#but it doesn't apply to people an arguments you don't like

[tanadrin]

Can you explain in what what you think eugenics doesn't work? Does this basically boil down to skepticism about the accuracy of GWAS studies? My understanding is that academic consensus is "G probably exists, disentangling direct genetic inheritance vs genetic cultural inheritance is complicated but possible, we can identify a number of alleles which we're reasonably confident are directly causally involved in having a higher G factor"

when it comes to intelligence, its heritability, and its variation at the population level, my understanding of the science is:

highly adaptive traits don't, in fact, vary much at the genetic level between populations of a species because they are strongly selected for. in an environment where a trait is being strongly selected for, a population that failed to express that trait strongly will be rapidly outcompeted.

intelligence is probably the quintessential such trait for humans. we have sacrificed a great deal of other kinds of specialization in favor of our big brains. we spend an enormous amount of calories supporting those brains. tool use, the ability to plan for the future, the ability to navigate complex social situations and hierarchies in order to secure status, the ability to model the minds of others for the purposes of cooperation and deception means that we should expect intelligence to be strongly selected for for as long as our lineage has been social and tool-using, which is at least the last three million years or so.

so, at least as a matter of a priori assumptions, we should expect human populations not to vary greatly in their genetic predisposition to intelligence. it may nonetheless, but we'd need pretty strong evidence. i think i read this argument on PZ Myers' blog a million years ago, so credit where that's due.

complicating the picture is that we just don't have good evidence for how IQ does vary across populations, even before we get into the question of "how much of this variation is genetic and how much of it is not." the cross-national data on which a lot of IQ arguments have been based is really bad. and that would be assuming IQ tests are in fact good at capturing a notion of IQ that is independent of cultural context, which historically they're pretty bad at

this screed by nassim nicholas taleb (not a diss; AFAICT the guy only writes in screeds) makes a number of arguments, but one argument I find persuasive is that IQ is really only predictive of achievement in the sense that it does usefully discriminate between people with obvious intellectual disabilities and those without--but you do not actually need an IQ test for that sort of thing, any more than you need to use a height chart to figure out who is missing both their legs. in that sense, sure, IQ is predictive of a lot of things. but once you remove this group, the much-vaunted correlations between IQ and stuff like wealth just straight-up vanishes

heritability studies are a useful tool, but a tool which must be wielded carefully; they were developed for studying traits which were relatively easy to isolate in very specific populations, like a crop under study at an agricultural research site, and are more precarious when applied to, e.g., human populations

my understanding based on jonathan kaplan articles like this one is that twin studies are not actually that good at distinguishing heritable factors from environmental ones--they have serious limitations compared to heritability studies where you actually can rigorously control for environmental effects, like you can with plants or livestock.

as this post also points out, heritability studies also only examine heritability within groups, and are not really suited to examining large-scale population differences, *especially* in the realm of intelligence where there is a huge raft of confounding factors, and a lack of a really robust measurement tool.

(if we are worried about intelligence at the population level, it seems to me there are interventions we know are going to be effective and do not rely on deeply dubious scientific speculation, e.g., around nutrition and healthcare and serious wealth inequality and ofc education; and if what people actually want is to raise the average intelligence of the population rather than justify discrimination against minorities, then they might focus on those much more empirically grounded interventions. even if population differences in IQ are real and significant and point to big differences in intelligence, we know those things are worth a fair few IQ points. but most people who are or historically have been the biggest advocates for eugenics are, in my estimation, mostly interested in justifying discrimination.)

i think the claims/application of eugenics extend well beyond just intelligence, ftr. eugenics as an ideology is complex and historically pretty interesting, and many eugenicists have made much broader claims than just "population-level differences in intelligence exist due to genetic factors, and we should try to influence them with policy," but that is a useful point for them to fall back onto when pressed on those other claims. but i don't think even that claim is at all well-supported.

[vlad-theimplier]

OKAY, here we go again:

To lay all my cards on the table, I think Donald Trump personally, and his whole retinue collectively, are racist, mercenary demagogues who will do whatever makes them a buck and gives them votes.

But can we please learn a fact or two about how the criminal justice and immigration systems work? There are, like, three different arguments going on here, and all of them are fairly legit until they start trying to amalgamate into the same political grievance.

The Fourteenth Amendment is the one that (TL;DR) says: slavery is forbidden, except for those convicted of a crime. So people convicted of crimes can be forced or incentivized to provide labor unpaid or paid below minimum wage. That's bad! But it doesn't apply to 95% of people detained pending removal proceedings, because most people who enter/remain in the US out of status are violating only civil law and are never convicted of anything (there are some who reenter repeatedly in violation of federal criminal statutes, but they're a tiny minority). In fact, most of the people affected are state defendants housed in state facilities.

