#I don't understand how this country is allowed to function this way

[obituarybug]

Everytime I tell someone I'm independent/no party and they immediately start spouting bullshit to me about the importance of voting and why I should vote and that "a vote for third party is a vote for x" an angel loses its wings

Like sorry I wasn't aware that only Republicans & Democrats are allowed to vote for their respective parties and independents can't and that if they see you're registered independent they fucking rip up your ballot in front of you and don't count it

I AM STILL GOING TO FUCKING VOTE SHUT YOUR BITCH ASS UP.

[sugume]

CONJUGAL VISIT w/jujutsu Kiasen

Description: in which an inmate of a prison or jail is permitted to spend several hours or days in private with a visitors

More: Fem!Reader, explicit content, unprotected sex, some d/s dynamics with Toji, American prison system? (idk if other countries allow this lol?) 

☾ Ryomen Sukuna 

He's been in solitary for so long that you start to think you'll never see him again. He finally fixes his attitude enough to come in contact with others and eventually gets some visitation rights. Get used to having sex with him here because the guards inform you he isn't leaving for a long time.

 “s’too much Kuna!” You whine into the flat pillow but your boyfriend Sukuna could care less and keeps pounding into you from behind.

“Think I care slut? Been away from this pussy for months now, shut up and take what I give you.” He grits out, pushing deeper into your back with one hand, fisting your hair with the other. He’d be damned if you tell him what to do after all this time away. Do you know how spineless he had to act in order to get this visit, on his ‘best behavior’, desperate to finally be able to sink in some cunt after being surrounded by irrelevant men and guards with their heads up their asses?

“Feels s’good,” you moan when Sukuna hits your special spot. “I’m gonna cum!”

“That fast slut, it hasn't even been ten minutes” He chuckles, leaning down to bite your shoulder.

“Missed you, ‘Kuna, c-cant cum ‘out you.”

“Can��t do shit without me, bet you can’t even function out there without me,” He groans in your hair, you don't understand half of what he’s saying you just nod mindlessly and slam your hips back on his cock.

“Then cum on my cock, whore.”

☾ Gojo Satoru 

He's on a mission that requires him to go to jail. The prison warden is in on it, but that doesn't mean your boyfriend doesn't want to experience the "real deal." He convinces the warden to allow him weekly fuck sessions because he says he can't complete the mission without them.

“i-Im gonna cum ‘Toru!” you whine aloud, to far gone to be embarrassed that your boyfriend is fucking you on scratchy sheets in a bed that probably hasn’t been thoroughly cleaned in years or the fact that multiple other girls have probably been in the same position you’re in with other inmates, on the same bed.

“So tight love, haven't you been using your dildos in my absence?’ he questions as he thrusts into your glistening cunt. Watching as you throw your head back, tears running down your cheeks.

“They’re too small ‘Toru!” You wrap your legs around his hard ass trying to get him as deep as he can.

“Aww, they can't make you cum as hard as I can, can they love?” he pouts against your swollen lips. You shake your head furiously, listening to the sounds your squelching cunt makes when he thrust back in, his balls slapping hard against your ass.

“Think i'll ask if I can get out early on good behavior. I can't leave my girl unsatisfied now.” He chuckles before diving his tongue into your mouth.  

☾ Toji Fushiguro 

Your mans got locked up again! This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. You don’t know how he convinces the guards to allow you to visit time and time again, but you won't complain. You always miss him when he's gone every few months. The guard just sighs when he sees you’re here for visitation again

“You miss me, little girl?” he grins, sticking thick fingers in your already sopping cunt. “You know I always miss you when you’re gone, daddy.” You gasp, your back hitting the cold concrete wall behind you when Toji curls into your g-spot. 

“So so bad.” you whine, grinding your aching clit on his hard stomach, legs tightening around his slim waist when you find the perfect spot.

“You wanna cum little girl?” he asks while marking up your neck. He needs others to know you’re taken and if he can't be around you at the moment he’ll make it known another way.

“Yes Toji!” You scream.

“Yes what?” He stops his fingers.

“Yes daddy,” you whisper, moving your hips desperate to not lose the orgasm you were chasing. “Please make me come daddy, please!” 

“That's what I thought little girl” He says before continuing his movements and biting down on your heavy bottom lip.

☾ Choso Kamo

Too ashamed that he ended up in prison to allow you to visit him for a while. After much reassurance from you that you don’t look at him differently he finally comes out of his shell and makes friends. Get’s out early on good behavior.

“You think someones watching?” You mumble, looking back at the camera in the corner of the dark lit room.

“F-fuck baby, don’t fuckin’ stop,” Choso whines, gripping your waist, trying to make you bounce on his stiff cock. ‘Who cares if they are, baby? They won’t touch.”

You turn back around and grin down at your boyfriend “mmm, isn't that how you got in here in the first place Choso, beating up a man for touching me?” You start grinding on his cock again.

“Do anything for you, baby.” He moans gripping your waist when your tight walls start squeezing down on him, trying hard not to bust a nut so quickly.

“Yeah,” you moan out, feeling his cock twitch in you. “Now you’re stuck in here for months away from me.” You pout and claw at his chest when Choso starts to bounce you on his cock. God, if only he didn’t beat that man up you’d have this every night.

“Worth it.” He looks up at the camera, imagining the security guard looking down at your ass recoil when he slams you down on his cock

[beatrice-otter]

I’ll be honest, when one party’s aiding and abetting the genocide and the other’s outright gonna kill all my friends, I don’t really care if the fascists “win”. They’ve won already.

You know who would be delighted to hear that? Trump and Putin. The US far right and the Russian government have poured lots of time, effort, and money over the last decade+ into convincing US leftists and liberals that things are hopeless, there's no point in even trying to make things better, and the Democrats and Republicans are functionally interchangeable. They do this because one of the easiest ways for them to win is if the left gives up and stops trying. Every person on the left they can convince to give up in despair brings them closer to complete control. Defeatism on the left actively supports victory on the right.

I think your statement is wrong on a number of levels, both factual and emotional. It comes from not understanding what the actual options are for the US government and the President specifically, either at home or abroad. And it will allow actual fascism to flourish and make the world far worse than it is now.

On an emotional level, the way to address this is to stop doomscrolling. Stop focusing on the worst things happening in the world. Don't ignore them! but don't let them consume you. Start looking for the things that are going well. Find places in your community that you can get involved in making things better. Even if it's only on a small scale like volunteering in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, it will help you realize that you aren't helpless, that there are things that can be done to make the world a better place. Stay informed about things on a local, national, and international level, but limit how much time and attention you give to things that depress you that you can't affect. Instead of sitting there thinking about all the ways the world sucks and how awful things are, look for things you can do that are productive, and then do them. You'll feel better and you will have made your corner of the world a little better. And you will be a lot less likely to unintentionally fall into the despair, nihilism, and passivity that the fascists want you to be consumed by.

Always remember that the worlds problems are not resting solely on your shoulders, or solely on America's shoulders, and neither is the hope of fixing them. Everyone has things that we can do to make the world a better place, but there are also things that are beyond our control. We can control what we do; we cannot control what others do. We can and should try to make the world a better place, but focusing on the things we can't change has no positive benefits. Focusing on things we can't change accomplishes two things: it makes you feel bad, and it stops you from doing the things you actually can do to make things better. Neither of these things is good for you or anyone else. Look for things you can do and do them. Keep informed on the things you can't change, but don't focus on them.

On a factual level, let's look at "aiding and abetting genocide," shall we?

First, it's important to remember that the US President is not the God-Emperor Of The World. The US government has limits to what it can and can't do in other countries, and both legally and practically. If the US wants to intervene in a problem in another country, there are a variety of things we can do that boil down to basically four categories. It's a lot more complex than this in practice, of course, but in general here are the categories of things we can do:

Send in the troops. Invade, either by ourselves or as part of a NATO or UN operation. (Or maybe just send in a CIA wetworks team to assassinate the head of state.) I hope you can see the moral problems with this option, and also, we've done this a shitton of times over the course of the 20th Century and pretty much every time we've done it, we've made an already awful situation worse. On a moral level, it's pretty bad, and on a practical level, it's worse. Sure, we could stop the immediate problem, but what then? Consider Afghanistan and Iraq. We got rid of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, and everything went to shit, we spent twenty years occupying Afghanistan with pretty much nothing to show for it. (The Taliban is back in control of Afghanistan.) Things were worse when we left than when we arrived. So this option is pretty much off the table (or should be).

