#Source: quote / copy

[natasharswifey]

Natasha: A girl doesn't dye her hair that colour unless she has serious psychological problems

Wanda: My hair colour has nothing to do with my psychological problems!

[gardentool]

Gojo: We’re about the only two people in the world who don’t think we’re married.

Geto: We don’t think we’re not. We both know we’re not.

Gojo: I’m beginning to have my doubts.

Geto: Don’t tell me I have to convince you too.

Gojo: The only difference between us and other married people is we can’t even get a divorce.

Geto: We get married now, I could start divorce proceedings in the morning!

Gojo: Well, Suguru, this is so sudden!

[cisthoughtcrime]

.

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Numbers 14, 11-20:

And יהוה said to Moses, "How long will this people spurn Me, and how long will they have no faith in Me despite all the signs that I have performed in their midst? I will strike them with pestilence and disown them, and I will make of you a nation far more numerous than they!"

But Moses said to יהוה, "When the Egyptians, from whose midst You brought up this people in Your might, hear the news, they will tell it to the inhabitants of that land. Now that they have heard that You, יהוה, are in the midst of this people; that You, יהוה, appear in plain sight when Your cloud rests over them and when You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.

"If then You slay this people wholesale, the nations who have heard Your fame will say, 'It must be because יהוה was powerless to bring that people into the land promised them on oath that [that god] slaughtered them in the wilderness.'

"Therefore, I pray, let my Lord's forebearance be great, as You have declared, saying, 'יהוה! Slow to anger and abounding in kindness; forgiving iniquity and transgression; yet not remitting all punishment, but visiting the iniquity of parents upon children, upon the third and fourth generations.'

"Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to Your great kindness, as you have forgiven this people ever since Egypt."

And יהוה said, "I pardon, as you have asked..."

Reading this really changed something in me - the thought that g-d is somebody with Whom you can directly argue against, that His ideas are ideas which you can directly argue against is something that truly makes me love g-d more.

If g-d were solely Divine, I don't think I'd have a relationship with Him. If He were strictly Perfect, I believe I'd hate Him. But here, seeing Moses literally talking g-d into an alternative tells me g-d is the mixture between Perfect and Fallible that makes it so much easier for me to love Him, to serve Him, to want to be close with Him.

I don't know, I just love g-d.

[incorrect-star-allies]

Kirby: I have a philosophy in life; if the seat is open, the job is open. That’s how I came to briefly drive a Formula 1 car.

[nonoel-28]

Kakashi finishing up a mission report to the Hokage:

Kakashi: All in all, nobody got hurt.

Kakashi: Well, maybe somebody got hurt, but nobody we knew.

[incorrect-hs-quotes]

TT: So, people. I have done some awful things with experimenting with AR, and I may have found a way for him to emulate my own voice. Poorly.

TG: OH??

TT: I have no words for this. I’m just gonna let it play.

AR: Hey youtube it’s Dirkkhhh. And today we have some sad news. I know a lot of you are going to be dissapointed by this, BUT. I’m getting turned into a pig. Now please- you have to understand I didn't want.          To get turned into a pig. But this is just something that I just have to deal with. Sorry, anyways I’ll have a large number 6 combo meal- uh-OH IT’S HAPPENING. OINK OINK OINK OINK. squeaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL.

AR: Oink. Piggy Piggy. Hah!

TG: FDSHJKUAHFGLID H GIU.DAWG DFSghd???????

GG: PARDON?

GT: Cheese and fucking crackers!

GT: The fucking- “Anyway, I’ll have a large combo- UH OH IT’S HAPPENING!”

TG: AND THE RELA PIG NOICE AFTERWORSD…… MY GOG…. 

[catoswound]

new pater patriae just dropped

[jonquilandlace]

Someone should hire me for ideas on building a superior word processor specifically for dissertation writing I have so many good ideas

[existingkindasucks]

Person A: Injury report?

Person B: Not dead yet

Person C: Killed them first

Person D: Half alive

Person E: Mainly intact

Person F: I won

[keepthemacramesecret]

The Lion King wasn’t a ripoff of Kimba.

“There's a common claim that The Lion King (1994) started life as a Kimba the White Lion remake, but they were declined the rights and instead opted to "rip off" the series. There's no proof of such an agreement ever being attempted. Concept art of a white cub exists, but it is from the King of the Jungle stage of development where none of the other Kimba similarities existed. It doesn't help that Matthew Broderick agreed to be in the movie expressly because he thought it was a Kimba adaptation (which is frequently misinterpreted as him being told it was a Kimba adaptation, rather than a misunderstanding on his part).