For-profit detention facilities are a blight on society. Their incentive structure is to house people in the least humane conditions possible, in order to cut margins and make money. They frequently lobby in favor of more draconian criminal and sentencing laws, because those put more people in their facilities for longer. For-profit detention facilities exist in most states, either as state or as federal facilities.

When someone is detained pending removal, they are (usually) not convicted of a crime. They are not subject to Fourteenth Amendment unpaid labor (which is bad, but not as bad as race-based chattel slavery for life!!!). Imprisoned defendants providing un- or under-paid labor have been convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers, or have pled to a crime by their own admission. That doesn't mean they should be paid below minimum wage or labor, but it's a different problem than out-of-status people being detained and deported.

The Trump administration's plans to deport people don't come from lobbyists hoping to make a buck on cheap labor. They come from lobbyists hoping to make a buck on cheap detention facilities. The federal government has almost no input into how states run their prison systems. States are often making a buck on cheap labor, but if you go after state governments for what the federal government is doing, you will a) fail and b) look dumb, and the reactionaries will write you off.

[genderqueerdykes]

I know I sound like an exclusionist or whatever but it feels like the term lesbian has just been straight up appropriated by non-binary folks. They're not women. And they're not men either. That's the point. And switching around a preexisting definition to fit those who already have their own terms (trixic, anyone?) at the expense of having a term for women who love strictly other women just is... No?? And making the definition (non-men loving non-men) centered around men has always felt like subtle misogyny. I'm not attracted to men. I'm not attracted to non-binary people even if they're fem-presenting. And the only term for that no longer belongs to me as the term itself implies some extent of bisexuality. And it's just... Frustrating. I feel like my desire to have a safe space specifically for people like me is overshadowed by accusations of hatefulness. Labels DO matter to people, they wouldn't be used otherwise. And I feel like in an effort to become inclusive, we've just horseshoe-theoried our way back into being... Exclusive? I guess?? I don't know, I'm rambling, trying to keep and open mind here, but it's difficult. Thoughts?

nah, that's not appropriative of nonbinary people to do. nonbinary lesbians are lesbians. i'm a genderqueer lesbian who is also a woman and a man- i'm not just a "woman loving woman" either. my lesbian attraction doesn't apply to just women- it applies to anyone who identifies as a dyke, lesbian or sapphic. the lesbian community/label has always included people other that women. lesbian does not mean woman loving woman in every case. it means that for some lesbians, but not all. just because you're not attracted to non binary people doesn't mean that other lesbians are not!

"I feel like my desire to have a safe space specifically for people like me is overshadowed by accusations of hatefulness."

that is because you are presently being hateful, yes. nonbinary people are not a threat to you- i don't understand exactly why it's difficult for you to see why this is hateful, as you are very much excluding people who belong from joining the community they belong to. this is identity policing. it is hateful.

how would allowing nonbinary people into the lesbian community make you unsafe? i see people use this argument a lot, that the lesbian community needs to weed everyone out but women in order to "keep women safe". how are other genders inherently unsafe for you to be around? the lesbian community isn't a "safe space for women". it's the lesbian community, that's it. keep in mind, the lesbian community isn't about you, it's about all of us. does the thought of someone who isn't a man being in a gay community threaten you as much, or is this because you view women as inherently defenseless/weak/in need of protecting from other genders? there's a lot of internalized misogyny at play in this mindset.

women can abuse you. women are not inherently safe to be around. the sooner you internalize that, the easier life will become for you. you can't view woman as a "safe" gender and everyone else as a threat. the lesbian community isn't where you go to hide from other genders. i'd like to remind you that lesbians are more than welcome to bring family members and friends who are not lesbians or women to lesbian spaces. a lesbian space does not mean "women ONLY". it means people who identify as lesbians, questioning being lesbians, and everyone who supports them is welcome.

the lesbian community thrives off of the diversity it contains. trying to water down lesbian to "woman attracted to women ONLY" goes against the very reason the lesbian community exists in the first place. the reason you are being called hateful is because you are being hateful, presently, but it's more than possible to change. your idea of lesbianism aligns with rad feminism. it's best to open your mind as soon as possible, lest you find yourself identifying as one of them, some day. and that is a recipe for a lifetime of misery

if you want a "women's only safe space" it might be worth looking into women's groups. like groups made specifically for women and only women to attend. you're not looking for a part of the queer community, it sounds like you're looking for a support group of some kind. like, if you want a women's only safe space, you can find exactly that! they're out there, i'm sure your local area has at least one. this honestly would be more productive than expecting the entire lesbian community to conform to what your specific belief on what a lesbian is.

