else of us.

[taylors-fourth-cat-meow]

What are your thoughts about domestic violence? Sjm has written tamlin-feyre in such a realistic way that a lot of domestic abuse survivors identified with feyre and her emotional & psychological abuse (their comments were added in acomaf I think). So I want to know, since you're celebrating a canon domestic abuser while constantly invalidating his victim's trauma & making a mockery of something that affects so many women irl I just want to know what are your thoughts about domestic abuse and do you acknowledge that tamlin is an abuser?

I get wanting a healing & redemption arc for him but what I don't get is the fact that you're able to sympathize with & understand an abuser but you don't have the same sentiments for his victim. Why? Seems like blatant misogyny and normalization of abuse to me

I don't understand the point behind this ask because it's so very clear that they have already formed an opinion.

My thoughts on domestic abuse? Absolutely don't support it. It's a very sensitive topic and I feel that I, who has no experience or knowledge about it have no right to make my opinions about it and survivors in any way.

'Sjm has written tamiln-feyre in a realistic way" I- Speechless.

And since it seems that this person seems to know everything about me and this blog (even tho i've been inactive for months) they failed to notice where in countless posts I've said I don't don't like Feyre because she has suffered abuse. I don't like her because she is a badly written character. It's as simple as that? I won't sympathise or like such a poorly written character just because the author thought to gain her sympathy points. I accept Tamlin's abuse. I wasn't denying it. Wasn't denying the fact Feyre suffered it. But these are non-existent fictional ppl. You can only sympathise with them when u relate to them, understand them and form an attachment. I couldn't do that with Feyre because her holier than thou attitude kept coming in the way the writing is by any normal standards pathetic.

And since it is impossible for people to understand that you can't separate characters from their authors, I don't blame your precious Feyre for anything, I loved her in the first book and do think she had a lot of growth potential as a character, I blame Queen Maas for writing such a pathetic story with pathetic pitiful characters.

"invalidating the victim's trauma" oh dear I don't think it can ever be possible to invalidate Feyre's trauma considering its stuffed down our throats every two pages. (And I don't even understand by what u mean by that? I've never said she should go back to him that's the last thing I want? ) See? Feyre is not a real person. Stop treating her such. She's written, badly written by someone else. So when I say I don't like Feyre's character it's not her that I'm hating it's Sjm and her writing.

Now u may ask why I like Tamlin if I hate sjm's writing so much. See it's the way she kept changing his character as the plot required. One sec he's the mysterious handsome Fey the other he's an evil abuser and the next a selfless brokenhearted man. She paid so Little attention to him that it ended up creating a character that intrigued me.

And most of my posts are not rants or something like that, they're just like posts that cud make u smile or chuckle. And it's specifically for a certain small section of people who do find them funny hence the tags. Again it's mockery of sjm's pathetic writing not Feyre, or women who relate to her. Ig the tags should have been enough but if it helps I'll put up a warning in my description :)

[loveisneurotic]

Kaguya-sama Blind Reaction/Analysis: S1E1

Hello everyone, this is my blog which I am currently using to react to and analyze Kaguya-sama: Love Is War much more seriously than I should analyze any romcom.

I have only seen the first episode of the anime, which this post shall explore using far too many words. If I'm feeling particularly motivated, I may read the manga as well.

My analysis will contain spoilers. If you're thinking of watching this show and haven't seen it yet, I recommend you at least go check out the first episode yourself before reading any further. I don't know what the rest of the show is like, but what I've seen so far has been both entertaining and thought-provoking.

I'm going in mostly blind, but not entirely blind. There are a few images of the anime and manga that I have been exposed to, although without the attached context. Due to cultural osmosis and the sheer popularity of this work, perhaps that was almost inevitable.

Figure 1.1.1: Why did this guy write an essay about a single episode of an ongoing romcom?

Kaguya-sama: Love Is War

Season 1 Episode 1

I Will Make You Invite Me to a Movie / Kaguya Wants to Be Stopped / Kaguya Wants It

Power dynamics in relationships

Figure 1.1.2: Immediately, the mangaka's tastes become clear.

I heard a saying once that really stuck with me: "The partner who cares the least has all of the power."

In the world of dating, I often sincerely believed this saying. You may yearn for someone's affection, but the other person need not give it to you until they are willing and ready. No matter how much you want it, you can't make someone more interested in you, unless you resort to being roundabout, such as adding some mystery and intrigue to your courtship. But is that excessive?

I once felt a potential lover slipping through my grasp, and before I knew it, I found myself chasing after them. As I was yearning for their attention, I felt as if I'd lost my dignity. It was humiliating. Painful. Was it just that they weren't the right person for me? Or was I not funny enough? Not charismatic enough? Not interesting enough? Too clingy? Too talkative? Should I have been more distant and given them more space? Did I seem too weak? Too eager? How should I have maximized my desirability? Regardless, I had surely lost. Perhaps they wanted the satisfaction and validation of conquering me. Playing me for a fool and asserting their superiority by being so distant. Isn't that right? Or is that just insecurity speaking? At what point is it ideal to cut one's losses and walk away?

If someone desperately wants the object of their affection to desire them, does that make them pathetic? Does it make them a loser? If you show more vulnerability and desire than the other person, does that truly make you the weak one in a relationship?

These questions plague our two protagonists and seem to be a driving force behind the main conflict. Since I have also grappled with how much to reveal my own feelings of desire, I find Kaguya-sama: Love Is War to be a particularly fascinating show.

Desire without action

Figure 1.1.3: Our protagonists are gifted with impressively high academic intelligence paired with impressively low emotional intelligence.

The show wastes no time in introducing us to our two main protagonists. Kaguya was born into a family of high stature (and says "ara ara" frequently enough to power a small country of weebs), whereas Shirogane is a "commoner" (Kaguya's word, not mine) who worked hard to reach the pinnacle of the student body. Like timid schoolchildren, they're crushing on each other, and yet they refuse to admit it due to their pride. Instead, they focus on getting their "opponent" to confess their love first.

What stuck out to me immediately is how they both have different ideas of what their relationship would be like. Shirogane envisions Kaguya as blushing, shy, and conventionally cute, whereas Kaguya (thankfully) envisions herself taking absolute dominance over Shirogane (which plenty of people should see coming as a character trait after the anime's very first scene). The bad news about this is that their two fantasies are at odds. The good news about this is that the mangaka has fantastic taste -- you can learn a lot about a storyteller based on the characterization of a love interest or lead character of the author's preferred gender.