Diplomatic pressure. Now, the thing is, they're a sovereign nation, they don't have to listen to us if they don't want to. We have a lot of things we can leverage--including financial aid--but the only way to force them to do what we want is to invade and conquer, and that only works temporarily. Since we can't force, we have to persuade. This requires us to maintain our existing relationship with the country in question, and possibly strengthen it, because that relationship is what we're leveraging to try and influence them to do what we want them to do. If we do not maintain our relationship, they have no reason to listen to us.

Cut ties and go home. Break off any existing relationship and support, loudly proclaim that they're awful and doing awful things and we wash our hands of the whole situation. This keeps our own hands lily-white and pure, but it also means we have zero leverage to work on any kind of a diplomatic solution. They have no reason to listen to us or care about what we think. We can pat ourselves on the back for doing the right thing, but we destroy our own ability to influence anything. Not just now, but also in the future. Let's say the current crisis ends, and then ten years later there's another crisis. If we want to have any effect then, we would have to start from square one to start building a relationship. Cutting ties would be great for making Americans feel better about ourselves, and there are times when it's the only option, but it should be a last resort. If there is any hope of being able to influence things for the better this will destroy it at least temporarily.

Cut ties and impose sanctions. Break off any existing relationship and support, loudly proclaim that they're awful and doing awful things, but also use the might of the American economy to isolate and punish them. We've done this a lot over the 20th Century, too, and it has never actually resulted in the country in question buckling down and toeing the line we want them to. What happens is the sanctioned country has an economic shock (how long it lasts and how bad it gets depends on a lot of factors) and then pulls themselves back together economically, except this time they're more self-sufficient and less reliant on international trade and financial networks. They tell themselves that America is evil and the cause of all their problems, and so not only do they not listen to us, they actively hate us. And they have fewer international relationships, so fewer reasons to care about what the international community thinks about them. So they're most likely to double down on whatever it is they're doing that we don't like. This one is completely counterproductive and utterly stupid. It's great for making Americans feel better about ourselves, but if we actually care about being able to use our influence for good (or, at least, to mitigate evil) this option shoots us in the foot. It encourages other nations to do the very thing we're trying to stop them from doing.

So, with those four options in mind, both option one (invasion/assassination) and option four (sanctions) are off the table for being immoral and counterproductive. That leaves "breaking our relationship and going home" and "using diplomatic pressure" as our only two viable options.

Biden has chosen option two, diplomatic pressure. Yes, he and our government have continued financial support for Israel ... but with strings attached. They have put limits on it that have never been put on any US foreign aid before. They have taken legal steps to lay the groundwork to target Israeli settlers (i.e. Israeli citizens who confiscate Palestinian homes and businesses). We've been hearing reports for months that Benjamin Netanyahu (Israeli Prime Minister, and a far-right-wing demagogue) hates Biden's guts, because Biden is pressuring him to stop the genocide and work towards peace. Biden is maintaining the relationship, and he's using that relationship to try and influence things to curb the violence and pave the way for a just peace settlement of some sort. Biden has also mentioned the possibility of a two state solution where Palestine becomes its own completely separate country. That's huge, because up until this point the US position has always been that Israel is the only possible legitimate nation in that territory. If Biden stopped US support for Israel, it wouldn't force Israel to stop what it's doing ... but it would let them ignore us. It would remove any leverage or influence we might have.

Biden's hands aren't clean. But the only way for them to be clean would be to also give up any chance of influencing the situation or working to protect Palestinians now or in the future. Only time will tell if it works, but I personally would rather have someone who tried and failed than someone who didn't even try. You might disagree about whether this is the right course of action, and there's a lot of room for honest disagreement about the issue (there's a lot of nuances that I'm glossing over or ignoring). But please do acknowledge that Biden isn't supporting Israel because he supports genocide; he's doing it so that he can continue to maintain diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop the violence.

Which brings us back to "aiding and abetting genocide." Trump is not like Biden. Trump is good friends with Netanyahu and backs Israel to the hilt. Trump thinks that all Arabs are terrorists (and all Muslims are terrorists) and genuinely believes the world would be a better place with them dead. Biden is continuing to support Israel, but using that support as influence to get them to stop or slow down. Trump would be using that influence to encourage them.

And those are the two choices. Someone who is trying to curb the genocide, and someone who actively supports it.

I really hope you can see the significant and substantial difference between those two positions.

But let's say that you're right and Biden's policy towards Israel and Palestine is every bit as bad as Trump's would be. If there was nothing to choose between them on foreign policy grounds, there would still be a shitton to choose between them on domestic policy grounds. You admit that the right wants to kill your friends, and yet you don't seem to think that stopping them from killing your friends might be a good thing to do.

"We can't save Palestinians, so we might as well let Republicans destroy the rights, lives, and futures of LGBTQ+ people, women, people of color, people with disabilities, poor people, non-Christians, and anyone else they don't like." "We can't save Palestinians, so why bother to try to save the people we might actually be able to save." "We can't save Palestinians right now, so there's no point in trying to build up a longer-term political bloc that might drag US politics to the left over the long run."

Do you get why there's a problem with that line of thought?

[rosesnbooks]

Astrology observations #5🖤

🌜I wrote these for fun, based on how i see these placements. i'm not a professional! hope you enjoy these🌛

⭐cancer placements allow themselves to feel their emotions. they may get annoyed by the intensity or the amount of them, but they process them fully, and this makes it easier for them to move on. random thought but writing letters to people they like may be something they do or did as kids haha. they're very romantic

⭐some aries venuses have obsessive tendencies when they have a crush, and they get frustrated a lot if they think they can't/shouldn't pursue them. they enjoy the tension, but they don't want it to last too long because they dislike not being in control, and having feelings for someone leaves them feeling too vulnerable. that's why they try to move on if they can, but it takes work. when they do find someone, they become really clingy but they still need freedom when it suits them

⭐mars in libra avoid conflicts and try to be reasonable about everything, but if they think you crossed a line, you'll see why aries is their sister sign pretty soon. once they tell you off, you'll never see them the same way, so underrestimate them at your cost

⭐having stelliums can be interesting. it for sure puts a lot of emphasis on the influence of that house on your life, and i found that it can be both positive and negative since they face lots of challenges related to their house but also many blessings. those who have stelliums kind of embody multiple characteristics simultaneously

⭐sun in the 11th people glow when they are with their closest friends. they also tend to dream big and care a lot about the world. their friends usually help them in their future goals. they feel a bit different than people in their hometown/country, mostly because they cannot be tied down to a single culture because they enjoy different things, which usually makes them quite open-minded and tolerant. they can be picky about the people they let in super close though

⭐mars in the 6th can procrastinate a lot actually, but they get things done. may get sudden waves of high energy and get things done rapidly and extensively. they expect a lot from themselves regarding their ambitions and aspirations. they try to improve themselves in any way most of the time, but they should also accept their current state if they want to evolve and love themselves. they need to watch out for their moral perfectionism too. it's okay to make mistakes as long as you apologise and strive to change for the better

⭐i've found that virgo mercuries can be really direct, even if they are shy or don't talk much around strangers or acquaintances, they have their moments. super funny too

⭐north node in cancer struggle with accepting their vulnerable side. they hate feeling like things and people can evoke strong emotions in them. they want to be more detached, but those that work on themselves find it very rewarding once they embrace their strong emotions. they can also be really reliable, practical, and thoughtful

⭐fire+water combinations in birth charts-i am sending you a hug. i know exactly how difficult it is to keep all those emotions under check, and that you need a lot of understanding and rest to function. use those emotions and passions well hun, you are strong and capable. you have a lot of empathy and wonder inside of you

⭐capricorn sun/mercury have a dry way of texting. their humor is difficult to read via text and they simply are not fans of texting, and it shows lol

⭐aries mercuries are not always available online and they may come and go when they're online, but they'll answer all of your messages one by one with lots of enthusiasm. they also like to send memes and joke around a lot

⭐virgo mercuries are not fans of texting and they can answer you after a couple of days or so even if they really like you. similarly to aries, they'll make sure they answer everything and they also pay attention to every detail you mention. very sweet really. their humor shines brighter in person

⭐taurus moon are very capable. they may prefer rest over anything else, but their patience and dedication to the things they need to do is really cool. they are calm most of the time so it's nice to be around them, just don't disrespect them and everyone will thrive

⭐taurus venus men can be really possessive. even if you like such behavior, some can go to extremes and try to control how you feel, think, and behave. they have a specific image of an ideal partner and they want you to fulfill it

⭐libra venus tend to care about how they look and present themselves so they put lots of effort into that. they also have standards when it comes to beauty and some expect others to dress and look well, whether they know them or not

