#but why do we who see the harm have no influence? why does the common sense keep failing? there just has to be some other explanation

[feministdragon]

”AI-generated text has been making waves in recent months because ChatGPT (based on GPT3.5) is producing some scarily good output, to the point where it can pass a medical licensing exam. But the AI is only as good as what it is trained on, and it can’t really judge what is materially “true”, only weigh up probabilities based on the vast amounts of data it is given. So what is the training set for GPT3.5?

According to their published paper the data sources and weighting are:

Common Crawl (filtered) - 60% 

WebText2 - 22% 

Books1 - 8% 

Books2 - 8% 

Wikipedia - 3%

Common Crawl is an openly available snapshot of the web, and Wikipedia is self-explanatory. 

Books1 and Books2 are shrouded in mystery, but there is speculation that Books1 may be free books taken from smashwords.com or project Gutenberg. Books2 is likely to be something like libgen or scihub - a repository mainly of academic articles. 

WebText2 on the other hand is a dataset created by scraping upvoted content from Reddit, with reddit upvotes as a proxy for quality. A more thorough analysis of all of these datasets is here, including a breakdown of the top domains used in this Reddit dataset, but sites like Blogspot, Wordpress and Medium are all in the top 25. 

So, you have:

Academia churning out huge amounts of groupthink in gender studies

Journalistic sources like Reuters and the BBC having policies on trans issues that have been influenced by lobbying from organisations like ILGA-Europe and thus skew all coverage in favour of gender identitarian beliefs

Wikipedia content riven with bias in this area because it is wholly dependent on both of the above as reliable sources

Reddit systematically banning subs like /r/gendercritical for “promoting hate”, censoring women’s health subs, and banning users who post content that steps out of line on sex/gender issues

Other sites that are also heavily featured in Reddit - such as Medium - also banning content that steps out of line on sex/gender issuesMaya Forstater @MForstaterOh FFS 🙄🙄🙄 I'm going to need a new website aren't I? 6:39 PM ∙ Feb 9, 20232,175Likes396Retweets

All of this means that is a big chunk of the training data for machine learning is compounding bias upon bias. GPT3.5 then has an extra layer of human training on top of this model, whereby a set of safety mitigations are introduced, to reduce “toxic output generation”. The cumulative effect of groupthink, censorship, and a focus above all on certain conceptions of “identity” across multiple domains does not cancel out by combining all these datasets, but is reinforced.

GPT3.5 is just one of several developing systems, and it is no good simply appealing to the creators to “fix the bias”, as it is their own bias that is leading them to make these selections believing them to be the most rational and neutral ones available. Unless there is a serious effort to get academic literature out there that states the (for many people) blindingly obvious that sex is real, material and important, and that human sexuality is based on sex, then these perspectives will simply be filtered out as not part of the academic consensus. 

Wikipedia will continue to get more biased in this direction as there will be no source available to offer a corrective. AI will continue to learn from Wikipedia, academia, journalistic guidelines, and the porn-addled groupthink of Reddit that JK Rowling is she who must not be named, and crucially that the “anti-gender” and “gender critical” movements are all one big reactionary hate campaign propagated by the religious right.

So when people Google or ask Siri, the AI will give you the one and only one answer: that this is true, and no other respectable viewpoint exists. When social media increasingly relies on AI for content moderation, the content that risks being moderated out of existence will be that deemed unspeakable by all of these biased inputs.

As with the monks who allowed the works of Sappho to be lost to history because she wasn’t important enough to preserve in written form, so knowledge that is not accrued and presented in an acceptable format will not form part of the future. 

This is power, expressed not through conspiracy, but through total thoughtless conformity of views.”

I asked chatgtp if females could be transwomen and it said yes. i then asked how a female would know she was a transwoman and not just a cis woman. it corrected itself and said females could not be transwomen. i asked why not and it said exactly what you think: because they're female. i then asked if only males could be transwomen and it said yes. then i asked so tranwomen are male? and it shat itself. we went in circles then where it was just "sorry, yes" "sorry, no"

fucking nonsense

[shorthaltsjester]

love (loath) this version of ‘empathy’ for characters that exists in fandoms that somehow means taking any articulation of the fact that x character is given responsibility and context by the story and that their poor choices lead to poor outcomes is actually a slight against the character (and implicitly somehow whatever oppressed group which they belong to or are alleged to belong to by sections of fandom)

to be clear this is something i’ve noticed in several fandoms which is why the beginning of this is general language but the pertinent example to my current frustration is liliana temult and the defence of her that lays on a claim that those who enjoy the narrative showing her poor actions leading to poor outcomes for her have somehow failed the empathy test is beyond incomprehensible to me. like even ignoring the very basic level understanding that fiction is a place to experience satisfaction in narratives that we cannot fulfil in non-narrative reality, it’s also like… holy fuck do I not want the kind of empathy that tells me it will all work out no matter what choice I make. it is actually imperative to human life that the choices we make have substance in the outcomes we arrive in, otherwise we would’ve long given up on the notion of free will. and to look at a narrative, particularly one built in the context of a ttrpg. a game notably influenced by the choices that players-as-characters make. and then see sections of an audience find it compelling and enjoyable that a character who has made categorically poor choices that have caused immeasurable harm to others is now dealing with the very obvious face-eating panthers consequences… idk man. if you see that as a lack of empathy i implore you to consider what role empathy is playing in your world.