In the event that the two of them become an actual couple, I wonder how on Earth they'll reach a compromise as to how they'll treat each other. Perhaps they will have to figure that out before they can even get that intimate.

I appreciate that we get to see both of their perspectives. It hammers home how everyone has a different truth in regards to what they desire and what they experience, and the show does not hold back when it comes to showing just how different these truths can be -- such as a certain lunch-themed sequence that I will talk about later. This works to great dramatic and comedic effect.

That said, when you spend your time fantasizing about what could happen instead of actually taking action, time is not so friendly to you.

Half a year passes.

Figure 1.1.4: Two geniuses dedicate their pride to wasting their life and energy.

Immediately, I got the impression that whoever wrote this segment of the story knows what they're doing. This is too real. And by "too real", I mean I very much appreciate the realism. How many of us have waited for ages (or for eternity) to confess our feelings to a specific someone?

This is the curse of having a crush and being incapable of acting on it. It's also why I hate having crushes.

Manufacturing affection in others, AKA the extraction of vulnerability

Figure 1.1.5: A plan is devised to weaponize jealousy in the name of affection.

To express your truest feelings means being vulnerable. That implies taking a risk and feeling responsible for any potential consequences of rejection, as well as putting our dignity on the line. It would be so much easier for the object of our affection to make themselves vulnerable instead. So instead of being direct and honest, we act indirect. We drop hints. We act suggestively, but not explicitly. We may even place them in situations where we think they are more likely to confess. If they don't pick up on it, we can pretend we didn't mean anything by it. That way, we don't have to risk our dignity. We can just wait for them to make the move.

It sucks.

Incidentally, it sucks even more when both you and your love interest are thinking that way.

It sucks infinitely more when both you and your love interest are COMMITTED to thinking that way.

Someone has to break the deadlock, whether that's immediately or eventually.

If this show isn't one of those romcoms where the status quo never changes ever (judging by the quality of writing, I have faith that it isn't), then at some point, either Shirogane or Kaguya is going to have to be explicit about how they really feel. And it's going to feel scarier to them than anything else they've ever done.

It's gonna be great.

If we could all grow up and live in environments where it's safe and encouraged for all of us to be honest about how we feel and what we want, surely love would be much less painful for so many people.

Chaos theory

Figure 1.1.6: If your prospective lover won't protect you, then your friend definitely will.

Chika is the ideal wild card and agent of chaos in this arena of love.

From a writing perspective, Chika is immensely useful. The mangaka probably could have gotten by without a third character in the mix, but she serves as a catalyst and an unknown element, able to create unpredictability and subversion of expectations. For a comedy-oriented story, this is invaluable.

Blissfully unaware of the mental turmoil that plagues our two lovesick dorks, she is able to unintentionally invalidate whatever schemes that Kaguya or Shirogane spent so much mental energy on, which adds extra comedy and tension for the audience. She is also an effective vehicle for Kaguya's jealousy and projection, as seen in the lunchbox scene which I have so graciously foreshadowed.

Figure 1.1.7: We have confirmed visual on an unidentified fourth person. Chekhov would love this. From their posture, I wonder if they'll be a gloomy character?

Misunderstandings and assumptions

I've heard that most interpersonal conflicts in life emerge from misunderstandings. In the absence of communication, assumptions are born and give rise to misunderstandings.

You may know where I'm going with this. Let's talk about the lunchbox sequence.

Figure 1.1.8 (not pictured because tumblr wishes to deny me of my image spam): Kaguya is too prideful to admit she thinks that a couple is doing something cute.

Figure 1.1.9: Pride is considered a sin for a reason.

From a writing perspective, I was impressed by the lack of romantic intentions in Shirogane in this whole sequence. Not once did he try to get Kaguya to show vulnerability to him. Instead, Kaguya is the only one spinning the situation in a romantic way, while Shirogane's driving force is the misunderstanding that Kaguya is looking down on him for what he eats. Because of this misunderstanding, Shirogane doubles down and makes his food even better, making the situation even more complicated and more stressful for Kaguya. This was definitely my favorite comedy sequence from the first episode.

I appreciate that the show has demonstrated the ability to create these scenarios where one of the characters doesn't even have love on their mind, but there are still romantic thoughts coming from the other character which drives the drama. It gives me a lot of faith in the variety this show will have to offer, and makes me excited to watch more.

When it comes to comedy rooted in misunderstandings, it is important to have miscommunication or lack of communication. In order to resolve a misunderstanding, you need to talk about it. For a pairing as dysfunctional as Kaguya and Shirogane, expecting healthy communication sounds highly unreasonable, which makes them prime material for a whole world of misunderstandings.

Misunderstandings are rooted in assumptions about what the other person meant when they said something or made a certain gesture or expression. When Kaguya glared at Shirogane and his food, he didn't even think to ask "What's the matter?" He just made an assumption about how she felt. I wonder if trying to understand Kaguya's feelings would be considered a sign of weakness by Shirogane?

A prerequisite to initiating an emotional conversation is the desire to understand or be understood by the other person -- assuming that your assumptions haven't already built a narrative for you. It is far easier to make assumptions than it is to attempt any sort of understanding.

In the end, Shirogane fled, unwilling to confront or attempt to understand the intense and passive-aggressive Kaguya. Kaguya feels that she cannot directly ask to try his lunch, so perhaps this is the closest she can get to initiating such a conversation with him at this time. Despite their mind games where they imagine the reactions of their opponent, they still have a lot of difficulty understanding each other.

I am curious to see if this prospective couple's communication skills and emotional intelligence will improve over the course of the story.

The burden of potential romance

Figure 1.1.10: Even the infallible genius Kaguya succumbs to superficial jealousy. It's "mind over matter" versus "matter over mind". That's how the saying goes, right?

Chika is a free spirit, able to ask Shirogane for whatever she wants without being neurotic. That is the power of not being bounded by a crush. Kaguya, who lacks that degree of freedom, briefly loathes her for experiencing something that Kaguya cannot ask for. It's amazing how much someone's feelings for a friend can change without a single word being spoken between them. All it takes is an action, unintentional or not, combined with the raw strength of insecurity. Just as quickly, the status quo can return back to normal too, with the act of properly making up.

To Chika, asking for food from someone doesn't mean anything at all, whereas with Kaguya, it is an admission of defeat. In that sense, a relationship that will only ever be platonic brings peace of mind, whereas a relationship that can be potentially romantic brings leagues upon leagues of anxiety if the outcome is of great concern.

Love is neurotic.

Is love worth the pain? For some people, it is not. For others, the reward is immense -- but only if you can make sure your relationship with this person doesn't end up being a nightmare for your emotional health.

