#also to be completely fair they are out and about about their stance on it and have it in their pinned idk how i didnt see it

[nnmmxnxmxmx]

my long thoughts on this shit take of a reddit post, going basically line by line, as a previous inniter and a dream hater:

1. If dream was just expressing confusion on double standard rules i would understand, no it’s not fair (as much as i hate him) that he’s getting called slurs online- the issue is he seems to never address this, if this is something he dislikes why hasn’t he decided to quote tweet these posts he’s talking about? instead he attacks Tommyinnit fans because they… don’t like a trumpie okay weird choice.

2. further more- if Dream understands the hurt from using slurs without caution/ as an insult, surely that would have crossed his mind before posting? surely it would have an impact on his actions? i’m not doubting he’s felt hurt by being called rude names online, but if it’s actually something he takes a moral stance against i can’t fathom why he would decide to use them in retaliation.

3. “Obviously it's the internet being disingenuous, but that doesn't completely invalidate anyone that might be upset by it.” honestly asking here if anyone can explain what he means by this? cant work it out

4. Again, this post would be fine if dream was just expressing discomfort at being called slurs online- if he was actually involved in the drama before inserting himself and Tommys fans had been attacking him with derogatory language this would make sense. But Dream is the one who decided to call a group of millions the R slur, and as much as he’s trying to argue he’s autistic and therefor thought it was okay i just don’t buy that. He’s trying to paint himself as a victim of circumstance- “people called me a rude name, and because i’m apart of the group that name targets i thought i could use it back” but that’s not how “reclaiming” works. You’re just firing back with the same hateful language that you claim to know what it feels like to be hurt by.

5. “internet police” is interesting when Dream is the one getting involved in other people’s drama

6. Additionally, calling tommy “poor tommy” just feels mean- he’s trying to prop himself up as a victim and Tommy as someone who manipulates himself into being perceived as one. But this doesn’t make sense because even during peak dsmp no one got more shit that Tommyinnit- he was getting cancelled every week! There’s never been a time on the internet where people have perceived him as someone to treat with Kid gloves

7. Also adding the “lmao” on the end of seeing he never meant to be ableist feels very inauthentic, hard to believe someone feels remorse for fucking up when they are actively laughing at the idea that they fucked up

8. As a previous Tommyinnit stan- and someone who currently enjoys his tweets on my tl from time to time i KNOW we were, and i’m sure some still are, annoying. Tommy stans had poor standards when it came to boundaries and would harass streamers about Tommy constantly. That said, having your defence of calling a whole group of people the R slur being that.. they were annoying? that’s strange.

9. i just don’t care that Tommyinnit is promoting stand up while bullying bad people. sorry.

10. Last line is probably the scariest in it’s implications, i made a post before but it really feels like this is a gateway into some semi alt-right shit making its way into Dreams community. The seeds are there with him talking about how unreasonable twitter is, and lamenting how they are taking his joke too seriously. Just saying if we see a Kick deal in the future i wouldn’t be suprised

[chirpsy]

hi there! this is just a small post about some changes in regards to another user on here. again we aren't a blog around discourse or anything like that... but just from browsing and queueing i actually found out one of the people i've been reblogging + following actually allows the shipping of adults with like actual children? which i don't really think anyone in their right mind would support or really wanna be around... again, i don't want any smoke nor do i want this to blow up into a huge drama fit, but just know that we'll be doing our best to clean up and remove any posts by them. thanks for your patience with this blog if you're still stickin' around!

[shorthaltsjester]

so, so many thoughts about ashton’s words and position re the gods but nothing really struck me as much as “i’d like to see them pray to us.” (or whatever the exact wording is) because yeah, that’s extremely ashton, that’s the same attitude of a person who has been hurt and broken by life in an unfair manner and tried to absorb a shard because they thought it would fix it, ignoring all warnings that it would make it worse, and then insisting it wasn’t about power, despite the fact that it explicitly was about power — the power to render their life fair. it becomes increasingly clear every time that ashton opens his mouth that, along with being an incisive translation of certain kinds of punk politics to exandria, ashton is more set on vengeance than justice, even if he insists his motivation is that the gods are a source of injustice, it seems more like what he admitted after the shard: he’s spent his life looking for someone to blame, and while he’s happy to hate himself, it took a while for them to realize they were an agent in their own story, culpable for the life they’ve lived. ashton looks at the gods and sees a metaphorical vehicle of all the harm and hurt and pain that’s befallen him due to people in positions of power and cannot (or refuses) to see that a) the gods position isn’t actually all that powerful without the mortals who choose over and over to fulfil divine will for good or evil or in between and b) the gods already have a relationship to mortals that is akin to prayer.

and this is all extremely in character, as much as a lot of ashton’s comments echo many a political stance that makes me roll my eyes, it’s always with an attitude of yes of course ashton would say that. what is mildly more irritating (or perhaps concerning) is the readiness with which aspects of the audience concur with ashton’s assessment, when we have seen countless interactions of gods with mortals that shows us that the gods, though not actual prayer, have a very similar kind of belief in mortals that they ask of those who believe in them. like, vox machina had two episodes dedicated to talking to the gods, where it was revealed that the everlight didn’t just know pike but has beholden to her as the one who brought her back into import. where vex proved herself to pelor not just through completing his challenge but by having long been an imperfect but true source of good for the family she’s chosen that they convinced pelor that vex was a suitable champion by pointing out that she has earned several of their belief, she protects the same city pelor blessed with the sun tree, she’s protective and protected, and her heart and her intelligence are equally sound when it comes to her ability to make judgements, (all things we’ve learned since c1 are important to pelor) resulting in pelor deciding he would also believe in her. where ioun pointed out that while she keeps all stories, scanlan is a storyteller, and what could she possibly cherish more than that.

each god when vox machina spoke to them was quick to correct them when vox machina suggested things like their paths being determined or their lives being beyond their control or the world being down to the will of the gods. vex apologizes to the everlight for not realizing that the gods were really beings and she tells vox machina that she doesn’t ask for the belief of all, only those who wish to give it, as the gods chose to give mortals the ability to choose as they wish upon anything, including their faith in the deities. when vox machina asks pelor to whether they should do something with vecna’s eye, he insists that they make the decision whether they’d like to destroy it or use it — he will help however they decide, but he insists it’s on them to choose the outcome. they speak with ioun, who knows their and every story, and she tells them that the gods do not choose the individual fates of mortals, it is up to every person to choose who they will and will not be, and sometimes that guides them to places the gods have predicted, but never without the choices a mortal makes to arrive there.