nobody is excluding you. nobody is challenging that you're a lesbian. you're the one challenging others, which makes you the one being exclusive, not everyone else. i hope these talking points gave you something to chew on for a it. i need you to ask yourself why it is that you want to identify lesbianism this way for everyone. it's fine that that's your definition of lesbian that applies to you and you only, but you are not the protagonist of the lesbian community, and not everyone has to define it the same way as you. hope that helps somewhat

you may want to research the life of Leslie Feinberg. Leslie identified as a polygender & male lesbian for a lot longer than i and probably you have been born. here's some more info on hir:

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Straight up one of the most annoying parts of the AI art conevrsation (as someone who doesn't like AI art and the financial tech bubble built around it but is frequently at odds with the "Anti-AI" side of the current AI Culture WarTM because a lot of the common arguments made against AI are built on harmful, reactionary rhethoric that I consider is dangerous to normalize to the extent it's getting normalized) is that whenever you point out why one of those common arguments is bad you get people in your notes pretending not to know what you're talking about so they can pretend that whatever you said it's a moot point because actually nobody hates AI for the reason you just responded to, the hatred of AI art has never been about that and always been about something else entirely.

Like you'll point out how the post-hoc definitions of "art" that a lot of people construct that have like five caveats and technicisms placed in there with the specific purpose of defining "AI art" as something entirely separate from "Real Art" inveitably end up accidentally placing various other forms of human-made artwork in the same "not real art" category, and that the forms of art that they end up accidentally excluding with their definition of "art" are, more often than not, forms of art that the conservative art establishment has been trying to label as "not real art" for ages, so they're validating harmful ideas about what "real art" is, and someone will come and tell you "uhm what are you talking about, isn't the whole oppostion to AI art more about all the stolen work they use without permission?"

And in another post you'll point out how the "stolen art" rhethoric has led a lot of people to adopt a previously socially stigmatized level of deification and glorification of the concepts of Copyright Law and Intellectual Property, and some people end up dreaming up and proposing changes to copyright law that would inevitably fuck them over as artists if they were applied in the way they're proposing them ("copying someone's style should be copyright infringement" et al) and then someone will come to tell you "Well it doen't really matter because no one cares about this,i thought we all hated AI art because of the environmental impact"

Like buddy you run in those circles you reblog those posts, you KNOW people are constantly saying the shit i'm responding to, you're just pretending you don't so you don't have to take the L and admit that sometimes people on your side make bad arguments.

[troonwolf]

“everyone should curate their online experience” AGREE. SO START BLOCKING PEOPLE AND STOP GOSSIPING AND FIGHTING LOL

[jadeharleyinc]

on art and effort: "Your argument is self defeating. You are saying that since art by disabled people is often seen as low effort or low skilled (and requires higher investment from disabled people to create art seen as "equal" to peers who are not disable) we should… accept that art naturally made by disabled people IS less valuable and instead we should just replace that art with computer generated content."

i am not saying this. what? where did that come from? every single claim in this entire paragraph is made up. this is you putting words in my mouth.

"we should replace that with disabled people just… stating the art they would like to make and having a computer do it for them." who is "we"? you think i want all disabled people to make art the same way? personally i'm disabled and in fact i love to talk to a computer and have it make things for me. i am a programmer. i have always enjoyed giving a computer instructions. it doesn't matter to me how these instructions take shape (words or code), this is a form of self-expression to me.

"Instead of saying we should value people no matter their perceived skill or effort or ability" can you point to the part where i said we shouldn't do this?

"instead of saying art made with any level of skill or ability or effort can still say something or have value (even if the value is in proving it has no value), we should move on from that" can you point to the part where i said we shouldn't do this?

"Actually, if you can't do it yourself, you should get a computer to steal it for you." yeah i mean, i pretty explicitly said that it isn't stealing. the explanation is very clear. getting a computer to do things for you is pretty cool and it's a form of artistic expression. again, speaking as a programmer.

"You are actually putting more value into the more "acceptable" computer generated art than in the art disabled people can say" can you point to the part where i'm putting more value in "acceptable" computer generated art? you seem to think that it would be better to celebrate the "less acceptable" art disabled people make when it's lower in "quality" due to their disability interfering with the creation process, than to allow disabled people to make art of higher "quality" using a tool you don't like. sorry! i like it when my art is "acceptable"! i don't care about how other people perceive it, i care about how i perceive it.

"But computer generation isn't creating art. It is just ordering what are you want to have. So, I don't even think the rest of your argument applies. I haven't made a chicken sandwich if I customize my panera order and say no lettuce please." this is entirely incorrect! computer generation is a form of art. generative art has existed long before AI! tools like Visions of Chaos or Context Free Art or all sorts of generative algorithms are explicitly acknowledged as art. me inputting a mathematical formula in Visions of Chaos to create a fractal is no different from me inputting a prompt in Stable Diffusion. you also seem to think that the AI is a person, but unfortunately the AI is a tool on my computer and i am the one using it- i am the one making the panera, buddy. finally, there are entire mediums based on providing your tool with instructions. programming, kitchen recipes, choreography work, and so on. are you mad at choreographers because they're only giving orders and not doing any of the dancing? are you mad at me, a programmer, because i only told a robot how to move instead of moving my body? this is ridiculous. giving instructions is artistic expression, even when the instructions are simple.