⭐women with venus in aquarius-you may be attracted to men who are mysterious and act like they're special. just be careful because there are so many toxic ones out there who want a relationship but not truly, because they don't want to dedicate themselves to you and maybe plan on using you

⭐pisces moon can feel like they're drowning in their own emotions sometimes because they cannot control them easily and they tend to give in. if they like to portray themselves as a martyr these emotions can get out of hand because they let those emotions lead them which influences their mental health and relationships. those who are developed process these emotions and try to figure them out and let them pass. they can learn a lot about themselves and others this way. creative outlets can be of help to process this

⭐leo moon need to watch out for hurting people when their ego is hurt because they can lash out and make lots of damage. take a second to think whether it's worth it or not, since there is no point in trying to "win" in a fight with someone you love

⭐pisces mars can be too forgiving, especially to those they care about. don't let people walk over you dear, no matter who they are. nobody deserves that kind of treatment

thank you for reading!🤍i also offer paid astrology readings, so check out my blog for more info

©rosesnbooks

[jellogram]

I want to talk about the Rosetta Stone for a second:

This chunk of rock is the reason that anyone today can read Egyptian hieroglyphics. It's an incredible artifact (which is unfortunately in the British Museum, but I'm getting to that) because it allowed us, for the first time, to go back in time and actually hear from the people we had studied so much about. It allows us to look at pictures inscribed thousands of years ago and know what the carver meant by them. There's a reason it became an iconic piece of rock.

But my main point here is how much we love this rock. In one of the most impressive archaeological collections in the world, assembled through centuries of violence and thievery and racism, the crowning jewel of the museum is this rock. It's the banner image on their collection page of their website.

Isn't that interesting? This rock is special because of the way it connected cultures and allowed us to gain new understanding for people from another time and place. It's incredibly human, in the best possible way, that one of the world's most prized possessions is a tool that reached through millennia and brought us someone else's thoughts and words. It's wonderful that we are a species who places so much value in that.

But it's in the British Museum. An institution which offers a thorough summary of one country's attempt at world domination, at exercising their culture's own superiority over every other. At their disinterest in treating others like people.

It's not entirely known how the stone even came into British hands. The French discovered it. How it ended up in England's pocket was something that happened in hushed voices, between two world powers that hated each other but were united in their shared disrespect for Egypt's rights as a country.

But the museum today doesn't seem to see the hypocrisy in any of this. They marvel, and expect us to marvel, at this artifact for its ability to connect us with ancient Egyptians. Meanwhile, the perfectly functional and safe museums in Egypt today don't get to display this stone. The tool that opened up study of their own history was stolen from them. The exhibit might as well be a neon sign, declaring that Britain cares more for ancient Egyptians than modern ones.

So there it remains, at the British Museum. A testament to both human connection and human violence. I think if I wanted aliens to understand human history, the Rosetta Stone might be a good place to start.

[homuraakemis]

I keep seeing anti-Maiko people complain that Mai never had a redemption arc to learn about why the Fire Nation was bad, and that's why she shouldn't be with Zuko. And I think that fundamentally misunderstands what a secondary character is. Mai is not a main character. She is a secondary character. She is there to provide support to the narrative, she is there to fulfill her plot purposes and that's it. That doesn't mean she has no character development, but her character development is mostly related to her function in the narrative. In Mai's case, her main functions in the narrative are being Zuko's love interest, and being a key piece in Azula's downfall. Her character development is related to that: we have a girl who is closed off and suppresses her emotions who gradually starts to open up a little through her relationship with Zuko. We also have her feeling like she's always trapped by fear and by others expectations (by her parents and by Azula), and because of her relationship with Zuko, she is able to finally stand up to Azula. That's her character arc. That's what's relevant to her function in the story. Learning about how the Fire Nation is bad is not relevant to her main plot purposes in the story. There's no reason why it can't happen offscreen after the war, with Zuko teaching her about all the things he saw and learned about the Fire Nation during his travels. She is not a main character, the show doesn't need to focus on every single thing about her character. In case people forget, we don't get a "redemption arc" for Ty Lee either, because this is not important, neither Mai or Ty Lee are meant to be the focus of the narrative, we don't need to see them "learning that the Fire Nation is bad".

Another thing that people don't understand is that not every character has to be a copy of Zuko. People act like the only acceptable way for Mai to learn about the wrongs of the Fire Nation is by having a redemption arc like Zuko, but that's not really the case. It's not even feasible: Mai didn't go through the same experiences as Zuko, she wasn't forced to live as a commoner amongst the Earth Kingdom peasants, she wasn't forced to flee as a refugee, so she never really had the opportunity to speak to these people and see their plight the same way Zuko had. Of course Zuko is the one who gets the redemption arc, because he is the main character for which this arc actually matters to the story, but also because the circumstances of his story allow him to have this arc, while the circumstances of Mai's story don't. But that in no way means she is irredeemable or that she can't learn, it just means she will learn about the Fire Nation in a different way than Zuko did, probably through Zuko himself telling her about his experiences and the things he saw. And there's nothing wrong with that! Mai is not a main character, she doesn't need to have some epic redemption journey. She was a Fire Nation noble, just like Zuko, she was taught the same kind of propaganda that Zuko was, so of course she's going to believe in it and believe that Zuko is betraying his country when he tells her he joined the Avatar. But Mai is also not some cruel person, and she's also not a Fire Nation fanatic. If after the show Zuko told her about all the things he saw, she would listen. And in fact, the evidence we have is that she did listen to Zuko and she did learn about the Fire Nation: in the comics she works with Zuko against the New Ozai Society even after they break up. And if you don't want to use the comics as evidence, we have the epilogue of the show as evidence, in which Mai is shown to be on good terms with Team Avatar and playing Pai Sho with Suki. We don't need to see the details of how Mai learned about the Fire Nation being bad (she is not a main character, it's not relevant to the main story), we know that she did learn, we can fill in the blanks with our imagination.

Secondary characters not receiving a huge narrative focus and character development about every single aspect of their characters is not "bad writing". Bad writing would be if the show focused on every detail of every secondary character, because that would be losing narrative focus. Just because certain people don't like Mai with Zuko and use this as an excuse to say why the ship is bad, it doesn't mean that Mai not having a redemption arc is "bad writing".

Finally, this isn't a reason for her not to be with Zuko. Some people argue that Zuko would never want to be with Mai after his redemption because of her still believing that the Fire Nation was in the right, but people forget that if there's one person who knows what is like to have been brainwashed since childhood with propaganda about the Fire Nation, that person is Zuko. And Zuko was way more enthusiastic about the Fire Nation being right and the Fire Nation winning the war than Mai ever was. Why would he hold it against her that she believed in Fire Nation propaganda, when he himself knows what is like to believe in said propaganda? The most likely thing to happen is that he would want to teach her about everything he learned about the Fire Nation, he wouldn't break up with her just because she didn't magically unlearn an entire life of indoctrination.

[qqueenofhades]

Okay, sort of on that note: I know we are all thoroughly enjoying the Bird App's destruction and drama and firing shots in the air to keep our property values low and complaining about Twitter users moving here and all the rest. But I'm gonna be real with you for a second and offer a Hot Take that might well get my Tumblr elder credentials revoked:

As long as they are willing to play ball with us and understand the rules of the road and etc (and lbr, we have plenty of absolutely idiotic Disk Horse of our own, that will never go away), we should a) actually be glad that they're coming here and b) recognize the far more sinister aspect of Twitter's slow motion Jenga collapse. Because it's all fun and games until the massive human rights violations and democracy destruction starts (or rather, continues). Why is that? Well:

As noted a few weeks ago when this insanity started, the second-biggest investor in the Twitter takeover, apart from Musk himself, was the Saudi government. Now, I have a friend whose PhD dissertation in sociology I have been copy-editing/proofreading for the last few years (he is originally from Saudi Arabia but doing his PhD in the UK). A huge part of his research is about how ordinary Saudis use Twitter HEAVILY, and as a replacement for the freedom of speech they aren't allowed in any other formal aspect of their country, despite many cosmetic reforms and plans for greater international investment and openness. The Saudi government, while tolerating this newfound criticism on the surface, has also routinely jailed these citizens for one critical tweet about them, including those made while the person in question was not in the country. In other words, they're not nearly as happy about this as they like to pretend, even if they're putting a good face on it, and especially during the Arab Spring and other attempted uprisings/calls for reform in the region, Twitter was a hugely effective way to circumvent government narratives and get out community information. After all, it is the biggest communication platform in the world, and anyone can instantly use it.