the concept of belief throughout the three campaigns has been an complex and ever shifting one — as it deserves. in campaign 1, it’s largely in the context of coming to understand what it means to believe in gods when they obviously do exist, but what are you believing in, and why might you choose not to. in campaign 2, jester’s presence complicated things by pointing out that it isn’t just the divinity of the gods that earns them their power but that belief itself is a kind of divinity and with yasha, caduceus and fjord we see that the role of the gods isn’t just power-granting, it comes to be an essential part of many of those who follow the gods. and in campaign 3, we’ve seen both of those explorations come up but the difficulty is we have none of the perspective of someone who actually believes — even fcg was new to worship couldn’t offer much insight on what the loss of the gods might do to people who believe in the gods not because they grant power but because like jester they were lonely and the found a friend in one, or if like yasha they were lost and were saved by one, or if like fjord the asked for help and were aided by one. to be clear i don’t think this a weakness of the story being told — i think it’s a particularly interesting aspect of bh’s position, but i do think it weakens the perspectives of thinkers like ashton who haven’t even heard what a god means to some people, let alone taken seriously the pain that losing the gods would constitute for countless people.

so, ashton might be particularly charged against the gods — even to the point of being the only one to outright make a noise of disagreement when it’s brought up that while bells hells disagree on specifics, they all agree on saving the gods — and he has plenty of reasons to have that position that can easily result in the audience going, yeah, i understand why he’s made that judgement. but that is not the same as hearing what ashton has said and going (with all the knowledge we the audience have that ashton does not) “he’s right, actually” when there are two campaigns telling you, explicitly, “he’s not.” and this isn’t me saying things can’t be revealed that complicate or recontextualize knowledge from previous campaigns, i’m just saying that, thus far, if anything, campaign 3 (especially downfall) has only cemented the degree to which the prime deities have to believe in mortals.

truly the first thought i had when i heard ashton say his line about the gods praying to mortals instead was the fact that several of his party members received a vision from the raven queen asking for help, that fcg asked the changebringer if she was scared and she said yes, that earthbreaker groon looked at imogen and saw her self-doubt And the belief that bells hells has in her anyway and kord reached through him to tell imogen that she had the potential for greatness and that the gods are counting on her. the prime deities have long been praying to mortals, they believe in the power of mortals (for good and ill) — that’s exactly what downfall was about. the power that gods still have is entirely mediated by the mortals who believe in them, who choose to believe in them. the power of mortals does not have those bounds, and while that doesn’t mean they get to sling 9th level spells at will and multiply their damage by 10, it does mean that, in this particular moment in exandria, ludinus’ power is a much more likely (and, historically and contextually proven) source of injustice than the prime deities.

beyond the magic limitations and considering the ill-fitting metaphor of the gods as being a position of power in a sociopolitical sense, the distance of the gods means that if they want to manipulate people into maintaining their position, it’s quite difficult to do. in comparison with ludinus “cult tactics” da’leth, it strikes me as odd when the parts of the cr audience react to the prime deities doing things like . allowing mortals agency (which, as every existentialist writer ever has correctly pointed, out is both a burden and gift) as if it is actually a long-con manipulation or something.

anyway, TL:DR, ashton is an a interesting character whose beliefs and ideas make sense given his placement in the story and their experiences, but an audience who has seen campaigns 1-3 and says they agree with him with their whole chest should definitely consider either a) rewatching or b) taking a critical thinking or media literacy class

[innerfare]

Type of Date - Part 2

Summary: What sort of dates do they take you on?

Characters: Shanks, Beckman, Crocodile, Corazon, Doflamingo, Mihawk, and Smoker

Genre: Fluff

CW: None // SFW

——— 

Shanks: A carnival or fair for sure. He’ll bet you a kiss you can’t get a higher score than him throwing darts at the balloon board and then proceed to ‘accidentally’ stumble into you when it’s your turn so you have no choice but to kiss him (also the sort to beg you for a kiss on the cheek and then turn his face so you kiss his lips). He’ll buy you cotton candy, funnel cakes, and all sorts of unhealthy confections, insisting he doesn’t want any only to steal big bites of yours. And when he loses at the ring toss, he’ll just steal a stuffed animal prize anyway claiming it’s an ethical crime because those games are rigged. You'll probably end up sitting at a bar for quite a while after having a few too many drinks.

Beckman: I know he doesn’t canonically own a motorcycle but I just really can see him having one and taking you out for a long, evening ride as a date (maybe a canonical equivalent would be him taking you out on the water, but we’re sticking with the motorcycle for now). You maybe end up on a cliffside sitting together on a picnic blanket, sharing a snack and something to drink. He might read to you, or you might just sit in comfortable silence with your head on his shoulder or his in your lap. Might also take you to a bookstore or small coffee shop he's been going to for ages. And wherever you go with Beckman, the two of you always end up watching the sunset together. 

Crocodile: Dinner and a show. The dinner will be textbook fine dining, with multiple courses and drinks; he orders for you at the restaurant. And the show will be something a little racy, like cabaret. He’s an asshole about it, too, accepting transponder snail calls in the middle of dinner, his mind on work most of the time. And in the middle of the show, just as it gets to the good part, he’ll step outside to smoke a cigar. If it’s a date he’s a little more present on, he might take you to a casino and teach you how to gamble (i.e., how to cheat at cards). 

Doflamingo: He’ll take you shopping first so he can have complete control over what you wear, and he’ll buy you multiple outfits, including shoes and jewelry, to commit you to multiple dates before the first is over. He takes you to dinner afterward and rents out the entire restaurant so it’s just the two of you; he refuses to share you. He might also book a spa day for you both (this man knows how to indulge in the finer things).

Corazon: Cora is all about those classic, romantic dates (especially ones where he doesn’t have to talk if he’s nonverbal in your relationship). He enjoys taking you to small cinemas that screen old films, especially old horror films that are pretty funny due to bad special effects, or else rent out a theatre or take you to the drive-in so you two can have some more privacy; you’ll stay long after the movie is finished and stargaze between kisses. 

Mihawk: He’ll take you on a private tour of a winery. You’ll sample expensive wines together and debate various flavors and aging processes (he’ll definitely judge you by your taste in wine). When you’re not in a heated debate, you’ll share light conversation, and after the sun sets, you’ll walk the fields together. He’ll steal a few kisses off you, too, and kiss your hand at the end of the night.  

Smoker: He might take you for a late night dinner (super private, super low-key, don’t think for a second he’ll be putting on a real shirt), or he might take you shooting so he can teach you a thing or two. He’ll most definitely stand behind you with his arms around you to correct your stance, and he’ll squeeze your shoulder when he tells you that you did a good job. 

———

Hope you enjoyed it! If you want more, you can check out my masterlist here!

[morbidlcve]

taking nat on an arcade date and miserably failing to impress her by winning her a plushie?

an: kinda switched to a sort of carnival thingy, i hope you don't mind!!

pairings: natasha x reader

word count: 0.8k!