like. if empathy to you is about comfort and stagnancy and not about growth and community, then sure i can understand how it might not be empathetic in your view to notice patterns and see their obvious outcome and acknowledge that . but as someone who has been in the position of making horrible choices with obvious outcomes, far more essential to my personhood was those who looked at me with careful but critical eyes than those who nearly babyed me into my grave. that’s actually why i love imogen’s choice to insist that liliana make her own choice and then quasi-encouraging her to stay, because it was a clear reminded to liliana that her choices have consequences, and one of those is that the terrible things she’s down in the name of her daughter have led to that daughter not being able to easily trust her.

and i think another thing that’s related that gets misconstrued with liliana (and as always unfortunately many such cases) is that the satisfaction of seeing her absorbed isn’t that it’s retributive harm done or some sort of punishment (at least not for me, skill issue if people in your fandom spaces are that cop-minded but, yknow, what can you expect from the thought-crimes capital of fandom spaces). the satisfaction is in the analogue (that i’ve seen well memed) to the face-eating panthers joke that liliana’s actions which have pushed an agenda that’s depended on the consumption and threat to her child and the children she specifically has aided in placing in danger via her choices, has led to situations where a) she’s ‘burdened’ by her care for imogen and the children (both of which she has played a hand in inviting into the context of danger) b) she is now the person in danger of being consumed after spending weeks simply shrugging off concerns about what might be consumed in the name of ludinus’ Just World™. like it’s not just ‘liliana does bad things, must be punished’ it’s ‘liliana has played a hand in creating a situation that is threatening to many including herself, it is narratively satisfying and engages in Common Narrative Tool: Irony to have that create situation negatively impact her directly.’

to that end that’s why the ‘if you’re like this about liliana you should also be like this about essek’ takes are beyond missing the point (without getting into the horribly built scarecrow that it is, understand that it’s actually undermining decades of feminist’s philosophical and political development to see a critique of a female character and go ‘well actually if she were a man you wouldn’t be saying that’ when it’s a provable fact that people Would be (and have been) saying that if she were a man. so not the feminist slay you think it is). like, as someone who Was just as interested in essek’s story having consequences as I am in liliana’s, there very much WERE consequences for essek that, just like liliana, were well contextualized and suited to the specific choices he made. they are ones that should be obvious even to the most surface read of the campaigns given that essek still appears in disguise years after the end of c2, should also probably be obvious in the rebuilding of relationships essek had to do with mn after they discovered his betrayal. like the notable difference between liliana and essek is not their gender, it’s that we’ve seen the end of essek’s story (in the sense of like. campaign containment, obviously his Story™ is ongoing) and have yet to see liliana’s— it’s entirely possible that liliana does get saved and goes on to repair her relationship with imogen (or goes on and is unable to repair it) or she just dies and part of imogen’s story is dealing with it; all of those are narratively satisfying. what wouldn’t have been satisfying, in the sense that would leave liliana feeling like a non-agent in a story dependent on her agency, is if her role was entirely dictated by imogen’s interest in reconciliation. because sure if you want to look very microscopically the current threat to liliana that exists is 1-to-1 caused by the fact that she’s been helping imogen, but taking seriously the story, the consequences bloom from all the choices that liliana has made leading to ludinus’ decision to trust her however far he does that made liliana’s choice a betrayal and affirmed ludinus’ strength and position so that he can do something like siphon someone’s life force away.

further the ‘why does liliana deserve to be funnelled and relvin gets off easy’ relvin doesn’t get off easy. once again the satisfaction of his narrative is that he did his best and it was insufficient and that cost him a relationship with imogen they both clearly wish for but neither can rectify. the consequence for relvin is that he’s in an empty house that is no longer home to the woman he loved or the daughter he was left to raise alone. surely i don’t need to unpack why i think someone who tried but wasn’t well equipped to raise a daughter with superpowers doesn’t need to evoke as ‘drastic’ consequences in their story as the stated right hand of the campaign’s bbeg for their story to feel complete.