Love and self-identity

The final scene of the episode surprised me in a good way. It's a brief departure from the comedy, and reveals a more heartfelt side of the show.

Kaguya's servant asks her an insightful question. It is substantially more insightful than I would expect from any romcom: "If you fell in love some day, would you wait for that person to confess their love, like now? Or would you confess your love?" I found myself immediately curious to hear Kaguya's answer, since I knew it would be highly informative about her character.

"If that time comes, I would consider the risk of someone stealing him first and come to the one rational conclusion." Even in the realm of love, Kaguya seems precise and calculating. It's as if she hesitates to give a straight answer, but then she confirms: "Of course I would go."

Figure 1.1.11: "Please understand."

It is not embarrassment or rejection that Kaguya fears; it is the absolute destruction of her identity and sense of self. Kaguya is the daughter of a family that practically runs the country. In her mind, everyone yearns for her and wishes to serve her. Turning that around and reaching out to another person to express her own desire would be a direct contradiction of that. It is probably a similar situation for Shirogane, where the infallible self-image he has built up is being put at risk during his romantic duels against Kaguya.

Kaguya clearly feels trapped. She and Shirogane see each other as threats to be conquered, but in reality, they both share a mutual enemy that is much more imposing and insidious: their own simultaneous disgust at the idea of vulnerability.

Their freedom is dominated by their insecurities, and so, even despite their impressive stature, they are still very human. Their upbringing that has lead them to become so accomplished may be more of a curse than a blessing, due to the resulting pride and self-image they likely feel pressured to uphold.

It is hard to cast aside a lie that you have bought into for your whole life.

If our two protagonists wish to have a chance of establishing a healthy romantic relationship, they have a lot of their own demons to overcome first. If they cannot set aside their pride and reach mutual understanding, they have no hope.

Until then, they will both remain trapped in a hell of their own design, however tragically comedic it may be.

My hopes for this story's future

I can tell that the mangaka, unlike far too many writers all over the world, actually seems to have a solid understanding of romance and the conflict that arises within. I've watched too many anime that place huge focus on the "will they or won't they" crap which never runs any deeper than one or both of the characters being too embarrassed to just say what they're thinking, without any sort of convincing mental blocker. In that case, it's clearly just manufactured drama which is designed to pad out the story and waste your time rather than pose interesting questions and themes. In the case of Kaguya and Shirogane, the two of them have substantial communication issues which are depicted in a comedic yet mature way, which I have found engaging.

I very much hope that the show will more deeply explore the themes and questions surrounding the ideas of vulnerability, emotional intelligence, and superiority within relationships. Kaguya and Shirogane have been set up to be great vehicles for such exploration, and I hope the mangaka can capitalize on that, especially if our protagonists can confront these issues directly.

My impression is that the ending will make or break this story. If the mangaka can pull it off well, I can already believe the payoff will be hugely satisfying.

Of course, in order to get to that point, we'll have to see a certain something. It has to do with the most sacred word amongst romcom enthusiasts: "progress". Indeed, after spending chapters upon chapters watching two characters bumble around amidst the same exact status quo, those little signs of advancements in a relationship are highly rewarding.

Underneath all of their aggression, if we can see Kaguya and Shirogane slowly open up to each other and realize the benefits of vulnerability, I think we could witness something really beautiful and really emotionally cathartic.

I've still only seen one episode, but I believe the mangaka has laid a fantastic groundwork for a series and can do a great job developing upon what I've seen so far. On that note, I will surpass our prideful protagonists by opening my heart to this story and entrusting it with my vulnerability, believing it can deliver satisfying development and resolution. You can do it!

Closing thoughts

I did not expect to write so much about a single episode of an ANIME of all things, but here we are. If only I could conjure this kind of power back when I actually needed it in high school English class!

The first episode alone is already so rich with characterization and themes that I managed to find quite a lot to talk about. Given how much I found myself relating to the characters and some of their situations, it's clear to me how this show became so popular. Not only are the animation, direction, and writing excellent, but also many people can probably relate to love feeling like a battlefield.

I do not want to believe in the idea of winners and losers in relationships. That idea creeps into my head whenever I'm having trouble keeping the interest of a new date, and I find myself wondering where those thoughts even come from. Lately, I have been reflecting on the way I relate to other people. Perhaps I've started experiencing this show at a time in my life when I most needed it, and that's why I felt driven to write such a large analysis.

This show poses some very interesting questions about romance that I do not actually know the answer to at the time of writing. I do not know yet how much the show is actually going to explore these themes. Regardless, I appreciate how this show is helping me reflect, and I am curious to see if and how the mangaka will answer some of the questions brought about by the story's themes.

This is a show that I'll most likely have to pace myself with. There was so much to process in this first episode alone. If I went any faster, I'm not sure if I'd even catch all of the details and character moments. I'm excited to move onto the second episode soon.

A highly subjective footnote about my cultured tastes

I'm glad that Kaguya is a sadistic dom with a gentle and vulnerable side, solely on the basis of that being my favorite personality type in a love interest. It also helps that it makes Kaguya's fantasies that much funnier with Shirogane acting so out of character. I feel like this show was made for me.

What was I writing about again? Oh yeah, writing a gigantic wall of text about an anime romcom. Somehow, I spent an entire day on this essay. Hopefully someone got a kick out of it.

[aroworlds]

Hello, I thought I was aroflux but now I am in love with someone! Some people say that I am not aromantoc anymore, some people say that I flux, so I could be aroflux but fluxing to alloromantic now and I could be like that for years, but I don't know. Could I?

Anon, I want to say that I am so sorry you’re having to deal with the twin difficulty of lack of understanding of aro-spec identities and fluid identities, because I rather suspect that some people are causing you unnecessary doubt and confusion. And I very much hope that being in love is a wonderful, positive, amazing experience for you: I’ll metaphorically cross my fingers (because chronic hand/finger pain) that all goes well!

How you choose to comprehend and label is up to you. I think it’s worth keeping in mind that when a demiromantic falls in romantic love, that experience of romantic love does not by definition make them stop being demiromantic. Being in a romantic relationship, even if they’re in that relationship for the rest of their life, does not by definition make them stop being demiromantic. It may change how they relate to the aromantic community, yes; they may not have the same needs as they did before. But it does not change, unless they themselves feel it to be so for whatever personal reason, the truth of their demiromantic label. The same, surely, applies here?

In this light, it might be worth considering what you need over what you feel. If you consider alloromantic and/or romantic attraction as one of the aspects of your being aroflux, anon (as I have been recently taught) and you still feel connection to and need for the label and/or the community that goes with it, then by all means, keep it. It’s up to you and what you need, and nobody else gets to tell you that you’re not aromantic enough.

