#and have explicitly said as such

[lemmaeof]

getting really fucking tired of people who don't know how generative AI works comparing AI "training" to how people learn as an artist because they're jus not even remotely the same thing on any level

artists take inspiration and learn by seeing something, going "I want to do something like that", and practicing that specific thing until they're satisfied with it, while AI are "trained" by force-feeding them five billion images (including literal child pornography, it turns out) to build a statistical model of what certain things "look like"

there's no intentionality to AI - even if you're feeding stable diffusion source pics to tune it, it was already pre-trained on the laion data set - at most you're amplifying noise

just get the concept of people's problem with AI being copyright out of your head, the problem is that it's an inauditable black box that's designed from the ground up to destroy the concept of intentionality in art in order to generate infinite """content""" sludge for capitalists

[idolomantises]

i never liked the idea that good trans rep has to be so subtle its easy to miss. nothing wrong with a character saying "im trans" or dealing with their experiences as a trans person.

just let them have a personality too, don't tokenize them. And make them a weird freak. we need more trans characters that are weird freaks.

[enderpawu]

walking through the city and dying inside ! (hes so real for that)

this time wanted to make more of a comic cus i am silly like that :3 also for anyone who doesnt know, this is for my hc au! its called "time magic" and if u like this then consider checking out my page, still a work in progress but arent we all.

[nashvillethotchicken]

I stand with Louis no matter what. If either lestat or armand did that shit to me and people talked about me the way they talk about louis on here and on twitter you're gonna see me in history books

[skuntank]

Samantha Béart: yeah so Karlach isn't like. A totally good person. She's certainly not evil, but she's definitely flawed. There is a dark side to her that she doesn't want you to know about, and not only has she done heinous things in the past, she's still fully capable of doing heinous things now. Her happy-go-lucky attitude is 1000% a trauma response and this woman absolutely NEEDS to go to therapy because her mental health? It's in shambles

People online: puppy :)

[lucabyte]

Hmmm just gonna spit this headcanon out in text post form since A. I don't think I could exposit it well enough in image form and B. It's not actually textually/thematically substantiated and I don't like actually staking my stuff on just vibes alone*

But anyway. I'd say it's pretty evident that all the islanders forgot their names, right? King obviously. Because why the hell else would he do that, but also Siffrin No Middle Names No Last Name.

They're 'pretty sure' they've 'always' been 'Just Siffrin' 'as long as they can remember'. It's a pretty cruel twist of the knife to say that they don't even get to keep their birth name as a memento, which is why I'm saying as such.

My utterly unsubstantiated claim is I think it'd be cute to say that Sisyphus *is* the name Siffrin initially picked, assuming the myth of King Sisyphus is recontextualised as idk, just a play or something in the setting. But I like the idea of Siffrin going 'oh shit 🫵 he's just like me fr' at a tortured fictional character long before the irony kicks in.

As for how Sisyphus -> Siffrin. I think that chronic mumbler and emotional doormat Sif just did not correct people who misheard the name during their time travelling, and went through enough places with incompatible phonologies (pronounceable sounds in the language) without ever really writing it down that it just got kinda. Changed until it was unrecognisable, and Siffrin just went with it until the earlier pronunciations slipped out of their swiss-cheese brain. And they just kinda don't remember any of that.

Also, something something the horrid realisation that Siffrin also named themselves after a King. Just not as blatantly.

*(though I think there's something here about Siffrin, a guy from a belief system that seems to thoroughly disincentivise autonomy and self-motivated choice continuously having their hand forced to make changes/choices they don't want but have no choice but to... It's not solid enough to really back this up tbh, but it informs it.)

Anyway.

[arugulaeater]

actually I'm kind of curious about this because it was a huge debate among my peers in my community

Clarifications under the cut:

The poster is in a public space where it is typical for everyday people to post things. It is not someone's private property or possession. Think piece of paper taped to a telephone pole, not sign in a storefront or in someone's yard.

The poster is not protected by law; you are very unlikely to face legal consequences for vandalizing it. Caveat: some peers have argued that it risks being socially consequential because an organization or demographic that you are a part of may be judged as intolerant/oppressive/disruptive/otherwise unpleasant if people witness your actions, and thus advocated against vandalism for fear of damaging your public image.