The supposed similarities between Lion King and Kimba are themselves an example of this. Anybody who's ever watched both can tell you that the similarities are surface-level and superficial at best. While it's possible that some people who worked on Lion King were consciously or unconsciously influenced by Kimba, the idea of there being enough similarities to call the former a ripoff of the latter stems from ignorance and flawed, biased sources.

Additionally the urban legend didn't actually start in Japan, contrary to what even some published authors have claimed, but in the United States. The Tezuka estate and production group were both adamant since the first release of Lion King that any similarities between it and Kimba were harmless coincidences due to both series drawing from some of the same pool of African wildlife and tropes”

you dont have to shill for disney on here man its ok theyre not gonna pay u anything

[brick-van-dyke]

Gonna review all the sources I've been provided with (they're damning for the zio so rip to them but thanks for the sources lmao), and been searching through more sources from the time periods in question and, well, basically I started a thing.

(sorry for the blurriness) An overall essay going through the evidence and providing a small splash of input as someone noticing a lot of discord in said evidence, which isn't surprising but still it is telling how zionists cherry pick.

Anyway, the more I learn, the more I realise that there's a lot of political and nationalistic push to emit details in some papers, while pushing for certain conclusions based on the framing of the research for others. I think this is legitimately just unproductive when acknowledging the subjectivity of history as a study and the way certain overlap may point to a conclusion that isn't preferable by a variety of people, from researchers to the intuitions that may use or pay for the research to begin with. I find this in studies that delve into contentious topics in general. It's why it's so important to note the overlap and notice the inevitability of bias in understanding these topics.

As far as the history the Middle East goes and who colonised who, I think many disregard the simple theory that, perhaps, colonisation itself can be something inflicted by the post-colonised and equally be something done to a group with connections to conquest, ultimately making both the same in terms of land rights and the concept of legal ownership. Or, more specifically, that Zionists' attempts to become conquests have since reduced their claim, just as it would reduce a Babylonian, despite their deep links to the land and, arguably, being one of the first social groups before or at the same time as the Israelites.

History and Carbon Dating specifically become difficult to assign moral value of land rights to when cultures blossom and change in such extreme ways (to the point of being unrelated or unrecognisable with those from ancient eras) with the passing of time. The racial blame placed by Israel is thus shown to be one of mistaken vengeance and generally racial profiling of modern Arabs, just as the Persian, Turkish, Roman and British empires showed signs of racist attitudes to employ totalitarian tactics of rule over the peasantry. Being the colonised when one is willing to colonise with the same means reduces the ethical claims and, meanwhile, the history itself reflects greater nuance than political nationalists may desire of it.

Ultimately, as I search further and further, I find that the claim of nationalism and identity is a mere shared ideal of all empires formed through conquest and the desire for ownership of abundant resources. Meanwhile, I find that the idea of an ancient homeland to reclaim is obsolete when the people in question do not resemble those they wish to avenge. Culture evolves with geography and time, a constant for every country's history. Religion, culture and the concept of a homeland forms where the resources are abundant, rather than any legitimate greater or lesser claim from neighbouring tribes and civilisations. The wish of a Promised Land is a logical conclusion for any group seeking refuge from the elements; a moral argument filled with human necessity and a shared common ground if faced with an open mind and a willingness to review the past, while simultaneously moving on from it. The complexity becomes simple when it is understood that only the present can take responsibility for the present; and choose a better path than those who horde resources in the modern age of globalised colonialism.

[bloghrexach]

… that’s THEM!! … 

[makingqueerhistory]

":')))))))) you realise that gen AI is available to everyone though right??? Queer creators can use it just as much as anyone else??? I just don't understand this post... It really feels like a cheap way to get on the 'AI Bad's bandwagon, and coming from such a thoughtful and insightful creator that's incredibly disappointing... It's okay to not comment on subjects you're not an expert in y'know...?"

Y'all know the drill, I am replying to this publicly but that is not an invitation to send any negative messages to the person I am replying to.

Anyways, let me start by saying that the original context of the post you're replying to is discussing an event where a queer org used generative AI to steal an interview with Keri Hulme. So let's start there. To be clear I don't even know if the original interviewer was queer so let's put the identities of stealer and stolen from to the side. I want to explain the harm done in this example specifically and I hope this is illustrative of what harm generative AI can (and does) do.

The original place I saw generative AI was a queer org that explicitly says they are using generative AI "for good", and as a way to bring more queer history to light. So let's take them at their word, and assume they are not out to cause harm. This is the best example of generative AI that I can imagine, so I hope that makes it clear that I am not coming at this issue from bad faith in any way.