(Side note: by “alloromantic” in the rest of this ask, I mean someone who hasn’t felt themselves to be on the aromantic spectrum, not anyone who experiences romantic attraction. It’s why I often use “alloromantic attraction” or “alloromantic romantic attraction”, to distinguish that from the romantic attraction of some aro-spec folks. There may be some work to be done here on language: I do wonder if the romantic attraction felt by an aro-spec should be labelled the same way as the romantic attraction felt by an alloromantic. I can see reasons for using the same labelling, but I also feel wary about conflating them when they aren’t always treated the same way by amatonormativity. Either way, this is a complex issue in want of community consideration!)

I think a fair rule is that the only time we discard our labels is when they ring false with us, and other people don’t get to determine that. If you feel it describes your truth, it’s yours.

Anyone who comes up to me and says an aromantic and/or aromantic-spectrum person who currently, previously or will experience romantic attraction isn’t welcome in the aro-spec community will have to fight me. Yes, your experiences won’t be like mine, and we will both have issues where we should take a back-seat to let the other talk, but that doesn’t mean you don’t belong here. You do. Anon, if you have other aros telling you that you don’t belong, they’re the ones that don’t belong. They’re not engaging in the spirit of the community we’re building and they can shut the door on their way out of it. If they’re not aros telling you this, I’d be asking why alloromantic folks think they have any right to declare this to you, because they don’t. Especially if they’re non-fluid orientation alloromantic folks, who’ll have no clue about the intersectionality of the aromantic spectrum and fluid orientations!

(I think aro-spec people who do experience romantic attraction have a lot to say about romance and amatonormativity that everybody should listen to. We know a lot about romance from the alloromantic perspective. We don’t know much of what romance looks like when one isn’t solely, wholly or constantly alloromantic and not centred the same way by amatonormativity–especially with regards the expectation that all people in romantic relationships experience alloromantic attraction. For the sheer point of learning more about romance and amatonormativity, never mind bridging the gap between alloromantic and aromantic experiences, we need aro-specs in the community.)

As someone with a fluid identity myself, I do encourage, as best you can, trying not to worry about whether it will change later or for how long. Honestly, every time I shift in my sexuality I feel this guilt, like I’ve been lying to you all–maybe this time I’ll always be ace, maybe this time I’ll always be pan, maybe I was never ace, maybe I was never pan, maybe I’m always just grey-ace–arugh! Seriously, every single time! But this is symptomatic of living in a world that doesn’t give us space for fluidity, that treats it as imaginary, exaggeration or falsehood. We feel uncertain and unsure because fluidity isn’t prized or celebrated as a legitimate set of experiences; we question because we are not given any sense of security in our fluidity, the ability to trust that changes to how we feel now doesn’t invalidate how we felt then.

(And attempting to talk with authority on issues when I’m not always that orientation? Oh does that ever give me a raging case of self-doubt! I’m constantly feeling like I am not enough of anything, in terms of sexual orientation, to talk about it.)

Worrying about whether or not you’ll change in the future only leads to uncertainty about your past and present experiences. It only unravels us. I don’t mean that we shouldn’t check in with what we’re feeling every so often; I think that’s a healthy thing. I mean that the future, and any future shifts in our orientations and/or gender, are out of our hands, and the only thing we can do is find the words and communities that best suit the whole of what we know ourselves to be at this point in time. The worry is not inherently ours. The worry is not something we deserve. The worry is imposed upon us by a worldview that has no space for us. It’s internalised antagonism gifted by a world that wants people of fluid orientations and/or gender to pick one and stay there.

Anon, you don’t have to pick one. You can take a label that encompasses those changes, stare defiantly at the world and tell them that you don’t have to, or want to, pick one side. You can be desperately in romantic love and still tell the world you’re aroflux and they’re taking that word from you over your dead body.

If you find, over a long period of time, that your feelings and needs better match those of a alloromantic person and stay that way, then perhaps you may consider changing your label. But just being in romantic love, now, is not in itself a condition that denies you the aroflux label. It’s an experience, by and large, that more often necessitates it in light of your other experiences.

I would suggest, anon, that you let this go, as much as you can, for a while. Hang out in the aro-spec community if you want–or don’t if you don’t want. Enjoy being in love as much as you can. Just do your thing, have fun, feel what you feel, and try not to worry about labels for a while. Then, when you’ve had a chance to relax and feel, you might want to come back to questioning, if you really do feel there’s something to question. Now, though, I think you need some space to get away from the fluid antagonism; questioning is I think happening now from fear and uncertainty, not from a curious interest if the word still applies, and that can lead us to making decisions that feel like a solution but abrade at us later. Take a break and come back to it, if questioning is the path you still wish to go down, but now is not the best time for questioning. Just be and enjoy the change. Because that’s something folks don’t talk about, the joy of shifting experiences. Sometimes it’s fun having sexual attraction and sometimes I am so glad I don’t feel it at all on any given day and sometimes it’s wonderful that it’s such a vague feeling, and I get to know all of these. Isn’t that awesome?

(I’ll emphasise that you’re still part of the aro-spec community if and while you question, anon. You’re still entitled to full and complete participation in the aro-spec community.)

But if aroflux is the word that makes sense of who you are, all the shifts and changes and variances and highlights and shadows? It’s yours, anon. It’s yours.

[md3artjournal]

I tried listening to a video essay by a channel I've never heard of before. But I had to stop watching when it got pretentious. And by "pretentious", I mean elitist and exclusionary. So I'm annoyed and going to ramble like the idiot that I am.

They started dumping on pop up Instagram "museums" and how they provide "experiences" to interact with, more than "works to marvel at". Who are we to dismiss and invalidate the emotional experiences of others? Maybe being immersed in art and that experience of interacting with it gave them a profound emotion? You don't know! People are so different, you never know what changes someone's world view! Maybe it was just what they needed to break a long streak of several weeks of anxiety or depression! Gawd, it really shows when people who have not had their emotions and personal experiences, repeatedly invalidated throughout their lives, try to talk about what experiences are worth validating and what should be dismissed. This is just elitism. It's the opposite of empathy. It's not any kind of furthering of humanity's quality; it's the opposite.