"Companies stealing art they have not paid for is, in fact, labor theft. The labor that went into that art has been stolen." you cannot steal the labor that went into a piece of art because that labor has already been done! if i make a video game and you pirate it, you are not stealing my labor. the product of my labor is not my labor. also, again, theft requires depriving the original owner, so you would not be stealing from me.

"Artists have outright spoken about how they are being paid lower wages because AI has lowered the perceived value of their work. You are speaking in abstracts, I am speaking in concrete, observed consequences of AI. Artists have already confirmed companies are using AI to exploit artists and steal their labor." please point to the part where i think this is abstract and not a real problem? have you missed the part where i said you should fight for job protections? you have been shadowboxing this entire post and it's honestly kinda sad.

"The theft exists in the training." not by any definition, no. teaching a machine to analyze things is not theft. "The theft exists in recreation." not by any definition, no. teaching a machine to replicate human behavior is not theft. "The theft exists in posing art as inherently and always disposable." i don't think you're talking to me here. you seem to be talking to some embodiment of capitalism that you expect me to represent. please drop the grandiose poetic repetition bullshit and talk to me like a human being, thanks. anyway, art under capitalism has been disposable for decades now and AI has nothing to do with it.

"The theft exists in depriving artists of work and commissions." a lost sale is not theft, please i am begging you i am not being stolen from by Google Translate.

"I have outright seen people stating that they will no longer commission works because they can just order their computers to make it." that sucks, sorry! it's called automation. i've lost translation work because people use Google Translate instead of hiring me. i've lost programming work because people use an engine or free assets instead of buying my code. but again: that is not theft. that is a lost sale. artists are not a special class of people who are uniquely affected by the volatility of the job market.

"The theft is also in the Kenyans being tricked into slave wage contracts. And this is not a singular case with a lot of this "AI" projects, while the amazon "just walk out" stores were not using generative AI, they were still framed as AI… and still relied on exploited labor to function. All of these programs rely, heavily on stolen labor to function on every level."

indeed! i agree with you here. this is actual stolen labor and it's one of my top criticisms of generative AI.

"Also, it's wholly different from making collages because collages retain the individual content (and thus can be traced back to an original creator)" this is completely false. first, you cannot feasibly track down the origin of every element in a collage. do you know how small some of the pieces can be?? it's common practice to e.g. paint over collaged art too, which only obfuscates it harder. the idea that collage is only fine because you can track down the origin of the pieces is bonkers.

"with generative AI, the art is stolen, the identity is erased so you don't even fucking know what you're stealing from, because all art has been reduced to an amorphous slug" that's cool, i like amorphous slugs. anyway there is no "reducing" and "erasing" happening here. again, none of the original art leaves the internet! you're talking about a robot's conclusions of which pixels go where and how. it is not "reducing" anything. either way, it's not theft to analyze pictures and it's not theft to not credit inspiration or even to not credits elements you're remixing, whether the original parts are identifiable or not.

"that only exists to serve the company's server" uh… what server? you mean my computer? did you miss the part where i mention that you can run AI locally, offline?

"It belongs to the AI company. Anything you create the company can now use" i mean no it doesn't. like, again, the AI model does not contain your artwork. it's very simple math: the billions of pictures being scraped and learned from could not possibly fit on my computer. AI does not contain pictures. it contains statistics that explain how colors and shapes usually fit together. someone who "owns" an AI model does not "own" the art used to create it in any way, shape or form, they only "own" statistical knowledge. i think you have a lot of incorrect preconceptions on how AI works.

"Your argument is just "the companies have already exploited the artists who have made this art, so it's okay to steal it even more."" what? can you point to the part where i said this?

"Why not make things worse?" i mean personally i think you're doing a great job making things worse by answering things you imagined me saying in your head, instead of things i've actually said.

"Also, art is special. Sorry, like, yes it is. Art is the cornerstone of how humans learn to relate to each other" cool. you seem to be conflating Art with an A and art as in pictures. i am talking about the job that involves making pictures, as should be evident by the fact that this argument is under the "exploitation and jobs" category and not under the "art" category above.

"a product that is made by no one, made for no one" unfortunately it's made by actual people who work actual jobs and it's used by real people too. hi! you're talking to me! i use AI for my programming job, and also for fun for my D&D campaigns. please stop pretending that AI developers and users are "nonpeople" who don't exist.

"It's not the same as people no longer having to do risky jobs because a machine can do it instead." do you think it's only okay to automate risky jobs?