"It will be fun", you groan at Natasha, who is reluctant to take you to the fair that has popped up in a nearby park. "Pretty please," you whimper, giving her a look you know she can't resist. "Fine," she sighs, "Only if it makes you happy" she says her eyes flickering back to the road. She turns on her indicator and steers left to find a parking space.

When parked safely, you jump out of the car and pull her to the stalls. Finding hook-a-duck, you grab some change from your pocket and pay the old man working the game. You had three chanced to hook a duck with a certain color painted on the bottom to win a prize.

Much to your dismay, you lost all three times, making you walk away sheepishly from the old man and the cable-tied plushies to the posts. Natasha smiled sadly at you, holding your hand and guiding you towards another game.

The next game was a basketball game, to win you had to shoot five nets in a row. You tried your hardest at throwing the ball into the hoops, yet on your 5th one it bounced and fell into the slope shaped net. You were determined to win the next one.

"You know, I'm completely convinced that these games just give you a run for your money, barely anyone wins, and if they do, I wouldn't even like to know how much money is spent", you complain to Natasha as she stands in a queue for a pretzel.

She smiles at your whining and kisses you. to make you feel better. "Why do you want to win so badly my love?" she asks you, stepping forward in the line. "I want to win you a prize" you mutter looking down at your feet kicking the grass lightly.

"Oh, babe, you don't have to do that. You're the best prize I could ever want," she smirks at you, and you gasp. "That is so cheesy, Romanoff."

You try more and more stalls and continue to fail miserably. You are so close to giving up. But when Natasha spots a throwing darts at balloons game, she's quick to pull you along. "Two separate games, please," she says to the woman, smiling kindly.

The woman gives you each five darts. If you are both able to pop all five of the same color balloons, you will both win. "I bet you can't beat me," she smiles. You think she's probably right; given her history, you're most definitely doomed.

You both throw. Natasha's dart lands on a blur balloon, meaning she's got to pop four more blue balloons, and yours lands on red. She pops another blue, and you pop another red. And the same again. You feel your heart start to get sweaty, two more reds are all you need.

You don't understand how nervous you are about a game. Might it just be your competition? This whole night has been quite a humiliation for you. Pulling Natasha along with you, watching you lose at these games for two hours, it's embarrassing. You're determined to win.

You take a steady breath, adjust your stance, focus on where you want the dart to go, and throw it. You squeal when you see it land on a red. Looking over at Natasha, you see her focused on the game but a small smile is tugging at her lips.

You look down at the floor, take another deep breath, wipe your hands on your t-shirt, and pick up the final dart. Your arm rocks back and forth, getting the right movement to throw it at your target.

A little boy behind you cheers you on, and you smile, letting the dart go. The little boy runs up to you to give you a high five when it lands on the red balloon. You grin when Natasha kisses you. "I knew you could do it," she sighs against you. Natasha's dart also got blue, so you tied realistically.

Natasha chose a teenage mutant ninja turtle plushie and gave it to the little boy still dancing around over your victory. Your heart melts as you see her interact with him. He wraps his flailing arms around her and spins, them two around. Natasha chuckles down at him and says her goodbyes.

You, on the other hand, chose something that was much more Natasha. When she sees you holding something behind your back, she raises her eyebrows. You giggle as you pull out a little black widow teddy.

Her jaw hands open before giggling, taking the miniature version of herself from your hands. "Thank you baby" she laughs, wrapping you in a hug. You gently kiss her neck as you two stand there, off to the side of all the festivity in each others arms. "I suppose we should go home now" she says, holding your face, pressing a gentle kiss on your lips.

"Yeah, probably", you smile, taking her hand and heading back to the car park.

[dalishious]

Veilguard Companion First Impressions

So, I’ve finally recruited all the companions for the Veilguard! And as such, I thought I’d share my initial thoughts on them each.

Please keep in mind that as the title says, these are just my first impressions. I am nowhere near finishing the game yet. My thoughts very well may change after getting to know the characters more as the story progresses. Also, please do not take any opinions you do not share as a personal attack against you.

Bellara

Bellara might be my #1 favourite.

I’ve seen some people just say Bellara is “a Merrill rip-off” but I don’t think that’s fair at all. If all it took was a few similarities to say a character is a rip-off of another character, than I can think of so many boring white cishet male characters who would be guilty of that. But heaven forbid we get more than one elven woman who is passionate about her people’s culture and history!

Frankly, I think Bellara is a breath of fresh air in terms of Dalish characters specifically. Finally, a Dalish elf who isn’t punished for being proudly Dalish by the narrative.

I also really appreciate that so much of her can be easily understood by her backstory, too. Like, her feelings of never being good enough is reflective of the very realistic grief she is experiencing.

Lucanis

If Bellara isn’t my #1 favourite, then Lucanis is. They really both dominate that spot neck in neck. I can’t decide if I want to put him in a jar and shake it to see what happens, or wrap him up tight in a quilt and give him some good coffee.

I’m just a sucker for Lucanis’s character archetype, is the thing. I love taking him out simply because he’s so much fun to have around. And in terms of companion arcs, his is the one I am most intrigued to see where it goes.

Taash

(While I haven’t personally gotten to Taash’s non-binary plot yet, I am aware Taash switches to they/them pronouns, so that’s what I’ll be using.)

The moment I met Taash felt my heart skip a beat. The only thing hotter than their appearance is their voice. I know BioWare probably left Taash out of a lot of the advertising because they wanted to keep Taash’s gender stuff a surprise, but oh my god, because of this I was taken by quite the surprise. And so far Taash seems to be the type to keep a hard outer shell to protect a much softer side, and that is yet another character archetype I really love.

Davrin

My initial gripe about Davrin’s writing being so exclusively about Assan rather than Davrin himself is slowly peeling away, I hope. While I still think its bullshit that you can welcome Assan into the Veilgaurd but not Davrin, at least I’ve finally gotten a few bits of dialogue to get to know more about him finally. I just want to keep this momentum! Because Davrin as a concept has so much potential, in my opinion, and what little bits I have gotten from him have captivated me. But I can’t tell yet if it’s intentionally part of his character that maybe he’s just a closed off person who takes a while to trust others, (a little like Taash?) Or if the writer just cared more about griffons than the actual guy. I’m really, really holding out hope for the former.

Emmrich

Emmrich is so much more charming than I expected, and I found him instantly endearing the moment we met him. I also really like that we’re finally hearing some different stances and insight on death and necromancy than we ever had before from a companion! It makes him feel so fresh and completely new!

Harding

I’ll be real with you: I was not anticipating caring about Harding so much. She was who I was originally least interested in, when the companion line-up was announced. But the direction they’re taking her in has me questioning so much about bigger lore questions.

Unfortunately, I still don’t see much in her except being a vessel for those bigger lore questions, though. Like, Harding as a person has me mildly curious at best.