So, enter Musk: a petty alt-right billionaire who pals with dictators and can do anything he wants by burning ungodly amounts of money. He partners with the Saudis. Two weeks later, Twitter is going down in flames, its entire top legal team has quit, Musk is braying about bankruptcy, advertisers have fled, it's 50-50 whether it survives the year. And yes, this could be because Musk is a sociopathic idiot, since he is. But if you consider that this one evil prick can literally destroy half of the world's only medium of quasi-free speech and community organising just by throwing $44 billion at it... well... that's a lot more sinister than just him wanting to make "free speech" for all the absolute dregs of the Internet who adore him. In other words, it starts to look awfully deliberate, and Musk is anything but a fan of democracy, community organising, and all the rest.

Anyway: Tumblr doesn't function the same as Twitter, we don't want it to, and we are able to laugh at its burning corpse because many of us don't rely on it as our one and only place of meaningful speech and ability to criticize the government. But if Twitter DOES go down in flames, it will be a huge and irreparable loss in a real sense, and in that case, if you see a Twitter user poking their head in here, give them some rules of the road, advise them to change their icon, and otherwise let 'em stay.

[adhd-worlds]

Which diagnostic criteria are you referencing when you say that ADHD and autism don't have an overlap? As far as I've seen, they do: sensory issues, perception, executive function issues, and so on.

I have two answers for you. The short answer is:

That is simply not true at all. Two Google searches ("autism DSM-V criteria" and "ADHD DSM-V criteria") can easily disprove that.

The long answer is as follows:

I saw you got diagnosed with ADHD recently and congrats! idk about your assessment, but mine didn't ask me about my sensory issues. Nor do they ask about my perception on social cues, or the way I understand things. Most of the questions were geared towards executive dysfunction, how my life has been affected BC I get distracted or the things I struggle with or questions about being hyperactive and impulsive.

Because those questions get the answers needed to see if someone meets the ADHD criteria. The only time they did ask questions about social cues, imagination, sensory issues etc etc was on the pre-assessment questionnaire I had to fill in, there was a part for an autism study,,, it wont even be used or brought up my assessment, it's just that some dude is working with the clinic doing a study.

The overlap that ppl are seeing/report on is more than likely due to the fact that ADHD and autism are comorbid and there are a lot more ppl who have both rather than one or the other. Some countries and areas will only give ppl the diagnosis for one of these and not let them get tested for the other. Other countries, such as Wales, won't let autism folks get annADHD diagnosis because the NHS there sees ADHD as a stepping stone to an autism diagnosis. Some healthcare systems only believe you can have one not both.

Outside of that, there will be people who are more affected by their autism than their ADHD and vice versa and don't realise they have both. So, for eg, when they see autistic people saying "oh, I have autism and I experience these things" and they relate to it,,, they assume it's because there's this massive overlap. But if the overlap was that great, it would be much harder to diagnose ppl with one or the other. It's more than likely that they need to do some research into autism away from the idea of "it's similar to ADHD" and see if they relate to it.

There are a lot of ppl with ADHD who refuse the idea of having autism BC deep down, they have a lot ableist beliefs about autism and it's time for the ADHD community to stop doing that.

TL;DR: ADHD and autism have two very distinct lists of criteria that don't overlap. Even the testing doesn't really focus on (if at all) the criteria for the other dx. Most ppl don't know they have both or think that it's a possibility BC they are (unknowingly) ableist towards autism, haven't read into ADHD properly, their healthcare system doesn't allow for both dx, the list goes on.

[hello-nichya-here]

I have a question that might be offensive, and I'm sorry in advance for any hurt it may cause. I've been trying to search for an answer online for a while but I'm not able to find a proper one, and hoped you could help me.

From what I have gathered, autistic people do not wish for there to be a cure for autism, which I understand because well, it would change your brain and the way you view the world. Some even insist it cannot exist (which I'm not so sure about but whatever). My main question is, there are thousands of people out there who are affected by some kinds of ASD so severe that they can never lead a proper life, will never mentally develop beyond a child, and often have to live through agonizing pain and overstimulation. When it comes to these cases, would they not prefer a cure? So wouldn't it be more ethical for a cure to exist, but taking the cure not be compulsory? Those people are obviously not on social media, so their voices go unheard. But wouldn't they and their loved ones not want them to be in pain?

Thanks in advance.

First off, here's why a "cure" is indeed impossible: autism is a neurotype, not a disease. It's not the brain or any organ/system doing something it shouldn't or being damaged by some internal and/or external factor. An autistic brain functions DIFFERENTLY, not DEFECTIVELY, though obviously there is a variety of ways in which it manifests, and it is very rare for an autistic person to be ONLY autistic, there's often one, or more, conditions affecting them at the same time (anxiety, ADHD, schizophrenia, depression, OCD, etc). It is also likely a result of multiple cromossomes working in atypical ways (unlike with Down Syndrome, which is a result of cromossome 21 and ONLY 21 working differently) - and we still don't know which ones, or even how many said cromossomes are.

What does all of that mean for a cure? It means that:

1 - To make an autistic person non-autistic it'd need to be possible to discover it when they're still a fetus and somehow force their brain and entire nervous system to form differently - both things modern science can't do and that we're not sure will EVER be possible.

2 - It is very likely that even if a cure is possible, it will NOT be a one-size-fits-all kind of deal, and it will work on some cases and be useless in others.

So it is already a far, far, FAR more complicated deal than just "If we put enough money, time and effort into it, we can find a cure." Part of the reason why many autistic people are sick of nearly every fucking charity about autism being focused on a cure is because, instead of that money going directly to us or to our caretakers (be it family or any form of hospice/home) and having a very real positive effective, that money goes into searching for a something that might genuinely not be biologically possible.

This is sadly the common history for nearly every group under the large umbrella of Disabled People. Sign Language was discouraged and even made ILLEGAL in some countries long before there were was a reliable, safe way to allow deaf people to hear. There are THOUSANDS of horror stories about people with any form of paralysis or mobility issues being just let root and die in their beds, even after all kinds of mobility aids were invented because "it's a burden to the caretakers" and a "miserable life to live anyway." A disabled athlete in Canada has recently complained about lack of accessibility and was offered EUTHANASIA as a solution because God forbid someone has to build a ramp.

The sad reality is that many non-disabled people are only interested in helping us if the help is guaranteed to make us 100% "normal." If it will gives us a decent, and sometimes fully/mostly independent life, but not make us able-bodied/neurotypical it is NEVER considerd "good enough", and is often talked about as a "set-back for the cure." Giving us ways to communicate our needs, find emotional support, employment, or at the very least multiple sources of aid that will allow our families to not be on "caretaker mode" 24/7 and to not fear what might happen to us once they pass away is considered A SET BACK. Because we're not "cured", but are also not dead.

They're focused on trying to "solve the mystery that will totally lead us to the cure IN THE FUTURE", but never on hearing our VERY basic requests for stuff that would greately improve our lives NOW - Autism Speaks, the largest autism "charity" (hate-group that literally uses "therapy" created by nazis to "help" us) literally popularized the myths that we don't know ANYTHING about autism, how it happens or how to help people with it, and making the "official autism symbol" be a fucking puzzle piece.

The "finding a cure is more important than anything" narrative talks over the needs of EVERY autistic person in existence, including the ones that cannot express their opinion or understand their own condition enough to HAVE an opinon, and yes, including the ones that actively WANT to be "cured."

And speaking of people who do genuinely want to be "cured" of their autism: it is extremely naive of you to think there's any change a cure wouldn't be made mandatory if it existed, and that the choice would be left to the individual, or even to a parent/caretaker on the more "extreme" cases.

Like I said before, things like Sign Language were made ILLEGAL in many countries for the crime of helping disabled have a better life without curing them. We still have cases of doctors operating deaf babies/toddlers without the parents consent. Wheelchair users constantly complain that people just randomly decide to "help" them by pushing their chair towards where they assume the person wants to go, without saying a word to them, without letting them change direction and sometimes even being careless enough to fuck up the chair.

Disabled people CONSTANTLY get called stupid or selfish for not opting for long, expensive treatments that will often only TEMPORARELY make them abled-bodied because being "normal/not a burden" should be more important than anything, including the completely unnecessary and often brutal emotional turmoil of getting used to a "normal" life just go then have to get used to being disabled again. And yes, autistic peoplel, from the completely indepent ones to the ones that need constant care, who have said they would NEVER take a cure for it if one existed, ALREADY get condescending, and sometimes openly hateful, comments about it all day, every day, everywhere. For saying we don't want to take the IMAGINARY pill that can "fix" us.