"Like… the loss of political art in the service of corporate art has been observed and is complained about this website" this does not mean anything to me, sorry. i don't know what "this website" is talking about. the corporatization of art has been going on for decades and it didn't wait for AI.

"I can probably find posts on your blog complaining about how hypercapitalism affects art and does a disservice to people." you're welcome to try! but unfortunately me being against capitalism doesn't mean i'm against literally any tools that have ever been produced and used by capitalists, i'm afraid.

"Generative AI replacing human workers is… the most hypercapitalistic it gets for the creation of art." i mean if by "art" you mean the jobs that are going to be most affected by AI, which are jobs where the workers' creative input is not valued, which is to say ads, political posters, stock images, slop intended for mass audiences, and so on. you seem to think the artists who risk being replaced have a lot of creative expression but that simply isn't the case in the actual job market. anyway, i'm not concerned with abstract vibes like "this FEELS hypercapitalist! think of the poor Concept of Art!" regardless. corporations gonna make slop with or without AI and i'm gonna keep making Art.

"Now the only people who can AFFORD to create art without getting paid for it are those already wealthy and in power." i mean i'm disabled and not wealthy nor in power and i create Art in my free time. but again, the jobs you're imagining where people get to create capital-A Art (again, making the distinction with lowercase-a art, drawings) simply never existed in a significant fashion in the first place. most of my artist friends who do art for a living make their bread selling logos or doing stock photography or whatever. being able to live off creative, personal work is unfortunately a rarity and i think you're idealizing a world that barely existed.

"(Not even getting into how AI subtitles are often so incorrect and baffling incorrect that it's illegal and ableist, lol.)" i mean they're very good for my ESL self and for the purposes of my hard-of-hearing friends, and we're all grateful to have those instead of nothing, so "automated subtitles are often wrong or ableist" isn't exactly enough to get us to stop using them.

"You can argue about how big generative ai's slice of the AI pie is but it's still theorized that AI will represent 17% of America's electricity consumption in the next five years." i mean sure but i'm talking about real current impact and not theorized imaginary impact as imagined by Bloomberg Intelligence of Bloomberg Professional Services which i'm sure have a vested interest in predicting a growth in AI usage.

"AI is in its infancy now and still isn't utilized by people, in part BECAUSE of the stigma against it" actually, studies show that most of the world is neutral or positive towards AI. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-07/Ipsos%20Global%20AI%202023%20Report.pdf

"The fact that image generation is so high cost compared to… actually useful things… is incomprehensible to be." i mean i think it's pretty comprehensible to me. i like making pretty pictures on my computer with the same energy it would take me to play a few minutes of video games or watch an hour of netflix. would you like to explain to me how 1 hour of Risk of Rain 2 is more useful to me than making character portraits for my D&D buddies?

"You cannot disconnect your usage of generative AI from how it empowers and normalizes google's much more wasteful usage of their AI programs. They are a bulk package." actually i'm pretty sure that google does whatever they want and doesn't care about optics because they have billions of dollars, but what do i know. the "stigma" against AI sure has been good at stopping google! let's stigmatize it more. i'm sure stigmatizing is a great tool. it worked against looms and it's totally working against fascism right now. or maybe a megacorporation's ability to abuse the environment has nothing to do with how people feel about their products, huh? pretty revolutionary thought. anyway, i hope you're throwing out your phone and laptop after this conversation. you're aware of the amount of actual slavery that goes into these things, right? why are you normalizing them?

anyway, it's okay to consume a microscopic amount of watts to make a picture of your D&D characters. it's okay if disabled people use a tool made by a corporation to draw when they couldn't draw otherwise. it's okay if people want to make art they can't normally make or don't have the money to commission. <3

oh boy, you weren't here for the photoshop panic were you? maybe we should ban photoshop. it's been pretty great at fooling millions of people. anyway, i don't think you understand why NFTs were bad (hint: artificial scarcity, status symbols with no actual usage, speculation, Proof-of-Stake is wasteful) and i don't think you understand what's good and bad about AI. sorry!

i dont think its necessarily ableist to hate AI art, but if you then qualify that by arguing that art derives its meaning from the effort and skill that went into it then you're being kinda ableist

[billdenbrough]

fundamentally disinterested in the recurring discourse about kevin's drinking that aims to a) make it his Specific Problem To Focus On And Overcome when it is a crutch and coping mechanism to get him through a Much Bigger Problem (emotional fallout he can't square with by himself, culture shock, trauma, loss of his extremely wildly co-dependent relationship w riko, losing the structure of the nest, mourning a future he was meant to have, processing a grave injustice, anger and fear and desperate grief, all of which is his Actual Specific Fox Problem) while he builds himself back up, and b) thinks that even if it is a problem (more on that later), it's the foxes' problem to deal with.

like. it's just not.