Neve

I’m really sorry Neve fans, but I just find her really boring so far, in comparison to everyone else. She doesn’t have a lot going on, and what she does have going on, doesn’t really captivate me much. Maybe I was just hoping she’d have stronger stances on things than she does? I don’t know.

It could be that I just really fucked up with Neve, and it won’t be until another playthrough that I’ll get to experience more that will change my mind. Because I will admit I am very good at picking choices she disapproves of, with my first Rook.

[shesnake]

I wanted to know your thoughts on this but do you think it's fair to say either Louis or Armand are abusive in their relationship? Idek if this is a valid angle to view the characters from because I guess they're all monsters or whatever but a part of me thinks that it's kinda lukewarm to refuse to engage with the complicated themes of the show, which abuse is featured heavily and pretty clearly imo. This isn't aimed at you btw. Something I noticed is people tend to use some of Louis's less favorable moments to justify the violence he experiences. Like that post about Armand just matching Louis energy in ep 5, most of the notes are taking the stance that Louis is a cold, unempathic pimp who doesn't care about sa victims, that Armand genuinely is completely right when he says he is always cleaning up after Louis that he was only worried and tenderhearted and Louis escalated in the worst way and that after Louis said that he deserved everything that happened after. And I may be biased but to me that is so fucking crazy. To me it seems like fans, specially nonblack fans, have zero empathy for black abuse victims, actively enacting abuse culture even. But idk if that is a too reactive view. I don't want to say Louis isn't flawed because he is. But I mean we are watching the season about Armand getting Claudia killed on purpose and somehow people are still like Maybe Armand didn't do it, maybe it was all Louis, maybe Louis really asked for it. All of it. I think there's a problem there but idk I kinda feel a little crazy too. Btw disclaimer I fuckin hate Lestat this is not about comparing Loumand/Loustat lol

hi! and wow there is so much to discuss here...

I think it is fair to describe the actions of both Louis and Armand towards each other as abusive by definition but it's always important to remember that it is Armand in the position of greater power over him. Armand is older, stronger, owns dominion. He can walk in the sun, manipulate memories, and live without constant debilitating hunger for blood - all of which are things that impede Louis from being his own person outside of Armand.

Louis also faced this same predicament when he was with Lestat, but unlike Armand who uses his own innate powers against Louis, Lestat mostly used his social advantages of whiteness, wealth etc in addition to withholding key knowledge about vampirism to keep himself in control and Louis dependent on him.

and sure Louis can lash out all he wants! He can mock Armand's sexual trauma (trauma which Armand himself already gets them both to fetishise... but that's a whole different conversation...) he can hit back when Lestat hits him but when he's with either of those guys he is always going to be the victim. Nothing shitty he does to his partners, or to Claudia, or to Daniel, justifies what is being done to him by these men.

There absolutely has to be anti-blackness involved in any argument that says Louis deserves any of this. (Of course Armand as a brown South Asian man is not immune from fandom racism but his treatment is racialised in a different way that is also a different conversation). Any negative behaviour from a Black man is going to be seen by racists as exponentially more aggressive than it is, especially the cross-section with those you mentioned who aren't engaging with the complicated themes of this show exploring abuse.

They can see that Louis yelling at Armand is bad, but don't notice that Armand is being manipulative. They can see that Louis stabbing Lestat that one time during sex is bad (and still sexualise it), but don't notice that Louis is disassociating in every sex scene he has with Lestat afterwards (because they're too busy sexualising it). They can see that Louis making Daniel upset is bad, but don't notice that Daniel has been leveling dozens of racist and homophobic micro-aggressions at him since episode 1.

Armand got a few minutes to tell his tragic backstory in Louvre, Lestat had 2 or 3 different scenes in season 1 to recall his own. It's just been words. Meanwhile racists erase Louis' experiences with trauma because they never had enough fucking empathy for him to begin with to even register it happening to him! on screen! in real time! right in front of us!

And yeah Louis and Armand and Loumand are incredibly complex and compelling, and I do enjoy seeing Louis' moments of cruelty towards Armand! But he's never going to win against him in the game Armand built for him.

And in terms of Claudia, I do think that Louis failed her, as he has always failed her. And is responsible for her death in that regard. But that failure involved letting those other two fucking sharks eat her!!! I personally haven't seen anyone pushing the blame completely off Armand and onto Louis but I wouldn't be surprised. This week I've more pissed off about people levelling it all on Armand and think of Lestat as an unwilling participant.... this is of course the blonde white vampire show....

anyways sorry this is so long! thanks for the message this was really interesting to think about.

[thedomesticanthropologist]

What do you think the companions would ask for if Tav owed them a favor?

Oh this is fun! Let's assume it's in camp during their journey. Tav owes a companion a favor! What do they ask for? (This kind of evolved past a favor in a few idk if it counts but I tried)

Assuming no romance, relatively high approvals.

Shadowheart: Very practical, considers your favour repaid when you've performed all of her chores for her. Every day. For a week. She delivers her terms with a sweet smile, and carefully picks over your work to ensure it's up to standard. She may also plop herself down right beside you and watch you work while she lounges. Maybe makes a show of doing her nails or humming.

Wyll: "A favor? You repay me each day just by fighting at my side, friend." Takes a while to convince him you owe him anything, honestly, you'd have to work on it. If you really push it, he tells you you have to create a hero name for yourself and a catchphrase, which must be yelled out in the next battle. The Blade is always at the ready with a heroic word, and you shall be as well! He is chuckling as he suggests it, and if you look horrified, he drops the subject and claps you affectionately across the shoulder. He doesn't hold you to it. ALTERNATE ALTERNATE makes you wash his socks. They're stinky. He grins shyly about it.

Laezel: You have to spar with her. She's allowed to wake you up at any time, or jump you when you least expect it. You must always be ready and on alert. However, she knows this has humor potential, so she spends days sometimes just suddenly moving quickly in your direction only to abort the motion or do something innocuous instead. You jump out of your skin every time, fumbling what you're holding or tripping to try to get into a fighting stance. Her eyes twinkle. It's hilarious. One night she absolutely beats the shit out of you, sorry. Favor repaid.

Gale: Could go one of two ways. One: he demands first pick of the best magical loot, or, undisturbed and no-timelimit access to the next library/book room you encounter. No complaining allowed. Or! He's so excited to have a partner to play lanceboard with. If you don't know how, he teaches you. You must try to beat him as best you can. He absolutely destroys you and makes a big show about it, peacocking around. Then challenges you again. Gives you solid advice on how to do better next time.

Karlach: If she can touch again, she asks for shoulder rubs. Then arm, neck, back, feet, hands. You rub until you cramp up. Then she asks you to brush her hair. She's grinning like a loon and happy as a clam. If she can't touch, she considers the favor repaid when you pull a funny prank on someone else in camp. Whether it fails or not doesn't matter, she just wants to witness it so she can have a good laugh.