Our lives are already considered lesser, our opinions are already disregarded, and our bodily autonomy is already denied constantly (see the more "harmless" things like people that think it's funny to force hugs and kisses on those of us who hate most physical contact, to doctors that have injured or KILLED us through unnecessary, often violent means of restraining us during meltdowns). If a cure existed, we'd be straight up forced, or at least constantly pressured, to take it. There's a reason WE are the only ones discussing how unethical it'd be to force us to be "cured", while most neurptypicals have not even heard of that objection, and half would get mad at us for being "ungrateful" - after all, they spent so much time, money and effort on this thing (that we've been rejecting from day one), we can't just refuse it like that!

I know you probably mean well, anon, but the sad reality is that nearly every talk of "curing" autism (and almost anything that is considered a disability) is often rooted on nothing but society's very open disgust and disdain towards our very existence, not a genuine desire to make sure we're safe and happy - and as you can imagine, we're mad that we constantly have to justify our right to be alive and actually listened to, not spoken over by people who are "trying to help" by telling us to shut up and be glad that they're trying to make us "normal."

[lazyveran]

what are katara and azula's favorite things about each other's culture? least favorite?

oooh excellent question!

for katara, her favourite thing about the fire nation is probably their sense of romance. it really pervades nearly everything in the fire nation. (this is all hc i fear BUT) the fire nation has an obsession with passion; be it the physical form in an ever-so-obvious erotic fixation with strong powerful (naked) bodies, the visual language of someone through clothing colour and manner, even violence and death - the fire nation weaves romance through everything, all behind these layers of disicipline and self control. fire nation arts are therefore prolific in every level of society and known to be MELODRAMATIC AS HELL. they adore poetry, theatre, performance, all of it, with romantic tragedy at the core. what im essentially saying is the fire nation is both somehow repressed and obssessed with emotion, and katara resonates with that. she's a romantic at heart herself, and this kind of thing is really attractive to her. of course, it's only once she understands the fire nation that she really falls in love with their ideas of love

her least favourite? where to start! the fire nation's militantism, their bone tight grip on self control, the professional distance expected between everyone who isn't family (and everyone who IS family), the fixation on hierarchy within every level of society. their violent discipline, the dehumanisation of it's leadership figures, their obsession with fighting, death and war, and so on and so on. katara has a big issue with a LOT of the fire nation, though admittedly some of this is her stubborn refusal to understand or adjust her own world image. the fire nation is so unapologetically violent to itself, and as a healer she HATES that. she cant wrap her head around it. just STOP KILLING EACH OTHER.

i think the crux of it is that she simply can't understand how the fire nation expects complete self containment and obedience, all in the pursuit of a rigid sense of order (to avoid the harm that fire causes by it's very nature). it's just... not something she's ever had to contend with. water can't burn a country to the ground with an accidental spark, afterall. from her own cultural background all these rules and complications is a complete anthesis. she thinks its really stupid, honestly

for azula, there's honestly a lot she respects about the water tribes. most of all is their way of life, the tribes are chiefly hunters that harmonise with their environment. in that way, they take up an 'apex' role, and are intimately involved in the cycle of life. birth, living, death, the tribes slip into each role as both a teacher and a student. and i think that kind of simplicity of life impresses azula - the strong and the weak, the community, the easy way everything fits, that everything is used and appreciated. there's no sense of excess, really, to the water tribes and it's deeply satsifying for her. plus, for a princess that's trapped up in a thousand barriers in her own society? i think she's fascinated with the tribes way of allowing oneself to BE oneself. (there's that fire nation romanticism too)

what azula dislikes about the tribes? there's no certainty about them. the community and it's needs are fluid and adaptable. they don't have hierarchy, rules, rigid centuries old protocals to follow. she hates that. they don't have a formal military, they don't have an independant judicial body, they don't have a formal branch of religion. as much as the tribe fits into a harmonisiation with the world, azula wants RULES. she wants ORDER. she wants DISICIPLINE. the water tribe has NONE of that, there's little to no lines in the sand dictating who and what. its so frustrating for her. it's basically just azula not understanding how the water tribes can function as an ever changing thing. shes like a fish out of water (forgive the pun), as her entire life is defined by rules and absolutes.

also, and more pettily, azula is a traditionalist that actually adores the tech and metal of the modern fn age. where's her central heating?? what do you mean they only have a central fire for warmth?? she wants a SPA, NOW. shes a brat

[anartificialsatellite]

Was thinking about the layers that the universal nation language thing adds again. I know a lot of people have already talked about their feelings about this aspect of Hetalia, but I'm gonna go ahead and talk about it again because I want to.

Tbh, the more I think about it the more I love it for a bunch of reasons, but I was specific thinking recently about it in the context of USJP (because I have the brainrot) and HNNNGg

Having that universal language allows you to put meaning behind certain choices made within your own fan works or in the way you interpret canon? And my absolute favorite example of this applied is with America and Japan at the end of Japan's isolation.

Here's the thing: The universal language is canon. It's also canon that, when the Black Ships came, Japan had a translator between them when he spoke to America for the first time.

What a move!!!

Now, look, I know this scene is generally just played for laughs with miscommunications presenting America as a pervert and all, but it would not be a Hetalia post if I didn't insert way too much meaning into a couple of panels from a gag manga, SO -

This man shows up at Japan's door with coal-powered warships to force him out of two hundred years of isolation, and they both know they can understand one another.

But Japan insists on a translator anyway. And America agrees. Why?

For Japan, it reflects his wariness to even consider the terms being offered, but it is also a test of America (and his government's) intentions. They say they want mutually beneficial trade agreements (of course while asking for preferential terms, as would lkely be expected for such a negotiation) but Japan knows he and his government are sitting at a considerable disadvantage. It's important to know how much of this proposed cooperation is being extended in good faith.

So he sets a condition to their meeting that they both know is unnecessary from a practical standpoint.

If America intends to negotiate, their representative will accept this condition as a show of good faith. If they don't, and he refuses, that shows Japan where they really view themselves in this negotiation and how much he and his government can trust them.

Now, if you'll indulge me reaching even farther into speculation about the way the canon universe functions... It's made pretty clear at various points I'm canon that the amount of influence a nation has on their government and the respect their bosses hold for them varies a lot between nations and over time.

So! With that in mind, the authority with which America acts in their personal discussions/negotiations will also tell Japan whether he is truly considered to be representative of his country or if he is merely a figurative representation positioned in servitude to his bosses and trotted out as a matter of formality and show.

America's reaction to the condition of speaking through a translator, which again, they both know is completely unnecessary, can give Japan (who will need to bring this back to his bosses) vital information to help him decide whether he is truly approaching the possibility of real negotiations with a fellow nation and his government, or if this is simply establishing a pretext for the invasion that is already coming.

how is that not cool as fuck

One of the things I love about this canon is that it is, for the most part, dumb jokes about a bunch of idiots, but there's so much to play with and run away with and I don't think we always appreciate what fertile ground we really have here.

[inklessletter]

Threatening to report minors for interacting with your public, non-functionally-age gated blog is a fucking joke and it is report abuse. Your blog is public, minors are probably viewing it right now. What is wrong with you?

Hi Anon. I was just about to reply the same way I did to the other anon that actually insulted me so gratuitously, because, seriously, just by the tone alone you might as well deserve it. But I am civil, because I see that there is a genuine lack of understanding of that rule, so I'm going to explain this one to you (though I don't have to, Anon, you should already know this, it's common sense, but I get that you may just not be aware).

Firstly, my blog is public because, if you cared to scroll down for half a minute, you'd have seen that I don't aim to post or reblog +18 stuff, and when I do post content that might be sensitive, I rate the post as Mature, so there's no need of a warning for the whole blog, it's just silly. I am careful like that, even though I have never posted anything explicit whatsoever. But I don't know if I'm going to come across an explicit post that it's so good that it deserves a reblog, or post something explicit myself (that, as I say, I would rate it as I should, and always respecting this site's ground rules), and those are the post I'm warning minors about, not the whole blog.

Secondly, (and this is where I think most people get lost in this issue) about the minors dni thing, you should keep in mind a simple thing: when OPs say "MINORS DNI" they are not protecting minors, they're protecting their blogs, their creations, and above all, themselves. No OP of age with the minors dni warning in their blogs sets this rule for the kicks, if we make a +18 post and allow comments or reblogs from clear minors this could be a potentially serious problem depending on the country or the laws that they apply to that. It is that simple. It's for our own protection. (Besides, some people just don't want minors interacting with their blog/posts, and that's okay).

And before someone goes like "how could you say that you're protecting your blog and not what kids see!!", I'm going to tell them (and I think I might be speaking for many of us here) that I am not responsible for monitoring what minors consume or don't consume on the internet, unless they're my kids. It's their parent's/tutor's/people who are responsible for them, not me. And believe me that I don't mean this in a rude way, but it is simply not my problem.