yeah, he doesn't drink until he meets them. they gave him that habit, and in traditional terms, they're (the monsters specifically) a 'bad influence'. but these are the foxes. this is kevin day, son of exy, whose meteor is crashing spectacularly through no fault of his own. there are no traditional terms to be found here. the framework for it literally doesn't exist. neil comes into the foxes with more conventional expectations—appalled at the athletes' substance use, his horror at matt's trip to columbia, his steadfast and early repeated stance that none of the foxes should let andrew treat them the way he does, and certainly not nicky—and tends to engage with them less as the series goes on and he folds himself into the foxes. the thing about the foxes is that they've all been in pits deeper than they are tall. and some of them got a helping hand on the way—erik, andrew's extreme intervention methods, stephanie walker—and wymack was always waiting for them on the other side, ready to throw down a rope, but all the foxes dragged themselves out of their own holes. often not alone, often not without assistance, but at the end of the day, they have to do it.

there's that line neil has about aaron in that scene that got deleted when the timeline shifted around, when he thinks about how aaron got this far in life on his own, surviving on willpower and sheer desperation. that applies to aaron in a way that's a little more acute than some of the rest of them—boy who doesn't let the foxes in bc of andrew, boy who doesn't let nicky in bc he doesn't know how, boy made of flinching and seeking an escape and grieving the one who hurt him—but is broadly true for the foxes en masse.

this isn't to say the foxes can't help each other, but it's not their job. it just isn't. they'll keep kevin alive, keep him safe, keep him flanked and contained within their ranks. they'll fight tooth and nail in this battle with him, fight to get him to that championship game, fight to get that trophy in his hands. but that's all they've agreed to. that's all they're responsible for, in this covenant they've made with him. he says they can make this happen, and they're going to get him to that final game, but it's up to him what state he's in when he gets there.

like. they're foxes. they've been triaging their whole lives. they hate each other and they hate everyone else more. they're the kids with their backs up against the wall. half of them are addicts. i don't think kevin is comparable, personally; he's getting through a horrific situation with a coping mechanism. that's not the same thing as battling yourself to stop using. but that's not really the point of this. what i'm getting at here is that to the foxes, it's easy math: kevin who can lean on vodka and andrew and wymack and the foxes to stay upright when he's not ready to stand on his own two feet is still a kevin who is standing. a kevin with one less piece of scaffolding to lean on is a kevin who falls over, a kevin at risk of complete collapse, a kevin one phone call away from running back to the master, a kevin one crucial loss away from not ever making it back to himself at all. they're triaging. this is low on the totem pole of things they have the room to care about. they very much have bigger problems, both individually and even just kevin-related. if alcohol makes seeing the boy he knew best in the world and moved in tandem with his whole life and who destroyed their entire legacy and his entire life in one move — if alcohol makes facing that boy easier to stomach, then, fuck, why would they take that away? they're foxes. they've all got their demons. this is what kevin needs this year and a half to let him face his, that's all. they can understand that. it doesn't have to be pretty, as long as it keeps him in the fight. that's the priority.

i think there's absolutely space to explore this in fic and art and fandom in a way that maybe does explore it as a Problem, both that it's an active problem for kevin & that it's something to explore other foxes helping him with (there's a t&n fic that i've been gnawing at the bit to read for months that seems poised to explore this premise, and that's super up my alley)! i just think we're in different territory when we're talking about the series—and its characters and dynamics—in a conversational rather than transformational way, and end up talking about this like the foxes are responsible for kevin's choices. i love kevin day. i read these back at the start of 2015 & he's so dear to me that loving him was the blueprint for how i feel abt kageyama. but it's been pretty weird to see how the conversation has been translating Loving Kevin Day into... thinking the foxes are doing wrong by him with respect to this in actual canon. like that's just not how it operates there

[kaeyapilled]

So with the hangout.. do you think that settles the issue of mistranslation or not of Kaeya and Diluc being brothers?

is it even possible to settle it? i feel like there must be some insane cultural difference between me as a western person and chinese people when it comes to adoptive siblings because, i honestly don't see how the biological son of the guy you consider your adoptive father isn't, by extension, your adoptive brother; how would that relationship not be familial? even when you bring in the "sworn brothers" trope as a means of queercoding, which is a concept ive had explained to me more than once – like, okay? i agree that it's true you can't properly translate/localize that, but. how else did you want them to translate it? even if the word brother was never used once in the eng translation, how do you make it so that kaeya and diluc calling the same guy "father" doesn't imply some uncomfortable things if he and diluc are romantically involved..? but then, who knows, maybe i just don't have enough knowledge about how censorship works in china, how they do queercoding over there, how they deal with adopted relationships, whatever. it's fine. different cultural upbringings, no? it's funny when it's the western side of the fandom discussing this, though. because you'll have these extremely white people arguing with you about the intricacies of chinese BL media. as if either of us knows what the hell we're talking about. anyway, none of this matters in the end because most klc shippers just... like the incest. and the day we stop arguing about mistranslations and simply accept that people either 1) see this relationship in a different light due to their cultural background or 2) are a little bit of a freak online is the day i will finally know peace as a kaeya fan

[navree]

I would say claiming to be from a culture you are not (I don't mean you, just in general) is pretty offensive, even if it's a 'white' culture. Especially if you have never engaged with that culture and only use it as a talking point or in a "I'm so cool cause I'm not completely American because I'm from (insert place)" even if you've never been there, you can't speak the language and you can't even place it on a map. Especially if you are actually encountering someone from the culture you say you are from when again, you're actually not.