Halsin: "There is nothing you could owe me that would take a dent out of the debt I owe you, my friend." Refuses outright that you could ever owe him anything. Won't budge. Absolutely stubbornly will not.

Astarion: comes up with multiple suggestions, if you complete one, claims he was just talking out loud and that wasn't it OR that was just the first part, it's a multi-part favor you see, so really it will be paid back when.... and so on and so forth. Sees how much he can get away with. Alternatively: starts out with a REALLY extravagant ask and has to be whittled down to something you consider fair, whinges that he is doing YOU a favor by being gracious enough to accept the... favor... you just did him.

[y2ksnowglobe]

People of the jury, I do not consider myself a Glenn apologist by any means, but today I present the following argument. "Glenn didn't teach Nick to smoke, provide him directly with weed, or particularly approve of Nick smoking." Snowglobe, you say...that's a bold stance, and to that I say fair, it is, but Glenn has always been a slippery bastard when it comes to pinning him down in canon, and while I don't think this is the only way to read Glenn, it is a canon-compliant way to interpret Glenn.

So now that you've clicked on the Read More to hear me out, you might be saying "Snowglobe, this is too easy. In Episode 51 Glenn admits to showing Nick how to smoke."

Or maybe you don't say that because you don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of this show, which in that case, good for you! I'm not proud of this accomplishment!

But, back to the evidence at hand. The canonicity of any of the "Freddie being contrarian to Jodie" Dad Facts I think is up for debate. From a Doyleist perspective, we as the audience can interpret these facts to be more about the sibling dynamic between Freddie and Jimmy, and less about being true to Glenn as a character.

However, I'm not completely satisfied with just a Doyleist argument, we're getting into the Watsonian as well.

So firstly we have the implication that Glenn actually doesn't smoke cigarettes, which is interesting and a bit unexpected to be honest. However, the main point I'd argue that after raising Nick with healthy skepticism for authority, Glenn telling Nick straight up not to smoke is not going to work.

"But Snowglobe," you say, "That's still teaching Nick to smoke, right?"

"Perhaps," I might admit, "If we didn't have canon evidence of Glenn teaching the Oak twins how to smoke.

That's right! Glenn purposefully instructed the twins on the incorrect form! So, people of the court, I argue, might Glenn have not done the same thing with Nick? And furthermore, when comparing the stories of Jodie and Glenn illustrating smoking to Nick, Jodie is the one who is specified to have taken a drag and nearly hacked up a lung.

Now being a weed smoker, Glenn would likely have been able to tolerate inhaling cigarette smoke without reacting as violently as Jodie, but it could also be that Glenn didn't end up choking because he wasn't inhaling.

"But what about his point that it was so Nick would look cool?" You may ask.

You know what isn't going to make Nick look cool? Hacking up a lung while trying to smoke for the first time in front of people he wants to impress.

I feel that what Glenn underestimates is just how perceptive and observant Nick is (possibly because Glenn himself is not the most perceptive and observant) so he doesn't quite make the jump that Nick is going to figure out how smoking works just from watching Glenn, leading to...

"Oh Snowglobe, how are you going to get around Nick saying he got the weed from Glenn," because you are unaware I am constructing this argument and wouldn't have brought this up without having already considered it.

FIrstly, this is a fairly clear reference to an old drug PSA

But that's again a Doyleist explanation.

However, with how much this weed knocks Glenn's socks of with dankness, we can put together that Nick isn't literally saying he got this weed from Glenn, if he had, Glenn would not be surprised by it. So yes, Anthony was making a reference, but it's also possible that Nick was making a reference as well, indicating that he picked up smoking weed from watching Glenn, rather than saying Glenn is the reason he has the specific weed he's smoking, or alternatively, Nick took some weed from a stash Glenn hadn't gotten into yet, and is just being very upfront and honest about getting it from Glenn as opposed to buying it illegally from somewhere or someone else.

Additionally, Nick states that he thought he'd try smoking because it's something that seems to make Glenn happy and appear cool. This feels like something that would be very odd for Nick to say if Glenn had been the one teaching/encouraging him to smoke weed, and also odd if Glenn had been aware of Nick smoking weed before this.

Taking a detour back to the "Glenn taught Nick how to smoke wrong" theory, it's commented on that despite being a Nat 20 dank level weed, Nick seems to be handling it much better than Glenn, which could suggest that maybe Nick isn't properly inhaling. This one is a little bit of a stretch but after all Glenn taught Nick to smoke so he would "look cool" and here Nick is trying to "look cool" so it is a possible interpretation, though I feel not the strongest point to be made here, and future evidence is going to make it a little more dicey of a call.

Now I don't want to get into it too much in this post (because I have this post that covers it instead) but Glenn can, and does push back on Nick's behavior but also is pretty conflict averse and is violently allergic to vulnerability.

So, is Glenn going to have a full discussion, in front of Darryl and Grant who are waiting on them to get in the car, about how even though Glenn smokes weed, Nick shouldn't? No, obviously. So what does he do instead? Sure Freddie phrases it as Glenn "persuading [Nick] to let [him] take a hit" but from the practical perspective he is getting the weed away from Nick. He frames it as being because of Darryl that they have to leave it behind, but given that at this point Glenn isn't willing to admit he's a DJ to Nick, it's a lot to expect him to own wanting Nick to leave the weed behind because Glenn doesn't want him to have it, and while it is pure speculation due to being such different from the path of the actual narrative, if they hadn't all been pulled into the realms, I don't think it's too far fetched to consider Glenn having a talk with Nick about it after they got home from the game. As mentioned in the linked post in the previous paragraph, Glenn addresses Nick's swearing and Nick is fairly receptive and corrects his behavior in response to it.

"But Snowglobe," you are unable to stop yourself from saying because the second person narration compels you to continue to engage with this discussion. "Swearing is one thing, Glenn talking to Nick about smoking is different."

Well, what if I told you that, because I'm controlling your dialogue, you have fallen into my clever trap! Because I was talking about Glenn discussing weed with Nick, we don't have to consider whether or not he would talk about smoking with Nick, because there's evidence he already has!

So if you didn't catch it, it's because I argue the transcript got this one wrong. I'm of the opinion that it is Glenn and not Freddie who says, "They said everyone vapes." Who is they in this sentence? I submit that it was Nick who told Glenn this when Glenn tried to broach the topic of vaping with him and Glenn was either fooled by Nick's bluff (kid has a record for being able to pull those off, made up a lie about a wizard cursing him so his head would fall off if he left the Watermice and got everyone to believe him) or wasn't willing to keep pushing when Nick put up the resistance of that excuse.

"Okay, Snowglobe, this has all been very clever, but the trial..."