I have no issue whatsoever with minors interacting in non-rated posts, everyone is welcome here, that is actually the first rule of this house. That this is a safe place, and I think I can't stress this enough. What I am asking is for you to understand that I, as responsible for this blog, draw a line on minors interacting in rated/+18 post, either mine or something I reblog, under the consequence of being potentially blocked and/or reported. I have the right to do both blocking and reporting people that don't go with the rules, and honestly, I don't even have to warn about it, I'm just being clear here so we all know where we stand. It is, honestly, not hard to understand.

So, you see, there's a reason for that rule, and I thought that it was absolutely clear without having to go through this big-ass text post, but maybe you just didn't know it. I am not gate keeping anyone, I'm not an elitist, I am not an kid-eating ogre (I do actually like them, little wips of a person), I am just saying that in this particular blog, in my house, this is a rule that should be respected if you want to stay. If you don't then don't follow me (or block me, even, so you don't have to deal with the posibility of someday finding any of my post in your dash, it is really, really okay, since as I said before, I am not responsible for what you consume or not, but you are.)

And that, dear Anon, is what's wrong with me.

Have a nice night

🤍🤍🤍

[ryuichirou]

Hi I just wanted to also throw in my support and let you know that I'm sorry you're dealing with people being horrible. Art is meant to be whatever you want it to be and just because you like something in fiction doesn't mean you like it in real life or are some monster indorsing literal crimes (That's why it's called FICTION). You have an amazing art style and a great sense of humor and even though there are some things I don't like that you make I know all I have to do is skip them. People need to understand the difference between participating in ways to limit real threats real threats (like refusing to consume media made by proven abusers and crinimals) and functionally conservative censorship (even if they don't want to admit that is what they are doing) just because they do not like something or it makes them uncomfortable (especially when that censorship many times comes with unsubstantiated accusations and literal death threats). I'm not one to have the mind set of 'back in my day things were better!' because no they weren't, but one thing my generation did do right was learn how to block and ignore things that they were uncomfortable with instead of deciding that the best route to take is literal cyber attacks (I hate calling it 'bullying' since that doesn't even cover half the horrible stuff I've seen people say and do) on people to the point of wanting them to kill themselves over literal fictional characters in art.

I AM AND ALWAYS WILL BE A FIRM SUPPORTER OF NON-CENSORSHIP! NO MATTER WHAT NAME FUNCTIONAL CONSERVATIVES CALL THEMSELVES.

I'm sorry this was a rant but please know that you do have people who support you and even if I don't like everything you do, ultimately your art isn't for me. It's for you, and no one has a right to tell you what you are and are not allowed to create. I hope that things get better. <3333

Thank you very much for your kind words of support. I always say that, but I mean it: it's super important to hear that there are people who understand where we're coming from and let us know about it and are willing to express their opinion. Your ask actually really cheered us up that day <3

You’ve made a lot of great points, and I agree with you wholeheartedly! An artist has their freedom to draw and post whatever they want, and the viewer has their freedom to look at it or block it and forget it. If you don’t like it or don’t get it, it’s not for you to get – it’s plain and simple like that.

And yes, there ARE ways to limit irl threats and problematic situations! There are groomers, a lot of them are in fandom spaces, but these folks are looking at the wrong people. And they know it damn well, their goal isn’t actually to bring justice or make someone feel safe: if that was the case, they would just have a list of tags to block and that would suffice nicely.

Also you’re right, things weren’t better back then, but people really did seem to mind their business and ignore/block stuff they don’t want to see more often. And even when artists/writers/people in general received shit from others, it was understood by everyone than people doing this stuff were just straight-up trolls whose entire goal was to mess with others. But nowadays people who harass, bully, threaten and send “kys” messages somehow try to make it seem like they are morally superior to their victims??? Which makes them even more closely resemble pro-censorship conservatives. Honestly, it’s stupid how similar these people sound to some of the 70 y.o. fools who run our country and the censorship laws they create. It’s like verbatim sometimes. Sorry, I digress.

Once again, thank you so much for your support <3 I hope you are having a great day.

[wastedawayagaininmargaritaville]

I'm just curious, so please don't mind me asking.. why interest in the Green Party? I'm trying to better understand this viewpoint as I've voted democratic in the last 2 elections. I was always told a third party vote wasn't a sure thing.

Thanks for your reply!

Hi! First I don’t mind you asking and I’m sorry if the way I post makes it seem like I’d jump down your throat for a question like this. I use my blog to blow off a lot more steam than I used to but it’s not how I want to approach things in general.

I should mention I’m registered to vote in MO, the last time the dem presidential nominee won was the 90s I believe (McCain won very narrowly over Obama in 2008) and we are a winner take all state. As long as the electoral college exists, I’m “throwing away my vote” unless I vote for the republican nom. The blue cities scattered across the midline of the state don’t have enough weight (at least not in my lifetime they haven’t)

If you mean “wasn’t a sure thing” as in it has been a successful way to elect someone who isn’t one of the two parties, yeah I’d say that’s an understatement. I have little faith in a third party running in our electoral process and actually gaining enough momentum and support to win. People talk all the time about how gen Z is one of the largest and most politically engaged generationsin a while, but we don’t have the electoral organizing experience (nor desire tbh, at least for me and lots of people I know) and certainly not the resources.

The only sort of caveat I guess would be a dem taking on the Green Party nom as their VP, but that requires sacrificing most of what is typically on the Green Party platform and I would consider them compromised anyway.

The pipeline post was what I have done and I was wondering how common it is for people in my general demographic (young adult, raised liberal and middle class) who were brought up being taught the Democrat Party is a beacon of progress and the only thing regular people have to fight for the rights we want for ourselves and the people in our communities is to vote for them once every 4 years.

Then…

To be served the Clinton dynasty for our first chance to vote as 18 year olds, become totally disillusioned by the 2016 election (I was too young to remember the 2000 election), becoming radicalized and opened up to the world throughout late teens/early 20s by going away to school or simply meeting more people and viewpoints that aren’t from your parents/family/immediate community, living through and beginning to organize during the 2020 uprising, feeling a slight pull back into the dem party by Sanders and then seeing how the establishment pushed him out, and then saying fuck it my (albeit still shaky and developing) principles won’t allow me to hold my nose and vote again but I guess I like the green party’s platform. That’s honestly as much thought as I put into voting for the Green Party in 2020, i googled their platform and said ok this sounds nice, I won’t entirely feel gross with myself throwing my hat in with people who want to enact this. Reading that back feels very silly and simply an act of wishful thinking. But I couldn’t bring myself to vote for the champion of segregation and the crime bill after what I learned and witnessed in the streets in 2020.

Now we’ve seen what the democrats can and will do for us (very little) and importantly to the world (destruction, extraction, destabilization) I know too much now to delude myself into thinking these parties are functionally different from each other. I know too many people impacted by BOTH party’s policies to throw them under the bus. I understand more clearly what it means to be a citizen of the United States and what it means to vote in a country with so much influence and presence in other countries that I’m basically casting a vote on behalf of those people too.

But again, it doesn’t matter who I vote for where I live. If I was in a swing state I’d maybe be slightly more engaged with the electoral discourse but I don’t have a dog in the fight.

Hope this answers your question or at least gives you some stuff to think about. I didn’t wake up one day after being raised by Obama-loving liberal white people for most of my life saying “fuck the democrats and fuck voting!” It took time, experience, and pushing myself outside of the ideas that comfort me into denying my (and your) agency and power. We can accomplish so so much more life saving and politically altering work expending our energy the other 1,460 days of the election cycle than any candidate or electoral system in the US will grant us.

[davidmariottecomics]

Copyrights and Wrongs, Part 4 (A.I.)

Greetings! 

We come, at last, to the end of our discussion on copyright (for now)! And we're talking about it specifically in relation to "Generative A.I.", a buzzword for copyright theft tools! And, hopefully, if you weren't feeling secure with your understanding of copyright before now, you'll be feeling pretty groovy after this and will be able to submit an informed and thoughtful comment to the Copyright Office's A.I. study, where they are requesting public comment--particularly from those most affected by A.I.--to help determine their future policy on it. 

Where We Are Right Now

Honestly, like most things in the world, it's kind of a mess with a ring of hope. 

First and foremost, remember that all of this is new and at the beginning of legislation, so from a legal standpoint, they're playing catch-up to the technology, which isn't uncommon. It's also happening at a tumultuous time in the U.S. as the country is dealing with the coupling of increased facism (hey, fuck KOSA) and unyielding capitalism. It's almost like those things are all related in some way... 