The poster is not an expensive or personal piece of artwork; it is a mass produced print on letter paper.

You are vehemently opposed to the message displayed on the poster, but it is an opinion that people are free to have in your country.

The 4th option refers to things like intentionally putting your own poster over top of the bad poster or otherwise making the bad poster harder to view; some people argued that targeting the poster for removal is out of line, but posting your own messages is an innocent action that you are well within your right to do (in this context, posters regularly eclipse each other as new ones are posted over top of outdated ones due to limited space)

The poster is part of a campaign; it's not unique. There are many postings of it across the community.

This is all assuming that the offending poster is not old and would typically not be considered fair game for pruning for quite some time, and that it is being specifically targeted for removal because of its message (rather than petty vandalism or because it's obstructive or damaged). E.g., if a poster is advertising an event happening on April 20th, it's typical to prune it after that date but not before.

Of course the situation that prompted the real life debate did involve a specific offending message, but I'm not going to specify what it was for now because I think it'll skew the results as people will just end up voting based on whether they like or dislike that message, which isn't the point of this. For this poll we are assuming that it IS a message that you are very opposed to; you can substitute in your own opinion that you have strong feelings about.

Please reblog for sample size!

[ace-and-the-rpg-horrors]

if you ever feel stupid please remember that there's people out there who think that there's "queerbaiting" in DEAD BOY DETECTIVES

[agueforts]

EXPLICITLY AROMANTIC RIZ GUKGAK FOR FHJY. YOU AGREE. REBLOG

[saguaroooo]

[unrealisticlea]

the reason I can recognize canon v fanon is that I watched Scorsese and Nolan movies but when i'm watching 911 I know I'm not watching a Scorsese or Nolan movie.

I know it sounds dumb but this year i realized how many people don't know they're not watching Shutter Island or Inception and they try to apply BigMovie logic to written-in-5-days WeeWoo show episodes.

this means if the show explicitly tells you a character is happy or a relationship is going well you're not supposed to infer they're actually miserable and on the verge of a breakup because they're wearing blue and subtextually blue means unhappy and also they're eating pasta and this means the break up is past-a due.

I love doing it and writing metas and speculating but I know it's fanon and there's a 90% chance that's not what the show means so i'm not gonna be disappointed if my meta doesn't get confirmed.

i'm not saying 911 doesn't have subtext, i'm saying they probably don't use it to deny explicit canon because most people won't pick up on it. and if they went with the kind of theories we come up with on here 90% of the audience would be blindsided and think "where the hell is this coming from".

when you're at the movies sometimes the curtains are shown to be blue but you're supposed to understand they're red and it's actually a dream because the character is always wearing sunglasses. but I don't think that kind of brain power is required to watch and understand abc procedural show n.4636367 airing at 8 pm on thursdays.

[hughmanbean]

Crimes Against Existence

The High Queen Phantom has expressed concerns about the state of law within the Mortal Realms.

Walker, sensing a chance to redeem himself in her eyes, volunteers to go out and report the state of the lands to the Queen. She seems pensive, but agrees. Under strict conditions that Walker must NOT detain nor arrest any mortals that would not have been taken into custody or otherwise punished by mortal authorities in the same situation.

She hands him an addendum to his book the Duke has written up for him to use as reference while he operates in the Mortal Realms.

He reluctantly agrees and makes his way to a mortal settlement with that he can sense has strong criminal influence.

He follows the trail to one of most crime-infested cities on Earth: Gotham. His guards clean out an old office, and he sits himself down into a desk.

He turns on the TV and tunes into a random channel. A man who seems like he'd fit with the Far Frozen is locked in combat with a skilled mortal in some sort of outfit. After a bit of research, Walker learns these are the rogues and vigilantes.

Well, this explained quite a few of the High Queen's problems. Though she doesn't know of them just yet.

Now, how do we rectify that?