Yes, yes, the trial. There are two segments of note here and we'll tackle the easiest one first, and that's from Nick's testimony.

Nick claims he would smoke weed if Glenn asked him to because it would make him a cool guy. This is different from saying he has done that. Now this might bring into question why Nick would have potentially lied to Glenn about everyone vaping, and for that it really comes down to a simple equation. [Glenn asking him to]+[Makes him a cool guy]=[Nick is gonna do the thing]. However, considering Nick likes Minions despite Glenn claiming to not like them and Nick not liking Disneyland, we can see that at this point in his life, Nick is starting to get a sense that Glenn asking him to do something does not by definition make it cool. So I don't think this counts as an admission of Glenn being one to actively pressure Nick into smoking.

Now onto Glenn's testimony.

Right off the bat we have Glenn denying he every purchased weed for Nick. Anthony doesn't make him roll deception and no one attempts to accuse him of perjury, so we kind of have to take him at his word there.

When asked how Nick learned how to smoke weed, Glenn doesn't take credit, and given how he's willing to credit his own dad for teaching him, there's room to believe that Glenn possibly would just straight up admit to teaching Nick, even in a court of law. Also worth noting is that Glenn pivots the topic from smoking weed to vaping, which since we can surmise he's had a conversation with Nick about that, we get a sense that it's also the behavior he's more familiar with Nick doing (also emphasized by how Nick talked about smoking weed with Nick in episode one).

And no, I didn't skip over Glenn proudly admitting that Nick knows how to smoke weed, and to be fair, this is possibly one of the biggest counterpoints to my thesis, but I think when we look at who Glenn is as a character, we can see him making the choice to answer this question the way he does without it contradicting my previous points.

Glenn has a carefully constructed identity he presents to the world that he will cling to, even to his own detriment.

Some notable examples of this behavior include:

When he admits he got kicked out of the band, he claims it was because of his tour antics, however, in the episode right before this, Glenn's Dad Fact is this:

While we may not know exactly why Glenn was asked to leave the trio, we can be pretty sure it's not because of his tour antics, but he has to keep up that facade. (I'm of the belief that Glenn was missing to many rehearsals to pick up DJ gigs to help support Nick, but that's just my own headcanon)

When dared to lose his ability to play guitar and instead become a Linkin Park cover DJ, Glenn could have admitted to having already been a DJ and that pointlessly giving up one of his two marketable skills was a bad deal, but instead he trashes the very concept of being a DJ (despite being one) and makes it seem like his choice is solely based on a sense of guitar supremacy.

Argues with Nick about Minions during the trial, even though, according to the Dadturday Night Live bonus episode, Glenn secretly also likes the minions.

So could Glenn act less proud of Nick being able to smoke weed? Yes of course he could, as established, there's a possible reading where Glenn is not thrilled about Nick trying this, but is he going to break and show that while on trial? The same trial where the previously mentioned Minions incident happens? Also, in front of his dad? The dad who likely instilled all these maladaptive coping strategies in him? Of course he's not going to act like this is a thing he doesn't approve of or is ashamed of in these circumstances!

Now of course, none of this completely absolves Glenn of being, as Henry puts it, a mediocre father. There are still a whole ton of issues to unpack with the Glenn and Nick dynamic, but Glenn is a character who is left with so much room for nuance and differing interpretation, that it seems a waste not to explore the slightly less shitty possibilities, where it's clear he's trying, but his issues keep getting in the way because he's afraid that any introspection will lead to having to confront his own grief about Morgan. In a Talking Dad episode, Freddie talks about how the ending he pictured for Glenn was to have him go with Nick to Morgan's grave, with the indication that he'd been avoiding visiting it, and I think reading Glenn in the way presented in this argument is a solid base to get us to that ending, sure the dice may have gotten in the way, but I think it still shines some insight onto how Freddie was crafting the character.

[velvetvexations]

There's a whole genre of post I keep seeing that takes the (completely fair and accurate) statements of "trans women are women and that should not be couched in terms like 'identifies as'" and "trans women experience misogyny" and mashes them together to take this stance that experiencing misogyny is what makes trans women's gender legitimate, since it reflects Tangible Circumstances under the patriarchy and that's a waaaay more legit and real and good way to assign gender labels than what they "identify as". And every time it's mind-boggling to see so many people spreading that around totally unquestioned since apparently no one's bothered to think what the implications of that framework are for any other trans person. Like I guess I already knew a lot of people think about nonbinary people and trans men like they all get a magical "anti-misogyny" talisman to carry around, but it's usually not quite that blatant...

YES. THAT'S EXACTLY IT. Some trans women and trans men decided that it would be super gender validating if they could come up with a way to objectively define gender without relying on bio-essentialism and good God they managed it.

trans women are women because they're pOsItIoNaLlY women and suffer misogyny like waow how is that different from radfems defining women the same way tell me now right this second

trans men are men because they're pOsItIoNaLlY men and...don't suffer misogyny? haha okay I hope you get better but I also genuinely hate you and wish you would shut the fuck up because your weirdo obsession with living out toxic masculinity is enabling a lot of enraging bullshit

I don't care if you think men are men because they have penises or because they're treated like men by a misogynistic society you are EQUALLY AS WRONG

[ahappydnp]

So I was rewatching dd last night and when dnp were in the Bespoke Activity Corner dan mentioned that he had a breakdown before tour bc he was gay so that got me thinking- if not for ii do u think he would’ve come out in 2018? Why didn’t they come out before ii? What was Phil’s reaction? Like did Dan feel pressure? It’s obviously their business but it really made me look back ya know

obviously we only know what he's said BUT he was actively planning on coming out before ii but i think there were a lot of factors in play as to why he didn't

dan had not come out to his family yet. he said in BIG that he was planning on telling his family christmas 2017, his mum's birthday (feb 2018), and easter 2018 but ended up backing out. he obviously couldn't come out publicly until he had come out privately to his family

he was already living in a glass closet most of 2017 but then march 2018 he made ttlmt (where he made some obvious references to being not straight). people picked up on the queer signaling and dan freaked and backtracked hard in a now infamous liveshow. the liveshow was so poorly received that phil had to do some damage control and dan was clearly not doing well at all.

this part is speculation but i do think the post liveshow backlash is when dan's rosé breakdown happened/phil not thinking the tour would happen. they were working nonstop while dan was both publicly struggling with his audience and secretly struggling with the prospects of coming out

in april 2018 dan said in a liveshow that he plans on uploading a video "in june, that's a sequel to ttlmt". he was talking about filming it mid tour as well, planning on filming it while they were on a break between the uk and european dates (side note about this liveshow: it was about him privating quite a few of his old videos which looking back makes sense because he knew coming out would mean a lot of eyes on his...less than unproblematic old content but his way of going about it backfired yet again and the audience was mad at him again for some lowkey misogyny)