The Copyright Office has started fielding submissions of A.I. generated material, and so far their general policy seems to revolve around a matter of substantial contribution. So, obviously, there was that really terrible comic that made the rounds a while back, and that I alluded to last week, that was one of the first big test cases. It was fully "illustrated" (stolen) by A.I. with original text written by the "creator" and submitted to the copyright office. Initially, it was registered, then modified as the A.I. component became clear, and ultimately the copyright was registered for the original text, but not granted for the visual component.

But, my understanding is that there have been works that use a similar enough model or technology or "A.I." that have been easily registered with the copyright office because the amount of technological contribution was minor. For example, if a similar tool was used to intuitively do color flatting, but the final color rendering--all the final tones, effects, shading, etc--was all done by the artist, that wouldn't pop. Or if an artist created 95% of a work and fed their own piece into an engine that then finalized that last 5%, that might not pop. And I think the essential difference, that they're currently recognizing, is the distinction between a human being putting in their own work to create something that is copyrightable and using "A.I." as a tool in the process of creation and a tool being left to fully create the "new" work. 

Meanwhile, a number of lawsuits have been filed and are in various stages of processes, which is where the frontlines of the battle are being fought. A lot of the claims are being brought specifically on the basis of copyright violation (and a few cases of trademark violation). For probably pretty clear reasons, creatives of all sorts are saying "hey, fuck this noise, you took my work without permission and your robot is allowing people to inherently copy it for their own benefit, without payment or attribution." 

The complication--and the reason why we need clearer directives put forth from the Copyright Office, as well as some legal wins to better define case law around this--is that the A.I. developers are basically claiming that:

1. They don't actually have the data. Either the way their system functions, they don't actually keep it on hand, they just let the program go wild online or through whatever they at one point used to train it and they don't know how exactly it chooses what it does, but it just goes and makes something and there's so much information in these systems that you wouldn't actually be able to prove whether it used your thing or not.

2. Along those same lines, since they have so much data, if you can't definitively prove that your work was taken, that you suffered damages, your lawsuit should just be dismissed. Doesn't matter if your work turns up in Book3 and was probably torrented to get there (which... if we could prove that would actually get most of this stuff thrown out as violation because the FBI says you wouldn't steal a car! Nah, but, really, if we could prove that the way the works were obtained to fuel the datasets was illegal, that'd be a huge boon to these cases), if you can't prove that your work has specifically been violated because, well, they have 183000 other books it could've stolen from, the case doesn't have clear standing and should be dismissed.  

3. That they are not inherently responsible for how their technology is used by consumers. Basically, your work being in their dataset does not cause harm by itself and any damages that may result from your work being in the set are actually the responsiblity of the person who, say, used "A.I." to write like a Sparknotes-esque summary version of your book. The company didn't ask the program to write that, the user did, and if the user then sold it, the responsiblity rests with them. 

4. That it's fair use. Basically, as long as they're using publicly available data, or data submitted by the users with the *understanding* that they are knowingly submitting their own material, the resulting generation is a transformative work. We're going to put a pin in this one and come back to it. 

Current Caselaw

Naruto v. Slater et al is a particularly bizarre case that has a lot of weight in this fight at the moment. It's a really wild little story about a nature photographer who went out to take photos. He stepped away from one of his cameras for a minute and a crested macaque named Naruto picked it up and took some selfies! The photographer printed them in a book of his and said "look at these monkey selfies!" PETA said "Hold on! That monkey deserves restitution! He took those selfies and holds that copyright, not you, hoo-man!" And so they sued on behalf of Naruto. And the judge said "Well, no. I'm not giving a monkey copyright. He's a monkey and copyright is something that goes to works with human authorship." Following this case, the Copyright Office issued directives claiming "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention" and specifically lists "a photography taken by a monkey" as something that doesn't count. Now, whether Slater, the guy who owned the camera, actually owns the copyright on Naruto's selfie is a little... ambiguous. The court's dismissal of the case definitively says Naruto doesn't own it, but it doesn't specifically say Slater actually gets to maintain it or if the image just doesn't have copyright. 

But I bring all of this up because, again, this is the standard that the Copyright Office currently follows. They're looking for human intervention and they're looking for substantial contribution. 

Author's Guild v. Google, Inc also comes up a lot, particularly in the fair use defense. And it's one that's... tricky. Basically, you know how you can look up a book on Google and often there's a little thing on the side of the screen that lets you read the first like 20-ish pages (I looked up House of Leaves for an example, and they'll let you preview 77/738 pages). Well, authors said "they're copying our books without permission, that's a violation of copyright." And Google and the courts said "no, it's transformative. They aren't doing it in competition with the books, they're creating a new way of access that refers back to the original work in market purposes, not a supplanting version of it." And this is the exact sort of precident that makes these current proceedings really legally rough. Like, it is understood and appreciated as a function of Google (well... old Google, not post-"A.I." Google...) that it is a search engine and that for it to work, it needs to be able to conduct searches based on the information it's given and be able to post results for ya. And that means taking what's publically available to it to search, which often includes copyrighted material. Now, the exact nature of how they "transform" copyrighted material into more easily searchable material is something that gives me pause--I do feel like there should be more of an opting-in from the copyright holders--but I can see how the court came to the conclusion it did. 

The bigger issue is, of course, that this is one of the big cases that "A.I." developers are using as justification of fair use. The data sets they're using are essentially acting like Google--searching through existing material like a search engine--but with a new result at the end which is transformational of the original information. There are a couple of differences here that I think disclude that premise, but again, pin in that for a second. 

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. is a really interesting one in this whole discussion too. This case was about a telephone book. Short version: both Feist and Rural made telephone books. Feist covered a larger area than Rural. Feist ldecided to print a phonebook with a dozen areas all in one. They contracted with 11 of them, but Rural held out, so Feist just copied the names and numbers and printed them anyway. Rural said "that's infringement" and the courts said "no, they're just printing facts. There's no significant creative authorship to the phonebook, and a set of factual data can't be copyrighted." This one's important on two fronts. First, it's one of the major cases that begins the definition of threshold of originality. Basically, there needs to be some actual creative thinking involved in making a copyrightable work, but it requires actually trying to inject thought into the result and make it distinct from existing works, not just having done the effort of work. That is to say, sure, it took time and work to originally compile the phonebook, but it is organized alphabetically and just a set of facts and was not arranged in an artistic manner. Second, and something that I think will be interesting going forward, it set that the U.S. doesn't recognize database rights. I will be very interested to see if, say, once competition starts stealing the datasets from some of these bigger A.I. developers, they'll suddenly worry about their own copyright--which actually doesn't exist for those datasets. 

And the last case for right now that I'll mention is Twentieth Century Music Corp v. Aiken. This was a particularly wonky case. A restaurant owner was sued for having the radio on for his customers, under the basis that the radio station had the right to broacast songs and that was fine and good, but the restauranteur did not have the same broadcasting rights within his establishment. And this was a major copyright case. Ultimately, the court decided that, no, having a radio (or TV or whatever) on in an establishment did not inherently violate copyright because it is not a performance of that work. But the really important thing in this case is it definied again the goals of copyright. Copyright exists at the intersection of the authors, the disseminators, and the users. The rulings describe copyright's purpose “to secure a fair return for an ‘author’s’ creative labor'” and “to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." And I'd contend, as so many other people are doing right now, that generative A.I. is not securing a fair return for author's creative labor, nor stimulating artistic creativity for the general pubic good. It is engaging with existing, copyrighted material outside of fair use and without return for the original author, and supplanting creativity--both in discouraging existing authors and in flooding the markets with creatively bankrupt material. As Gallup reports, 3 out of 4 Americans believe that A.I. is going to reduce jobs and 80% of Americans do not trust that companies will use A.I. responsibly. 

Transformative Use

Okay, here we are. I've said so much about all of this, but here's the crux of my arguement, at least. The standard for copyright is that to qualify for copyright, materials must meet certain standards of originality, creativity, and fixation. The products of A.I. (and "products" is used particularly pointedly here) certainly qualify for fixation. They can be seen and in some form exist, much as I may personally hate it. But I don't believe they meet the standards of originality and creativity. 