[thewhizzyhead]

also side ramble time, it has already been established that misogyny has seeped through the other gangs' treatment of the warriors (I.e. "late night cosmetology class", repeated use of "girls" rather than calling them women, etc.). with that in mind, I find it very interesting and rather culturally relevant of the writers to have the hurricanes, the one and only gang that lets the warriors off the hook, to be a VOGUE-themed gang that explicitly features black queer individuals! It speaks volumes that amidst the animosity of most of the new york gangs, it was a gang with explicit african-american and latino queer culture through the ballroom scene-themes at the forefront that encourages the main diversion of the warriors (2024) from its predecessors: the recontextualization of the warriors fighting back ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THEY ARE WOMEN and that same changed thread leading to changed motivations and actions from ajax, fox, and hell even mercy as they go through the show.

like, it's a very very fucking nice thing to have the cultures and histories of resistance from the POC queer communities of NYC become the fuel for immense character (and thematic) growth in our version of warriors. Truly a song of resilience and solidarity amongst marginalized sectors

[chessb0r3d]

i cracked the code.

[alchely]

I think we all fundamentally take Ian and Mickey's final episode in S2 wrong...

If we just take the "warm mouth" scene alone at face value then sure, Mickey is absolutely being deliberately cruel to Ian.

But let's look at how Ian takes it in the wake of that exchange, he talks about it only once in the next few episodes, and he says to Mandy that "Mickey thinks I pussied out" [on killing Frank] and he thinks he 'kinda' did.

This is Ian and Mickey soulmatism "we just get each other on a molecular level", so their thought process is somewhat inscrutable to us on the outside, but I think, in a way, that Mickey was already pretty serious about his relationship with Ian in season 2 and seeing Ian not willing to "fight" for them to be together felt like the ultimate betrayal.

Let's not forget that in that initial scene right after Frank discovered them Mickey was talking in plural, 'we do this, we do that'.

Seeing Ian refusing to help him the way he needed to be helped was definitely something that hit Mickey hard and caused him to lash out.

And it's not like Ian wasn't trying in his way! He was going through what he thought was the safest route to keep Mickey around cause he also cares a great deal about his not-boyfriend (let's not forget that the point of not killing Frank isn't that he turns his nose up at patricide but that he didn't want Mickey to go to juvie).

By misunderstanding his actions and not giving him time to explain Mickey jumps the gun and says what he says, and he's only able to see reason months later when nothing happens from the safety of prison.

There's obviously that other layer to the conversation, that Ian fundamentally doesn't understand the severity of the risk for Mickey and just how afraid he is ('we've got nothing to be ashamed of' 'what fucking world do you live in') because their families are so different, which will bite him in the ass later.

Mickey coming back to Ian in S3 the way he did, I know some people found it weird that Ian was immediately on board when their last interaction was what it was (cause we're fixated on the "you're nothing but a warm mouth"), but what they don't get is that this is Mickey forgiving Ian and giving him another chance, not the other way around.

Edit: I also don't think that that whole situation was swept under the rug either, Mickey learns pretty quickly that Ian isn't at his beck and call anymore at the beginning of S3, despite what their initial reunion suggests, that he's got "options" (yes Ian was doing it to make him jealous, but he doesn't know that) and I think that was him learning that in S2 he had pushed Ian too far away, that his words and actions had consequences in the relationship.

[agnesandhilda]

watched a (pirated) mr. birchum episode out of curiosity and in it the asshole conservative protagonist has a homoerotic daydream about the other teacher who's a stand in for the ""woke left"" that he hates, which is the opener for the episode and is also never referred to again, gets his sleeve caught in a machine in his woodshop at work and spends days contemplating his life and regrets while he's trapped (or so he thinks). this montage includes how he met his current wife who he doesn't respect and who isn't honest with him (the b-plot expands on this), how his ex-partner left him after coming out as a lesbian and was repulsed after he tried to persuade her to stay with him, reasoning that her being queer meant they could just share a girlfriend now (that was not what it meant), and culminating in a marlboro man-esque image of commercialized rugged usamerican masculinity telling him to chew his own arm off to escape, before one of his students comes along and frees him by just cutting off his sleeve. all that and he thought to chew his own arm off before he considered just tearing his sleeve. and it's all played as a comedy. fever dream episode