Earlier, I saw a video essay, maybe this same one, start by discrediting the quality of the art world by showing a Spongebob Squarepants painting being sold at a fancy auction. Though I didn't grow up with Spongebob and have not nostalgia or attachments to that intellectual property, as a geek, I am deeply offended. For all my life, I and many people have had our deepest emotional experiences and most transformative thoughts, while interacting with media and indeed art from pop culture, but because it happens to come from pop culture, insecure people try to prove how "adult" they are by invalidating it as "art". And we took it on the chin and inverted it, taking pride in "comics belong in the gutter". Nevermind that the stories I've cried the most at were in comic book pages or animation. But then the more elitist notions started dying out with the generations, and it was the childhood geeks who grew up to take positions of power and authority, and finally "prove" pop culture media---and more importantly and implicitly, our emotional experiences and ideas shared through that media---was indeed actual ART. (Though I will admit, it it a little sad to think about how earning large amounts of money is the way that we had to legitimize the things we care about and our emotional/mental experiences gained through those media. In the end, money makes the world go 'round…for now.) All these stuffy elitists forget that the thing they care about also just make them geeks for whatever it is. Or more probably, pretending that legitimacy is only awarded to "adult" things of "worth", is just a pretense for moving money around and status for their individual, selfish egos.

It just feels like a double whammy, being reminded of this whole argument again, while in the middle of the A.I. generated art discussion, bringing up discussions which also invalidate people's personal emotional/mental experiences with art. The question "What is Art?", is bringing back so many discussions that (best case scenario) inadvertently imply an elitist view of art. People talk about "only art made with intention is real Art". That invalidates the profound emotional experiences that people have when they see a vista of nature, that one canvas of remnant paint brush cleanings that gave a judge such a profound experience that he gave it an award, or even that pair of glasses left on a gallery floor as a prank among other ready-built art. Prank or not, unintentional or not, it's really sad to invalidate the feelings and thoughts of people who looked at those things and experienced something profound, personal, and perhaps life changing, or at least a reprieve from the horror of living. Same for pop culture media. Sure, a lot is steeped in greed and capitalism seeping into so much of those creative processes, but even that doesn't deny the stories, thoughts, ideas, and emotions conveyed or inspired by experiencing those things. Everyone is just trying to police what people are allowed to have profound experiences with, and it's just so disgustingly elitist and exclusionary. Why can't someone go outside and look up at the sky and experience something profound, without someone saying "that's not valid enough for significance because of this, this, and this"?

And not just the experience of the viewer, but also the experiences of the artists are being constricted by this elitism. What? I'm not allowed to have "happy accidents" play into my art? Every little bit as to be done "with intention" for it to be valid? My first art pieces that I won awards for, came from intuitive hand strokes, where I didn't have everything planned. What about my monoprints, where I let ink fall randomly?

I know that in A.I. art discussions, people are trying to list "qualifiers" for "real Art", in order to protect their livelihoods as artists in our money-based hellscapes. But please be aware of the unintended consequences of these constricted definitions of art. I mean, a toddler or animal making finger paintings, may not make are on the difficulty or skill level of a trained or home-honed artist, but there is worth in protecting the idea that "everyone is born an artist". Art as inherent to Humanity and natural personal expression, is something to maintain. Whether art is being use to convey something to someone else, or for the artist to gain catharsis through the act of expressing outward, I believe that these are all important psychological functions to our being, and thus, should be cherished by Humanity as a whole. Trying to invalidate some but not others, trying to sequester certain Art with a capital "A", is the same as saying some human experiences are less human than others, less valid, some emotions are less valid than others…and who are we choosing those for? The answer to "why" is scary, and something I don't want to encourage.

Personally, I think that the resulting art of any process or accident has to be considered valid, in order to respect the emotions and experiences of any possible person who may feel something profound through it. And if we're not prioritizing Empathy, then what the hell is Humanity good for? I mean, even if a toddler or animal finger paints without really know what they're doing, the resulting art can still represent a connection to the viewer. Sentimentality is not a sign of low value or immaturity. And disregarding sentiment is not a sign of "adulthood" or "maturity". In fact, such disregard is a refutation of Humanity's worth, in my opinion.

But at the same time, I don't consider typing text prompts into an A.I. the same skill as someone who can illustrate, sculpt, or digitally paint. Maybe it's similar to conceptual art or ready-made sculpture. Maybe it will find it's place in that family. But as long as people are defining "Artists" as "illustrators who had to hone their craft in drawing for a long time, while applying lots of concentration while preforming their skill", then no, I don't think that people typing A.I. prompts are "Artists".

Still, typing prompts IS NOT the same SKILL as illustration. Just like illustration is not the same SKILL as photography. Or digital lineart is not the same skill as inking lineart. (Incidentally, I was so surprised a few years back, to learn that digital artists/painters also call outlining their artwork "inking". They don't use ink! lol I thought it was called "doing your linework", or "doing lineart", or "outlining your art". lol) In essence, if people are going to be judging competitions on skill or admiring artwork for the skill involved, then A.I. art needs to be separated from hand-drawn illustration. For example, my father loves realistically styled art, because of the skill involved in replicated reality. (I prefer stylization, because I rather feel something, regardless of realism; plus, I get enough reality already.) A photograph could very easily and more quickly generate the realism that my father enjoys. But it would not represent the skill that he wants to marvel at and be impressed with. A.I. generated art should not be considered with the same SKILL as hand-drawn art (including digital painting). ESPECIALLY since it seems that a lot of A.I. generators are feeding stolen artwork into their databanks to glean from. But in a world where A.I. does not steal from smaller artists and the "upload inspiration image" option doesn't exist in these generators, the resulting images can be admired just like any other, but still should not be taken as representing the same skill as someone making art by hand. And I think that time, effort, and a representation of years of honing should factor into value and worth. After all, I can get a $15 print of an artist's work, but the original work itself is going to be worth much more, because it wasn't just spewed out by a printer, but because it represents all the effort and time put into it by the artist. And if we don't value time, then what is Humanity so hung up over mortality for? And don't tell me that humans don't value effort, because that effort tells a story, and humans have always been fascinated by stories. Maybe someday, someone will use A.I. generated art as pieces to telling a worthwhile story, inspiring profound experiences. But as long as we are simply using A.I. art to marvel at the skill in creating an image, which is what is implied whenever a prompt writer calls themselves an "Artist", then we're just gaping at a paintbrush that's still waiting to make something. (Or maybe we're gaping at haphazard drops of paint onto a canvas…Which might reveal something about the ridiculousness of art being given worth SOLELY through attachment to the brand name of an artist.) Maybe artists would have been more accepting of A.I. generated art if the people saying "Look what I made!", weren't calling themselves "Artists". (And if the A.I. generators weren't stealing art.) Because maybe someday it will be recognized as some kind of skill(?) to write prompts and tweak dials---But it is NOT the same SKILL as drawing by hand.