Also girl, taking AP classes in your (foreign) native language is cheating!!! Take this good humourly because my sister definitely did the same thing in our language and a French friend of mine took French. But yk what they say: work smarter, not harder. Xd

God Europeans wanna be oppressed so fucking bad. Get a hobby go outside touch grass pay reparations to the entire rest of the world for having to put up with your bullshit. Absolutely no one cares least of all me.

"take this good humourly" no :) twat :)

[lpsgirl109]

"Well you CAN enjoy x piece of media that i think is badly written but you HAVE to acknowledge all its writing flaws--" go take a lap Rebecca I don't have to acknowledge shit.

[phoenixyfriend]

I feel like a good shorthand for a lot of economics arguments is "if you want people to work minimum wage jobs in your city, you need to allow minimum wage apartments for them to live in."

"These jobs are just for teenagers on the weekends." Okay, so you'll use minimum wage services only on the weekends and after school. No McDonald's or Starbucks on your lunch break.

"They can get a roommate." For a one bedroom? A roommate for a one bedroom? Or a studio? Do you have a roommate to get a middle-wage apartment for your middle-wage job? No? Why should they?

"They can live farther from city center and just commute." Are there ways for them to commute that don't equate to that rent? Living in an outer borough might work in NYC, where public transport is a flat rate, but a city in Texas requires a car. Does the money saved in rent equal the money spent on the car loan, the insurance, the gas? Remember, if you want people to take the bus or a bike, the bus needs to be reliable and the bike lanes survivable.

If you want minimum wage workers to be around for you to rely on, then those minimum wage workers need a place to stay.

You either raise the minimum wage, or you drop the rent. There's only so long you can keep rents high and wages low before your workforce leaves for cheaper pastures.

"Nobody wants to work anymore" doesn't hold water if the reason nobody applies is because the commute is impossible at the wage you provide.

[eldritchamy]

🐯

I'm only intimidating if you haven't met me irl, then you realize I have the world's most terminal case of Nonthreatening Dork disease

because meeting me irl means you're in range of my cognitohazardous properties

is that a joke? you don't know.

[knaveofmogadore]

Kfkdks

[trans-leek-cookie]

Truly we herald this as the autism website. And God damn it sure is the website of having autism but not fucking understanding that autism is different in different people. Also for a website that says shit like "ppl will send hate mail but be afraid to make a phone call" I don't think some ppl have actually dealt with a serious argument in a long time cause they cannot handle the most minor shit

[aplpaca]

On one hand plastic fiber is bad for the environment and its production should be regulated imo but also like the way most of the posts talking about the issue are framed is really tiring and doen't sit super well with me bc theyre all "these fabrics are horrible and feel bad and we should only ever use natural fibers and nothing else and in a better society polyester wouldn't exist."

but like. I'm autistic and my main sensory issues are with touch and texture. I can't wear like 98% of clothes sold in stores bc the styles and fabrics set off my sensory issues and make me feel like I have to rip my skin off and break my skull against a wall. And a solid 75-90% of what I'm actually able to wear is polyester bc of how it stretches (for reference, polyester clothing is about 50-60% of the market). Pretty much everything I can wear that's not a generic cotton t shirt is largely polyester, and I have not found any natural fibers that are wearable for me without also incorporating polyester. Like I can honestly make an argument that access to polyester clothing is an accessibility issue for me. And there's no way I'm the only person this applies to.

So like. the framing of "and it's such a shitty bad-feeling fabric" as a reason to limit its use is just. literally not true for a lot of people (even those who don't have sensory issues. If no one thought it was comfortable, it wouldn't sell, my man). and also completely irrelevant to the actually important environmental issues.

also like. With addressing the environmental issues of polyester and other synthetic fibers, it should also come with consideration of like, either finding an environmentally friendly alternative that's *actually* a valid alternative in terms of texture, stretch/behavior, and utility. or, in the absence of an alternative, finding a way to reduce the production of and reliance on polyester without making it impossible for those who can't tolerate other options to find clothing that works for them and doesn't make them feel like they're physically combusting

And "polyester bad shitty fabric and I hate it i love you linen uwu" does neither of those things (also I fucking hate you linen). like. If I could wear 100% natural fiber pants, I would. But I literally can't do that without having a meltdown. So until that issue is addressed, the "just wear natural fibers"/"we need to only use natural fibers" type of clothing sustainability campaigning unfortunately isn't accessible to me and others with similar issues

[pearlymel]

Ooo I know! It's just a little thought

What if capitano and y/n had their first fight in front of their kid?