Here is the harm they are causing:

Decontextualizing and rephrasing an interview: I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in academic best practices, but I do believe one thing, if a person is speaking on their own identity and lived experience, it is always much better to directly quote than it is to rephrase. As I read this source, I initially didn't know that it was AI, and I was already upset. An interview that is widely available on the internet with no pay wall, was poorly sourced and made more vague than it was in the initial text. By creating one degree of seperation between the original words of A WRITER (whose literal job was largely based in choosing the right words to describe experiences they had) harm is already done. It makes vague what was once clear, and removes Keri Hulme's voice from her own narrative.

The original interviewer is not paid, or given proper recognition: I get it, sometimes just copy pasting an interview doesn't feel transformative enough, but something that one would learn if they worked in the queer history field and weren't a literal robot rehashing what has already been said, is that not everything needs to be transformed. In those cases, we give credit to the person who said the original words (in this case Keri Hulme), and the interviewer who facillitated the conversation (in this case Shelley Bridgeman). This case (again a best case scenario), takes the attention and byline away from the original interviewer and gives it to an AI.

The original publisher of this story is deinsentivised from paying interviewers in the future: The original publisher of this interview has ads on their website. As a person who also has ads on their website, taking an article like this and rephrasing it for no good reason (the orginal word count was not prohibitive and the rephrasing did not make it more readable), takes money from the publisher. It's pennies, but it's also removing numbers could have been used to justify further interviews with asexual people and archiving of asexual stories. The org that stole from this publication does not interview people themselves so the money and numbers that could have gone to continue to preserve asexual stories goes to stealing them instead.

These are just the active harms that I saw in this specific case. As you said, I am not an expert in generative AI, and will not be speaking as if I am. But I will say that asking me not to speak out on active harm that is being caused in queer history spaces, is disrespectful to my many years in this field.

To illustrate this even clearer: if you were a patron, you would know I recently took down an old article. I have been rereading and editing our backlist of articles, and I found one that no longer fit my standards of sourcing. My standards had recently raised due to a video made by HBomberguy about someone in the queer history space who was stealing from other creators. I watched this video not as a work project, but because I watch most of HBomberguys videos, and this one made me think more critically about sourcing. An AI can't do that. All an AI has is what has been inputted, and it is right now impossible to input every available peice of information about ethics into an AI and get a coherent ethical basis on which it will function.

It is a distinctly human trait to absorb information and change in that way. AI can rephrase information that already exists, steal it, recontextualize it even, but it cannot create something altogether new.

Do I believe that there one day might be an ethical use for Generative AI? Maybe. Do I believe that coming into a queer history space, stealing the words of a Maori asexual author, rephrasing them, and giving the original interviewer and publication no form of compensation for their work, is accomplishing that? No.

On a more personal note: I am coming at this issue with a bias. As a queer history creator, I do not want AI in my space, because it is literally damaging to my financial prospects. It has been like pulling teeth to try and get patrons in the current state of the global economy. I don't blame anyone from that, but I feel very disrespected that I am being asked to compete with a machine now. Not only that, but I am being asked to shut up and be fine with it? No, absolutely not. I cannot and will not stay quiet as space that I have fought tooth and nail to create in mainstream discussions is taken and given to AI.

AI was not supporting me when I was sent gore to try and scare me off of discussing queer history. A person did that. AI was not there to tell me I had written too many sad stories, and I needed some happy endings to remind myself of the good in the world. A person did that. AI was not there when I was being harrassed for supporting and including asexual stories on my website. A person did that.

And after all that, I am being asked to lie down and take it when my ability to pay the people who supported me in those ways, is being threatened. Nope. Not going to happen.

An AI doesn't have to make rent. An AI doesn't understand what it feels like to have to stop holding their wife's hand in public. An AI didn't get calls from people needing comfort in reaction to the election. Pay me for my work, and get this AI nonsense out of my face.

[biscuitrule]

HOLY SHIT WE WERE ROBBED

That is one of my favorite scenes and it somehow got better?!

Like forget subtext feral protective lockwood has been canon in this scene the whole time

I’m going to kill whoever localised the L&co books for the US, they changed the vibe completely in the moment where Lockwood realises Lucy’s injured.

US version:

It’s giving alarm and concern and yeah, it’s nice, it’s lovely. But now look at the UK version:

Two little words and suddenly it’s giving that feral, infinitely superior “who did this to you? I’ll kill them” energy. US readers were robbed.

[incorrect-hs-quotes]

(Dave): ONE TWO THREE FOUR

(Dave): DAVES A BIG FAT MEANIE

(Dave): A BIG FAT MEANIE ZUCCHINI

(Dave) and [Dave]: LETS CHOP IT UP CHOP CHOP IT UP

(Dave) and [Dave]: AND SERVE IT WITH LINGUINI

(Dave): AL DENTE AL DENTE AL DENTE

(Dave) and [Dave]: AL DENTE

{Dave}: *sick guitar solo*