But then again, I've always been bothered by this assumption that "Artists" are always illustrators…Or that Art has to be created by---can ONLY be created by "Artists" with a capital "A". Again, that limits the legitimacy of anyone who creates and the experiences of anyone who feels something worthwhile through any number of things. I should be allowed the cherish the worth of experience and emotion I get from geek media, or a parent through their child's fingerpaintings. Everyone can and should be an artist. And all things CAN be art. By that, I mean everyone should try expressing themselves and anything can incite a profound thought or emotional experience.

[softprince--moved]

I really want to follow you cause I like your content and you have it for agere/petre and sys kids but i can't find anywhere that says you're anti endo :(

I'm antiendo and I want to make sure I only follow safe accounts

Hello nonnie! I ended up rambling, so I apologize for that >.< To short of this long post, I am not anti-Endo. (If you're interested in my reasoning, that's below the cut.)

I never share discourse, any reblogs typically have DNI banners attached to them, I have certain tags blacklisted so I can avoid cross-tagging, and this blog is 200% child-safe. If, despite this, you or your alters would feel unsafe interacting, that's alright. I'm glad you like my blog, but you gotta take care of you first and foremost.

[And remember, the block button is your friend! it's there to help you! Someone tries to give you some heck, poke that button real hard!!!]

DISCOURSE / SYSCOURSE - DO NOT INTERACT

*puts on Big Self Hat* *cracks knuckles* okay, here goes nothing...

(Cw for discourse elements (obviously))

To be perfectly honest, I'm completely neutral when it comes to Endogenic systems. I'm not against them, nor do I see myself as a 'supporter' (I don't advocate for them; but, to be fair, I don't advocate for anyone on this blog, because that's not what it's for).

I, myself, am a singlet, I don't understand the workings of plurality in any practical sense, because I don't experience it. However, I have done a fair amount of research because a friend of mine thought they might have DID (this was a few years ago; and no, they don't.)

I do know that DID, and similar dissociative disorders, are trauma-based - as in, they don't just happen without the body/core personality experiencing some kind of trauma, no matter the 'severity' of said trauma (since 'severity' is subjective).

So I don't understand Endogenic systems, because they don't make sense to me? BUT, I'm not against them. I'm not going to say "hey, this can't be something you experience" because,,, how do I know? I'm not them, I can't say what they do or don't feel or experience. How I see it, personally, is like how I see xenogenders, and non-dysphoric trans people - I don't understand them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to deny their existence. Some people say they invalidate "real" trans people (like how some say that Endos invalidate "real" - ie Traumagenic - systems). Is it true? Maybe to some, but I don't think so. Some people are going to continue simply searching for ways to invalidate others, no matter what.

On the other hand, I do see how Traumagenic systems may feel invalidated; something awful occurred that caused their personality to split, and it can be hard to see someone else that's basically like "oh hey, I'm just like you!" because, essentially, they're not really the same. One system may see another and feel a connection because they know that this person (or persons) has experienced something awful, too, and they'll know they're not alone. With Endos, they won't get that. [Again, similar to non-dysphoric trans people -- as someone who deals with a lot of dysphoria, it's hard for me to relate to them; I don't understand, and I may never] With either, though, I'm still not going to say that their experience is fake, or not valid. I don't have the authority to say that because I'm not them.

So I understand the discomfort, but I don't understand the discourse. It may just be how I'm personally wired, I seek peace in all things, I'm highly empathetic, I generally don't understand discourse, because I'm of a live and let live mindset.

TL;DR: I interact with both Pro-Endo and Anti-Endo blogs, you may see reblogs with either in their DNI banners. I myself am neither.

Note:: Comparing DID to being Trans is simply how I'm able to process it, I'm not saying the two equate at all.

Note 2:: I do have one (1) issue with Endos - those that use "Tulpa." Please don't do that. It's appropriation of a specific culture's mythos.

DISCOURSE / SYSCOURSE - DO NOT INTERACT

[md3artjournal]

...

.

.

.

(I feel like if the larger art community sees my posts, they'll attack me, so this is just a bunch of padding, so that the Tumblr reblog preview will cut off before the actual body of my text.)

A.I. generated art still looks like a fun game or toy, but not the same as drawing. Is it art? I don't know. Maybe??????? But it's not the same skill as drawing. Regardless, I'm worried about stolen art used for the section of "upload inspiration image".

Some of my doubts about simply disregarding A.I. generated art as "not art", comes from too many conflicting ideas I've experienced.

Firstly, my personal definition of art is "anything that elicits emotion". I've never been too fond of strictly adhering to Authorial Intent. People can get personally meaningful experiences from books/stories/movies that the author didn't intend, and I still think those experiences, Thought Experiments, and catalysts for introspection and Growth, are all still valuable. And you never know what is going to give someone a profound experience. Many years ago, I heard the story of a painter who entered an art competition, but the judge walked around the easel, saw the back canvas splattered with paint from each time when the artist cleaned his brushes, and the competition judge had such a profound reaction to that canvas of splatters, that they gave that splattered canvas the prize. I can't just deny the value of someone's personal profound emotional experience. It just feels kind of inhuman to invalidate others' subjective experiences like that. In recent years, some pranksters set down a pair of glasses onto the floor of an art gallery, and watched people consider the object with so much thoughts, as they would with any of the other art objects in the gallery. Now, the pranksters were making fun of minimalist or ready-made art (I can't remember which), but if someone stared at those glasses and finally had thoughts about something that was meaningful to them, why should I mock them for it? If they had walked into nature and had a profound emotional reaction to the view of natural scenery, should I mock them for having an intense reaction to whatever thoughts/emotions that nature caused for them, just because every bit of nature wasn't particularly placed and with the intention to be "art"? I don't think so. I think everyone's experiences are significant. That back canvas story destroyed my notions of Authorial Intent, as well as any of my ability to completely agree with people who say "art needs to be made with intention"---which are some of the arguments made against A.I. art. 1) I have had mistakes in photography that have resulted in accidental art that has been praised and given people emotional reactions. 2) I have seen people call the sceneries of nature "art", even with no one guiding each thing with the intention to be "art". 3) I have my crafts from a jar, accidentally broken by my dog, that has been complimented as art. 4) People have given animals and toddlers fingerpaints and paper, and the resulting pieces can still hold enough meaning or subjective beauty for someone to call them art. From Pollock's paintings, to my own personal happy accidents when making haphazard strokes with my brush pen, I can't deny the amount of unintentional action that can make a good piece of art. (Not that I think intention excludes something from being art. Sometimes intention is very important to art. Like when Ai Wei Wei broke antique Chinese vases as a political statement. Intent can be very important to Concept Art, and I think that's also valid.) So I don't really have it in me to dismiss A.I. generated art on the grounds that a human person wasn't manually making each minute choice and action, with intention. And regardless of what an object is, since the experience it evokes in someone is significant, then does that catalyst object's classification as "art" or even "not art" really serve much importance? I've been a geek for a very long time, getting my most profound experiences from fictional stories that the world at large used to call "not real art". "Comics belong in the gutter", the "high art" world used to say so much, that geeks began to take it as a mark of pride. So maybe that's why I'm just slow to readily accept A.I. generated art as "not real art". With the broad subjectivity of what evokes emotional reactions in people, it's very difficult for me to simply dismiss anything, including A.I. generated art, as art. I have to really think about it more, and I'm still unsure.