"the june video" became a meme because throughout ii dan would say it was coming soon ("it might be a september video, an october video, who knows")

people have pointed out that he (and phil) were probably aware that there might be some issues with coming out very publicly as gay when they were about to travel to some of the tour dates with anti lgbtq stances. i'm not saying it's why he didn't, but i don't think they didn't consider it

basically he did in fact plan to come out in 2018 and it wasn't the tour alone stopping him. which is completely fair like i cannot fathom what was going through his head when he thought he was going to come out to his family, come out to the entire world by making a massive video, go on an 80+ date world tour, move house (lets not forget they were originally scheduled to move into the forever home in 2018 too!!!) and not lose his shit??? girl.

anyway he's mentioned that BIG would have been a different video if he had come out before ii because meeting so much of his queer audience changed a lot for him which really is beautiful. i just hate that the ii era was also tough for him behind the scenes

[fangbangerghoul]

Rook As Companion Template

(Template stolen from @bearlytolerant here)

The Basics

Name: Ghoul Gender: Nonbinary (she/they) Faction: Shadow Dragons Lineage: Elf Class: Rogue Personality: Laissez Faire Firecracker Preferred Weapon: Jagged Daggers Preferred Trinket: 2 small smooth rocks to roll between their fingers Preferred Style of Clothing: Loose, skin breathing causal Rivian style Hero Special Ability: The Dastardly Bastard (Headbutt that stuns an enemy completely and vertebrates through the surrounding 4, weakening them) or Death’s Songbird (Draws all enemies, once surrounded cuts through them) Favorite Gift: Handmade plushies Pet: Calico Cat- Dahlia Acquaintance Bond Level Status: Tolerable Fiend Friend Bond Level Status: The Cleaners Good Friend Bond Level Status: Righthand Dagger Hero Bond Level Status: Shadowed Accomplice/The Grim Reaper Romance Bond Level Status: Ghastly Lover

Lighthouse Living

Room Type: Attic Room Decor: cluttered collected knives/randomly acquired items (rocks, pockets of dirt/leaves) Favorite Food: Rabbit stew Favorite Drink: Mead Favorite Hobby: drawing/reading Favorite Hangout Spot: Highest point of the lighthouse leaning over the balcony Interactions with Pet: Lounging on couch, reading Interactions with Assan: races in a circle Interactions with Manfred: pretends to find gold coins behind his ear

Relationships

Greetings: - Acquaintance: “what are you looking at?�� - Good Friend: “trying to escape everyone?” - HOV: “With the both of us, victory is always certain.” - Romance: “Welcome, lovely” Thoughts on Companions: Neve: Secretly wants to be a princess, prefers to have her as a companion in a fight Bellara: Too cheerful but appreciates her lack of filter Harding: Stubborn and her cooking scares Ghoul Emmrich: Enjoys admiring bone structure and hearing his interesting lectures Davrin: Too noble but a good time Lucanis: Silent but intriguing, a bit of a comedian Taash: Her favorite arm-wrestling opponent and favorite spar partner, Ghoul also has gained an interest in Dragons Comments About Biggest Rival/s: If related to companion quest: - “I don’t care if we share blood, I won’t concede to his whims.” - “Sometimes I wonder what things would look like if our lives played out differently, but then I realize I don’t actually give a fuck and cannot wait to stab the bastard.” If in battle: - “C’mon motherfucker!” - “A shame you met me today.” - “I can afford another concussion just to knock you out.”

Banter Subject with Neve: If a Shadow Dragon should sleep with a Threads/Is a case ever really solved Banter Subject with Lace: How do plants stay alive/Archery tips Banter Subject with Bellara: Exchange of smutty romance recs/Dalish History Banter Subject with Davrin: Creatures and pet-ability/drinking stories Banter Subject with Taash: How to look like a Dragon/Exercise routines Banter Subject with Emmrich: Philosophy of serving Death/Can I have a skull for my room Banter Subject with Lucanis: Who has been awake the longest/Best kill moves Bonus Spite: ‘Yes and’ games/sharing vengeance stories

Unlock Personal Quest:

under construction and tied to Elgara Vallas

Romance

Flirt/s: "You wear things well.", "I admire how you hold your stance in battle.", "Think you can cut out someone's heart? .... Would you like to try mine sometime?" Date Location: Top of an abandoned tower in Mirathous Date Activity: Watching the sun set and the stars come out or being chased by Venatori Term of Endearment: Lovely, Beloved, My Heart Show of Affection: Hidden notes in their items, random sketches left in their room when not around, more physical proximity

[paper-mario-wiki]

You made a decent post about how imperialist news sources obfuscate the settler-colonial nature of israel and how we should be supporting Palestinian liberation but then some liberal says "oh actually the imperialist news says youre wrong" and you roll over and apologize?

Of course imperial nations strengthen certain currents of their "enemies" to manufacture consent to brutally crush them further.

This will be my last statement on the matter, as I really don't think it's my place to be a source for information on this topic. This ought to be interpreted as an opinion, because it is. My blog is called Paper-Mario-Wiki. I'm a bit out of my lane speaking on geopolitical conflicts. That said, I'd be doing myself a disservice by not at least making my stance clear.

Completely setting aside your assessment of The Intercept of all things as imperialist news, you'll note that in my post I only apologized for unilaterally endorsing Hamas and not acknowledging them as a creation of the Israeli occupying forces. They are, by definition, a terrorist group. And they are, in fact, killing civilian families. It is a violent, terrible thing that is happening.

I did not apologize for, or take back, saying that the IDF has been murdering and torturing Palestinian civilians for longer than you or I have been alive, and that they are singularly at fault for deaths of the occupying settlers. In fact, at the end of the post I reiterated my support for the Palestinian resistance.

Regaining land and footing against an oppressor will be violent and regrettable, as (I believe) on a fundamental level most reasonable people do not want to kill each other for any reason. But it will continue to be violent and regrettable because of the state of Israel, and exclusively because of Israel, for the alternative is the total displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people, as has been their goal for the past century. Real, militant resistance does not look cool or pretty or sometimes even fair. The loss of human life will always be terrible, and no matter how good the intentions of strategic wartime violence, it is still violence. It is still war, and war should not be glorified on any side.

I feel no shame in acknowledging nuance in one of the most complicated international affairs of my lifetime. I also feel no shame in acknowledging this nuance while steadfastly believing that many, many people would end up dead in this conflict regardless of what tactics Palestinian forces used. The only difference is that the settlers who were murdered by Hamas took the land they were murdered on, and the violence of the oppressed cannot be equivocated to the violence of the oppressor.