A comparison I have frequently made is that of a blender. You can write a grocery list and by most standards, that's going to fall under the same idea as a dataset. Now, in one version, you can use your expertise to buy your own groceries and combine them to make a meal--taking the time, effort, skill, and your existing or gained in the moment knowledge to create something nourishing. Maybe it goes wrong and you burn something, or maybe you forget a key ingredient, or maybe you decide to experiment and the result is less than appetizing, but it's all a result of your thought and efforts. Now, if that's how you're approaching any sort of creative work--art, writing, music, film, etc--that should qualify for copyright. What "generative A.I." is doing is being fed a grocery list, *somehow* obtaining the items on the list, but in a vague way where they may or may not be the correct items on the list, they may or may not include more or fewer items than on the list, and the legality of how they were brought to you is unclear, and putting them all in a blender. Yes, you get a sludgey smoothie at the end of it, and the smoothies may be distinct in what they put out, but they lack the skill, refinement, and knowledge of even an amateur chef working with the ingredients. They just regurgitate what they're fed, and if you just add a pinch of salt at the end, that's not really doing anything.  

But this only applies to why works created by A.I. shouldn't be copyrightable. The other crucial part is whether they're violating copyright. So much of the defense of fair use relies on the transformative standard. Is the original material being infringed upon? In the first place, let's just say that, as long as we're talking about "A.I. works" as commercial enterprises, most of them are not going to fall under fair use under the standards of parody, satire, or commentary. When we see something like that bad Batman comic I mentioned last time, or the bad "A.I. illustrated" comic I mentioned earlier, those are clearly meant to be taken seriously as new, original works. They aren't commenting on or engaging with existing copyrighted work as a way of making a point. They're seeking to create a new work with existing elements, but particularly in the case of that terrible Batman comic, without a real understanding of the work they're engaging with. The artistic styles are all over the place specifically because the "creator" couldn't be bothered to know whose work he was taking from--and, I'd contend, if he was specifically attempting to copy the works of specific artists in an attempt to replace their work, that also would not fall under fair use standards.

Additionally, to the argument that the developers are making, they say that their databases are so full of information that you can't *really* tell what the original works were, and in that way, they are not a repurposement for the identification of the original work. Which, again, to that bad Batman comic, I think is a really damning defense. I, and many other people in my industry, were able to clearly and recognizably point out what authors and works were being taken from--no, maybe not every work that was being used, but enough that it would generally be considered plagiarism. The products created are meant to be in competition to, not additive to, the original works without acknowledgement of the works that they are taking from.

Judge Pierre Leval has described it as "Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses." These aren't critiques. They don't expose the character of the original author, provide facts, summarize anything other than the exact work itself, or parody. And they don't make aesthetic declarations, they take and recycle others aesthetic accomplishments. The whole issue is that they claim they're making something new, something different, something worthwhile from whatever data they may have within the system, but the system is a tool. It doesn't have the human recognition to actually synthesize the material and make a transformative work. It just regurgitates what it's fed. 

Final Bits, I Swear

Apparently you can opt-out of Dall-E now, but the process is arduous. So much of what these folks are relying on is making their processes so difficult, people don't engage with them when there is an option to opt-out, and such misinformation and obfuscation on how things are created that it's difficult to identify when your work may be used, and for the public to understand how the work is being harvested. 

I'm supremely frustrated with companies like Disney who keep using "generated A.I." in their promotional materials. I'm also disappointed in shows like Last Week Tonight where John Oliver and crew shared a bunch of A.I. generated Johns that had been posted to Reddit. Like, Disney's a company that has literally changed copyright law in the U.S. to suit their purposes. John Oliver's only now back because the writer's strike is over, where the writer's won protections of their jobs against A.I. Like... the hypocrisy is astounding and disappointing that they cannot square their own desire for copyright protection with protecting others. 

You may've seen the recent A.I. manga lettering debacle (hey guess what, it was bad!). Here's an interesting little conversation with some actual letterers about it. 

Finally... yeah, I do actually think there are uses of A.I. as a tool that are fine. And most of that comes down to being a person who inputs your own data. I think about how Pixar has a "character generator" that works on these same principles, where they drew a bunch of base features and fed them into a system and the system helps them animate by populating backgrounds with characters who have random combinations of those features. But, that works off of stuff that the Pixar animators put in. Or, again, fairly similarly, I know meteorlogists have talked about how this sort of system can be really helpful in taking the data they've recorded and helping them predict upcoming weather patterns. But these are so vastly different from how bullshit like ChatGPT or Dall-E or any of these other scam machines are being operated and I just wish people could understand that. 

I think that's it for this week! Don't forget to submit your own comments on the Copyright Office's study and also to say fuck KOSA to your senator! 

What I enjoyed this week: Blank Check (Podcast), Craig of the Creek (Cartoon), One Piece (Manga), Pokemon Violet (Video game), The Archive Undying by Emma Mieko Candon (Book), Sex Education (TV show), Only Murders in the Building (TV show), Yu-Gi-Oh: Duel Links (Video game), Wipeout (TV show), Whisper of the Heart (Movie), Josee, the Tiger and the Fish (Movie) 

New Releases this week (10/4/2023): No new books from me this week.

Final Order Cut-Off next week (10/9/2023): Godzilla Rivals: vs. Mechagodzilla (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog: The IDW Comic Art Collection (Editor)

New Releases next week (10/11/2023): Sonic the Hedgehog #65 (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog Halloween Special (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog: Seasons of Chaos TPB (Editor) 

Announcements: I'm still doing a member drive over on my Patreon! You can read about it in a public post there! If you join, renew, or updated to the Feature Fan ($10) tier or above, you're going to get a Mystery Comic Grab bag! And as a patron, you're going to have a bit more choice on what all it is! All the info is on there, so if you're curious, please do give it a look! And it'll be going through all October!

If the Patreon isn't your cup of tea at this time, or you wanna do more of a one-time donation, from Oct 3rd to the 18th, so right now, I have 2-3 comic Mystery Bundles in my Ko-Fi store! Same premise as the Patreon--there'll be a bundle for grown ups and one for kids. They're pay what you want with a $15 minimum. If you send $25 or over, I'll ship you a trade paperback too!

It will be US only on both the Patreon and Ko-Fi just because shipping internationally's very expensive right now. But, for international folks, I will put together a nice little digital goods bundle for ya!

Wanna support me otherwise? I'm on Ebay, there's my webstore, or you can support Becca through their channels! Good news: We don't need a new laptop! But your support is still appreciated because we, like so many other folks right now and I get it, are kinda struggling. 

Pic of the Week: OOO, been a while since we've done one of these! The pic of the week is Becca's Rouge the Bat, over on Bsky! And big ups to Michelle Perez for encouraging everyone to do more Rouges. But the one I'm posting is the promo for my membership drive/Ko-Fi sale! Y'know how I'm always talking about advantages of the Patreon? They've got a different pic of the week! 

[reds-burrow]

I just want to express gratitude to you for how you handled your latest ask. The question of what our real self is, the version of us that we are when we are in crisis or the version of us when we are at our best is what I've been thinking about for years. And it caused me real harm. Let me explain. I belong to a 'tough' country where you are constantly probed for stress resistance, any personality trait is only considered 'yours' if you don't allow it to be changed by anxiety/stress/fear at all. People will say things like 'Yeah no, if you were logical/smart/ you'd perfectly logical during a *insert stressful situation here*. But the thing is, everyone is irrational during stress, it's human nature. Also, the factors of stress are often decided not by personality but by our role in society. That's why women/disabled people/minorities are considered overemotional - there are just more stress factors in their environment but more privileged people don't see them and dismiss them as 'emotion'. And it brought real harm to my understanding of self and other people too. Think of it that way - when all trees stand with cut branches, you no longer can tall the differences between trees. So don't type yourself by negatives - stress, depression and etc. Type yourself by what you do best. It's actually more logical too because the world only cares about you bring to the table, not living up to some kind of ideal. We all are cogs, in a good sense of word. A cog is defined by its function, not malfunction. And even if it's malfunction you should be determined what it is for and it's important for the whole mechanism.

(This is in response to this post.)

Thanks for sharing your take on this! You make some very good points.

In fact, you've reminded me of a conversation I recently had with someone who I had guided through the sorting process. They were having a very Burnt Secondary day, the type of day where they would say they don't feel like they have any function, a cog without spokes to follow your metaphor. They were trying to ask if I was sure that they were a Badger Secondary and not a Snake because of all the shortcuts they had been taking in their schoolwork, so I had to remind them that they were using up all their energy fighting their depression. Of course, they didn't have energy to do the hard work that they usually would have wanted to do. I pointed to what they did on good days and the activities they do for fun or for relaxation. And then I pointed to their regrets, to the way all these shortcuts stressed them out. It was understandable that they didn't feel like they were living up to a Badger Secondary, but when they're feeling healthy, it's clear that that is what they use.

Idioms that claim you see people's true natures when they're cornered have always sat wrong with me. The truth is, when you corner someone, all you get is cornered behavior. That is never the whole picture of who someone is.