One of my other hesitations about ostracizing all A.I. generated art, is that a lot of these arguments sound too familiar.

It reminds me of when cameras and photography came into being, and everyone worried that painters would cease to exist. But, 1) humans still inherently need to create art for their own personal catharsis, but also, 2) even after 2 centuries, painters still exist. They still have professional studios, people still hire them, and photography did not make them extinct. One of my favorite painters, Brom, not only has a job making fantasy illustrations and book cover art, but he even uses photography as reference for his paintings. And referencing an idea I think I heard in a video essay, photography didn't make painting disappear; it just made "painting for the purpose of recording and posterity" disappear. Now, painters aren't preoccupied with simply recording the visages of people who have existed. Now painters can spend more time painting things besides portraits. And as several other video essayists have noted, it's still traditional artists who are better at even the newly democratized art technologies. Everyone has a phone in their pocket, and yet it's still the pro artists who tend to make better photographs. There's too much precedent for artists not disappearing, when a new art technology becomes available. I can't help but wonder what artists will be freed up to do, when they're not preoccupied making header images for web articles or other graphic design that is already being partially cannibalized by stock image libraries. Maybe the thing that artists will do, when they don't have to be preoccupied with what they're doing now, will be something that the world has desperately needed. I don't know; no one knows yet.

Some other luddite arguments just feel against feelings I've had about other fields. When we were all for shutting down more fossil fuel plants, the people who worked their were against those industries being cut back, because they needed to keep their jobs, to sustain their lives and families. So it feels kind of hypocritical for us artists to be against new technology replacing some older tech, just because now our jobs are in danger. But also, when those people risking their lives to work in fossil fuel industries complained about losing their jobs, I was all for them being re-trained for the new jobs that would replace their old ones. The more environmentally conscious fields that would replace their old industries, would quickly become desperate for workers, like them. And from my understanding, be much safer for them; no more dying early of cancers from exposure to fossil fuel materials. Seemed like solutions were already there, if people would help the old guard make the transition. So it feels like stagnation, for us artists to simply stigmatize A.I. generated art as an absolute bad and not consider the other fields that could need us desperately. Hell, maybe A.I. generated art will all start to look the same, and artists will still be hired to come in, to modify it after generation---I don't know. I don't know what future fields will need us, but I have no doubt that the world will still need artists. Plus, after hearing about the history of luddites against lace manufacturing machines, as well as learning the history of how type used to be laid and how digital text/fonts made graphic design so much easier, I'm afraid it would be short-sighted to simply throw out technology, just because some things would have to change. Because there's precedent that the change can very often be for the better.

I just have a lot of ambivalence, hesitation, and uncertainty right now. I don't want to dismiss artists who don't want to lose their livelihoods. But maybe that's more of a problem with society that so easily throws away people when they don't have money. Maybe the real problem is government systems that don't support their people, so they can be free to contribute to society in the ways that best fit their talents and personal well-being needs, instead of being unhealthily and constantly, hyper vigilant towards making ample money in case they ever become unfortunate enough to need (financial) help. (But I won't rant here about research/precedent for Universal Basic Income, Universal Health Care, etc. actually being advantageous for the whole of society, as well as for each individual.) I also think that humans love human stories and parasocial relationships, and won't just abandon supporting small business artists, when higher quality A.I. art generators become more freely available. And I feel that the world will still need artists.

There's too much precedent for new technology being integrated into artists' tool kits, to make artists themselves disappear. I'm still doing traditional art. Meanwhile this past week, I saw that someone had made a digital painting brush that draws all the stacks of coins, hair locks, chains, etc. for you, while your hand is just making one stroke with the stylus. To me, that instinctually felt like cheating. But I was trained in an art school that said anything besides cropping could disqualify your photography from art competitions, still wary of Photoshop. I realize my old way of thinking is the dinosaur. So when I saw those "cheating" digital brushes, my second thought was, "Wow, I could be allowed to do that? I could let the computer take care of background details, so I could concentrate more on the foreground subjects that I really wanted to draw? You'll really let me do that?" Maybe technology will just let me concentrate more on the things I want to do with my art. Painters stopped mainly doing portraits for rich medieval nobles, and could go on to paint things that expressed their personal feelings. Maybe A.I. art will find a way to allow artists to focus on what they really want to do as artists. I hope?

Anyway, those are some of my new thoughts on the subject, now that a lot of the artists I follow in Twitter are bringing up A.I. generated art again. My previous reactions are at:

https://md3artjournal.tumblr.com/post/686744634421084160/mysticdragon3md3-the-ai-that-creates-any

APPEND 2:15 AM 10/4/2022:

But that's just judging the results as art. Let me be clear: typing keywords is less skillful than other skills which produce art. Digital illustration/painting may have digital brushes and other shortcuts that make traditional art and graphic design easier. And photography may produce art much faster than traditional art forms before it. But both of those arts using technological "short cuts" still both require a great amount of art training and skill, in order to be done well. And it's important to note that they are all different sets of skills. I see digital artists download brushes that will draw locks of hair, chains, and stacks of coins, with one stroke, while I'm over here, drawing each bit with a dip pen or fountain pen. I see people fill in enclosed drawn areas with a simple fill tool, while I'm trying to carefully follow lines with my brushstrokes. When I need to produce art quickly, I put down my sketchbook and do photography instead. And maybe if I knew how to use Blender and 3D printers, I'd be doing that in a pinch, instead of sculpting clay and carving slabs of linoleum/rubber/wood by hand. But even printmaking is a kind of cheat, creating multiples of artwork without individually re-drawing each rendition. While some processes make producing art easier than others, all those processes do produce art. My point being, that while making leverage of tools/technology can produce art faster, there is a bit more skill and effort put into the processes/mediums which use less tools/technology. An illustrator who stipples every bit of depicted landscape with only a dip pen is recognized as having spent more effort into producing their work, than a landscape photographer, regardless of the composition and darkroom lighting skills that a photographer may have used. They both still produce very good, impressive artworks, but I have seen people marvel solely at the idea of hand-made art and imagining the effort involved in an artwork. To paraphrase Scott McCloud's interview on 99% Invisible, journalistic comics may take unrealistic, stylized liberties with perspective, human anatomy, or lighting, but everyone marvels at each line and stippling being hand-drawn. It's much more impressive to do a lot with very few tools to help. Like the artist persevered through a disadvantage. I've observed a consensus about this. The resulting art generated by A.I., text prompts, and some tweaking, may be beautiful in and of themselves, but a hand-made illustration---digital, traditional, or even an image by a photographer who hiked to a location to wait for or set up perfect lighting---is rightfully recognized as more impressive, because more effort was put into it.

I'm skeptical about people who call themselves "real artists", on the same level as pro artists, for typing keywords and fussing with a few dials. They're "artists" only in the similar sense that "everyone is born an artist" or "everyone with a camera in their pocket is a photographer now". But I'm unsure they're prepared for challenges that take honed artistic skill. I'm reminded of an old comic book artist who was actually just outsourcing all his work to real pro artist colleges. His editor figured it out, and so just to mess with him, he asked for a small last minute change to his submitted work. The guy tried to make an excuse for why he couldn't use one of the many drawing desks at the editor's office. But the editor made it difficult for him to keep up the act without admitting that he couldn't draw himself. So he goes into the drawing room, to sit at one of the empty drawing desks, and comes back to the editor with the adjusted artwork. After he leaves, the editor asked one of the other artists in the drawing room what he did. He paid one of the artists already there, to draw the adjustment for him.

I used to wonder what these people meant by "tweaking", and i seriously thought they were taking the AI generated images into a digital painting program to draw on top of it. But they were just fussing with dials?😶

[jacine-the-queen]

Oh sweet unholy jesus here we go

"trans women often force homosexuals into sleeping with them" - no they say if you are a lesbian trans women can be in your dating pool as they are women. If you have an issue with the fact a trans woman still has a penis or hasn't started their medical transition that is a completely valid point to which most trans people are fine with. The issue, which you people constantly fucking ignore, is when you invalidate their identity, ie. "ew no I only date real women". This shit about trans women going around forcing every lesbian to "like dick" is completely fictitious.

The science in regards to trans women in sports leans both ways. Because currently it's a hotly politicized issue. There are studies indicating there is no advantage, there are some studies indicating there are still some advantages, there are some studies indicating that the notion males are inherently going to be stronger and faster than females is bullshit. Like I can't understand how you people can pretend to be feminists when so often the shit you say literally comes across as "females are weak delicate flowers". Terfs have literally bitched that a trans woman beat a cis woman in skateboarding, so any argument you people put forward about how trans women have some kind of unfair advantage I will meet with extreme skepticism

Gender is comprised of many different components. Identity, expression, roles, norms and stereotypes. Gender itself is a social construct. The harmful aspects of gender you terfs love to flock to are roles, norms and stereotypes (and often actually fucking enforce). You say I shouldn't just appeal to authority, but then when you terfs give the definition of "adult human female" you're trying to appeal to the authority of "basic biology" to which even biologists don't agree with you because they understand that sex is bimodal and that it's different from gender but still linked to an extent

You say being a terf cannot coincide with conservatives yet we see shit like the WOLF working with the literal fucking heritage foundation. We see countless terfs agree with conservatives who attack trans people. For fucks sake Republicans quoted JK Rowling in an anti trans bill and you cannot fucking deny that terfs cheered Rowling on.

Conservatives believe that trans people are mentally ill degenerates that are grooming children, they don't give a shit about "betraying" a gender. That's terf bs since you people have literally called trans men gender traitors and have quoted shit like the handmaids tale

So you think rogd is real because... You explored the possibility of you being trans but didn't like the effects HRT could have on your body if you chose to go on HRT?.... Oh my fucking god🤦🏻‍♀️

"we used to be able to say there's a man in here we don't feel safe" - a man could be in there because his daughter needs the bathroom, he could be in there because often baby changing stations are put in women's bathrooms. The notion that a cis man is going to pretend to be trans to gain access to women's restrooms is literally a fucking made up cry that is A LITERAL REPEAT OF PASSED HOMOPHOBIC ARGUMENTS

You say fully transitioned trans men wouldn't want to use the women's so by what fucked up logic do you think trans women would want to use the men's? We literally have countless studies and statistics showing how trans women will face violence if they're forced to use the men's restroom.

Only 2 of your sources are actually about trans women the rest are cis men so don't know what you think you're showing there

Additionally the two anecdotes you've shown aren't statistical evidence since I can show equally as many women guilty of rape and pedophillia

As for your shit of "trans women being violent" - @terfrecords here's also an archive of terfs being: racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic and violent

And here's just a taste of my own personal experience

Additionally as for @steampunkette sex is a social construct that isn't them saying sex isn't real. I don't know enough about the school of thought for sex being a social construct to really comment but something being a social construct doesn't make it not real

@jacine-the-queen I can't interact with the post because the other person blocked me

Rowling even complimented Walsh on it, and regardless of whether you see Rowling as a real terf or not doesn't change the fact that countless terfs flock to her

we can agree that biological sex is real without agreeing that sex determines your role in life, for example. it doesn't mean i support capitalism. it doesn't mean i am patriotic. it doesn't mean i believe in the traditional family. it doesn't mean i think people who aren't white are subhuman/deserve less respect. it doesn't mean i think males and females must be together as that is the only True Marriage.

doesn't make us politically the same.

haven't watched what is a woman so idrk what to say? it could have been good, it could have been bad, im just not giving conservative men money ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

in any case, radical feminists respect jkr for having the bare faced gall to say biological sex is real, i wouldn't really say they "flock to her" to form their opinions? Idk if you show me examples of people just agreeing with stuff cause jkr did id be surprised.

i personally, don't like associating with conservatives regardless of whether we happen to agree biological sex is real, take that as you will ig.

The bathroom scare of trans people is literally just a repeat of the same argument but against gay people

from a conservative viewpoint, yeah they just hate those they see as "deviants" i see your point...women having concerns about males entering their spaces still deserve respect though >.>

How long have males been just entering female spaces? That's a genuine question.