[qsycomplainsalot]

I'm not gonna watch the Napoleon movie in cinema, I'll most likely watch it through completely legal means later on out of curiosity but I don't want to support the clearly anti-intellectual stance that the director has circled the wagon around. His bad takes on making a historical period movie is not creative license, which could be used in support of the "source material", it's just this dickhead turning every historical event into scenes from Gladiator. This is not Maxime Frimaire Meridien, Marechal d'Empire starring in an epic historical fiction, it's a Napoleon biopic and it comes with responsibility. The guy was very important in shaping modern Europe, he wasn't just any asshole. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum, the message and impact it has are just as much part of its artistic merits as everything else and it's very much fair to criticize him on these points the same way we could criticize the cinematography. Like that's a thing with movies talking about historical matters, it can be good on most accounts and still be a horrible fuck up in the way it speaks to people.

Said people meanwhile will get really confused by the concept that movies that aren't documentaries could shape the mainstream understanding of a certain topic while having based their entire knowledge of dinosaurs on the Jurassic Park movies. It's also not a fair take to try and absolve Ridley Scott from any inaccuracy problems on that basis when he himself fully leans into the historical aspect of his work when it's convenient for him, the man is being interviewed by mainstream media saying Napoleon was like Hitler but sure that movie being nonsense won't damage people's understanding of the early 19th century.

So yeah anyway not gonna support that with my money.

[lurkingshan]

Love for Love's Sake Episode 5 & 6

Holy shit, y'all. This drama continues to blow my mind and be so smart about its world building and narrative structure. With each episode drop the show has been very smartly toggling back and forth between relationship development within the game and lore drops about what is happening outside the game, and these two episodes are no exception.

So we begin this week with relationship development, which was so fucking sweet. I love how honest Cha Yeowoon is about how he feels and what he wants. This boy has no ability to hide himself whatsoever, he wears his heart on his sleeve and his vulnerability on his face for anyone to see, and he's had a hard life with a lot of pain (who wants to join my murder squad to take out his dad?). It's no wonder he has kept his distance from people until he found someone he believed he could trust with it.

I love, too, that Tae Myungha's hangups have nothing to do with queerness--we probably won't ever know his dating history in the real world, but I think it's safe to say Yeowoon is not the first boy he has been in a relationship with. Instead, as suspected, his hesitation is all rooted in the fact that he's an adult in a game world he can't control, and he has no idea whether he can stay with Yeowoon. He is trying to be responsible, but the pull of those puppy eyes and pouty lips is simply too strong to resist (you're so valid for that, Myungha). I love that part of the game is also forcing Myungha to reckon with his own hurts, with his grandma and now his estranged mother challenging him to face his own trauma.

Which is why seeing these two bruised boys fall in love is oh so sweet. I love that even amongst the impending doom of the game malfunctions, we got to see them strengthen their bond, confirm how they feel, and grow comfortable with physical affection (though I would have liked to see more of that kissing lesson, show!). The kisses (complete with my beloved Gay Feelings sparkle effect), the hand holding, the flirting and public displays, it was all adorable.

And we needed that to hang onto when the game started experiencing server errors and Myungha became unmoored and unable to navigate the game universe effectively. It seems that his "friend" who trapped him in the game is indeed the one sending the anonymous mentions, and he's now messing with the game to change the conditions after Myungha has successfully altered Yeowoon's life. I like that this was rooted in another reveal about them discussing fate--Myungha is determined in his belief that our choices matter and we can always change our destiny, and it's clear his "friend" resents that stance and wants to show him he doesn't have control after all. And he is really not playing fair! Forcing Myungha to choose between his grandmother and Yeowoon is straight up cruel (our murder squad will also be taking this man out, we will be busy, besties).

Poor Myungha. I am so excited, so scared to see the big conclusion tomorrow, I trust that Myungha will find a way out of this situation. All I know is they need to find a way for our boys to get their happy ending or murder squad will be making another stop.

[olderthannetfic]

This NaNoWriMo stuff with AI is largely unsurprising to me. I don't know how many people have gone beyond reading the viral clipped out bit about classism and ableism, but there was a follow up statement on that, in which they claim to take a very neutral stance. That their initial intent was apparently trying to curtail harassment of those who are using AI and they at least apologized for their confusing and unthoughtful wording of their original statement. Which seems legitimate enough to me. I'm sure they are sorry, considering the swift and unforgiving backlash they received. What I find kind of bizarre about this whole thing is, like, if you are running an event surrounding writing and making guidelines for what is and isn't okay in general-- then wouldn't it be a perfectly reasonable addition, to set out some level of encouraged practices for how one should or shouldn't use AI for during said event. Guidelines that are encouraged, that follow what everyone believes to be the spirit of the event (sitting down and actually writing a little every day for a month) would seem like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, to me. Like, am I off base here? With the rise in AI this seems like the natural progression. Even if only in spirit, not allowing generated works specifically seems like it would be a completely understandable guideline that keeps the event fair to those trying to do it the way it's meant to be done. And if you wanted to be neutral about it, it could be presented alongside a more lax policy around using AI to say, generate a plot bunny when experiencing writers block or create names for places/characters. People have been using tools like that for ages so there's precedent to allow "thoughtful" use of AI for these purposes. Anything at all, even if it can't be completely enforced, seems like it would have been better. The random endorsement of AI for people in certain circumstances from their follow up statement, and how it can be life changing, if one were to take their meaning in the most charitable way possible, does not feel like it's on topic here. Like, all this effort to be "neutral" on their part is not really coming across that way it's all just so damn clumsy. I try to always assume positive intent, not attributing to maliciousness (such as capital gain at the expense of creatives, which is one of the major problems with AI generated work) what can be better explained by ignorance, but even taking all that they've said in such a fashion, it largely feels like they didn't want people arguing about AI but also didn't want to have to make rules around AI that they would then have to, even if only in spirit, enforce. I can sort of understand that, considering it would be (most likely) impossible for them to differentiate between generated work and stuff that was written by a person. But again. They could have just said that it wouldn't be possible for them to police AI usage, blah blah blah, honor system (which again is already part of how NaNo works-- an honor system) but that targeted harassment campaigns of individuals for any reason would not be allowed within these spaces, up to and including suspected use of AI. Like there were so many different ways this could have been approached to accomplish what their stated goal was. Without??? Accidentally taking a very strange and not well thought out direct stance on AI that they later had to halfway walk back and apologize for. I don't think NaNoWriMo ever intended the message to be "We allow AI generated works now" (unless there's something I missed) -- That's not explicitly something they said, but rather the at large and reactionary interpretation of it. Now, I just have to wonder, what the hell happened to their September update post from last week, that was apparently addressing other issues. One thing I'll say for this whole mess, is it's at least amusing to watch the absurdity of their slow motion collapse hitting the speedrun stage toward total implosion. The org has had major internal problems for years now.

--

Honestly, I think the reaction is at least as much about longstanding issues with the organization as about people's fears of AI. Poorly thought out corporate idiocy feels in-character.