"I told you I'm fine." You try convincing your ever so worried husband for the nth time.

The thing was, ever since you gave birth to your daughter, it's like he had a leash on you, not in a bad way. Capitano only wants to protect you and his daughter, and knowing his position as the fatui Harbinger, it had become difficult to keep an eye on both of you 24/7. So he trusts that you would tell him everything by the end of the day.

Capitano's protective nature was both endearing and infuriating at times, but you often appreciated his care. Today, however, his overprotective streak was starting to get under your skin.

The argument started as a simple disagreement about a minor decision, but had quickly escalated into a fiercer discussion.

"i want to keep you and our family safe." He said firmly, and he wishes you'd stop there to understand him.

"I only brought her with me to the market so she can learn how to socialize with people, and for her to experience picking treats with me."

"You were fine this time." he retorted, his voice taking on a slightly higher tone. "But what about the next time?"

You grit your teeth together in frustration, because really, this is getting ridiculous. "Maybe if you didn't think so much about it—"

He doesn't even let you finish before he speaks back, "How can I not think about it? Every time you leave this house, every time you're out of my sight, I can't help but worry." He takes a deep breath to calm his nerves, it's rare that he's ever arguing with you, usually when you're upset with eachother, he usually stays quiet.

"You don't understand. My job has shown me the worst of Humanity, the things they're capable of. I just want to keep you safe." Capitano holds on both sides of your arms, "i trust my men enough to accompany you. But i can never be truly sure that you're safe without me." He's upset, you know it by the way his eyebrows wrinkle together.

But you're not convinced just yet, "our daughter wants to go to the park sometimes. Do you know how many times i had to stop myself from refusing her everytime she frowns at me?"

Capitano's expression hardened again at your words, his jaw clenching tightly. "The park is dangerous," he argued back while applying a bit more pressure on your arms, "It's too open, too vulnerable. There are too many unknowns, too much that could potentially harm you and our daughter."

"It's not like we are going to die." You bluntly respond and it makes his eyes widen, even the sentence makes him shiver. He's one and only fear, not seeing you both because of one mistake.

Just as he parted his lips to answer back, a faint sound—a sneeze coming from the corner of the closet. One you recognise so well that it makes you stiffen in your place, and you notice Capitano pressing his lips into a thin line.

You both turn your heads until met by the little girl attempting and failing to hide on the side of the giant closet.

"she's watching," you whisper, glancing back at him and he nods before sliding his hands off you.

"You can come out," he called gently, his voice softer than the previous argument.

He knelt down on one knee as she stepped out from her hiding spot, his eyes wide with innocence and remorse for the argument she had witnessed. "Come here." He encouraged her, his arms opened slightly for her. And she hesitantly walks at first before taking confident steps towards the comfort of her father's embrace.

You join them after, kneeling down at their level and your husband opens his other arm to squeeze you in with them. Capitano's arm wrapped around her small form, holding her close against his chest.

"I'm sorry you saw us arguing," he murmured, "We didn't mean for you to hear all that." You continue softly.

Your daughter's head turned towards you, her eyes filling with tears as she heard your apologies. She looked between you and Capitano, her lower lip trembling slightly. It's like children can mimick their parents current emotions.

"Your mother and I just had a disagreement. We didn't mean to scare you."

"is everything okay?" She whispers quietly while fidgeting with her fingers together, "Yes." You both instantly respond.

her expression is still uncertain. "We promise," you reassured her again before he gives further more reassurance "Everything's okay, angel. Mama and papa are fine. We're not mad at each other. We're just... going to talk things through, okay?"

She then starts slowly nodding, "that's my brave girl." His lips curl upwards as he strokes the strands of her hair.

"and we will take you to the park."

Your daughter's eyes widened, a small gasp of happiness escaping her lips. She looked up at you, her eyes seem to sparkle even.

Meanwhile, Capitano's eyes narrowed at your declaration. He shot you a warning look, silently reminding you of his previous disagreement.

"... With your father of course." You laugh quietly and his shoulders seem to relax, "fine. We will all go."

"yay! Swings!" The little girl grins while excitedly holding her hands together.

"well, aren't you weak for the little angel?" You whisper to your husband, giving him a small smile, already having forgotten about your argument.

Capitano holds you both closer to him, as if relieved to have this little family in his life, the only thing that makes everything more bearable, "she has me wrapped around her little finger, just like her mother."

The link to my short capitano series :p