and idk at least for me that’s the salient point; that the consequences that are happening feel like a plausible and suitable conclusion to the story we’ve seen of liliana even if she perishes at ludinus’ hand. it will be sad but it’ll be satisfying, and maybe i should have realized seeing the frequency with which parts of fandom have been campaigning to undo maybe the most weighty and narratively satisfying choices & consequence of vox machina’s story, but it’s truly confounding to me the amount of people treating the presence of any complex and non-traditional happy ending notion in a story set in a world defined by pyrrhic victories. like, empathy for vax isn’t saying he’s the puppet of a god that manipulated him into service, it’s acknowledging that he made a choice that he knew would have consequences and acknowledging that the consequences he demanded with that choice were pretty severe ones. that doesn’t mean i’m watching the end of cr1 seeing the characters destroyed by the loss of vax being like ‘dumbasses, they knew this was coming, vax chose this, these are his consequences’ it means that when i’m crying watching the end of cr1 it’s paired with my deep love for a story that takes seriously the weight of the character’s choices in the determination of their lives. idk man. maybe interrogate how much of your notion of empathy is dependent on individualism to the point of near complete alienation and get back to me on how empathetic it is to look at someone who has caused unarguable pain with their choices and say ‘no no it’s fine you didn’t mean to + you’re a woman :/‘ while the victims of those choices rot in their graves

[thyfleshc0nsumed]

I agree with you about your stances on punishment, and I think it's so important to see that perspective instead of the more common one. I do not want to live in a world with the death penalty or prison.

But I'm very curious how you got to the point where you want your abuser to be happy. Capital H happy. I've never seen that before. I think it's great, and it must've taken a lot of time, and if it's not too personal, I'd like to hear about the process. If not to help myself, to help someone else. I'm personally very very jaded to the whole "forgiveness" mentality (it seems very catholic to me somehow? I forgive you so I'm better than you?) But the way you put it feels different somehow. Sorry for picking your brain, and if it's too personal I totally get it. Thanks for your time.

Thank you for this question.

Hm, it's a tough one. It may be informed by my lack of any singular capital-A Abuser. Certainly, I have had people who were abusive to me longer term (my mother especially), but for the most part it was many dozens of adults in single instances or shorter term situations during my childhood and teenage years that raped or otherwise harmed me. That lack of any singular individual to act as a locus for all the damage may have made it easier for me to come to a point where I wish them well.

I remember being 19, face in my toilet bowl, puking my guts up after downing a fifth of rum in an hour or two. I think it was a Thursday. I understood my mother for the first time. I wanted to stop drinking, and I didn't know why I couldn't.

My roommate at the time slept on a mattress on the floor in the living room. He left his family the day he turned 18 and took the Greyhound across the country to crash with me. We were good friends when he got here, but my negligence and failure to control my drug use ruined that relationship within a few months. He stayed with me for two years. He didn't have other options.

I don't remember those years well at all. Besides various temp jobs, all I did was drink, get fucked up, and make messes I never cleaned up. It was a one bedroom apartment and I had the bedroom, he couldn't really go anywhere. He didn't really know anyone. I was a fucking terror to live with, and a terror he couldn't even really get away from.

And I didn't mean to be that way. I didn't mean to hurt him with my dereliction. But it doesn't matter, y'know, impact is more important than intent. I fucked up bad.

Eventually he left. I was and still am filled with remorse for putting him through what I did. Maybe this perspective is the christian upbringing, maybe it's twelve step bullshit, but often I see my feelings as very self serving. I can justify just about anything, as long as I use enough self pity. But this feeling was different. It was just... remorse, pure and unfiltered. No rationalizations as to how it wasn't really my fault, no equivocations, no blaming outside factors, just acknowledgement that I fucked up and I hurt someone I loved. I was sorry that I had done that.

Humility does not come naturally to me. This was a humbling experience.

I--and everyone I've ever met, everyone who ever harmed me--am a human being. No more, no less. In each of us is potential both to love deeply and to do great harm to others. No one is without both these potentials.

It comes down to this: what I wish for myself, I must wish for all.

Do not mistake me here--this does not neatly translate into a pragmatic political position. For me, this is simply some sort of spirituality, that is to say, how I strive to navigate my life, day at a time, in the world as I find it. This is as small scale as it can get.

I understand that feeling about forgiveness you mention. What I have to say about it probably won't help the christian connotation; I am an atheist and a subjectivist, though obviously culturally evangelical. Maybe it is that last part that influences this next, but I don't feel I have the authority to forgive anyone. Or, in another word, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'

Now, of course, I believe in neither god nor sin, but I do believe in harm. 'Let he who is not capable of such harm cast the first stone,' perhaps. Not all harm is equivalent, certainly, but no one is innately capable or incapable of greater harm than others. The ability to actually do harm is relative to relations to power, no doubt, but a given power relation is not innate.

So yeah I end up back at 'i have no moral high ground over or under anyone else, the forgiveness is neither mine to give nor withhold,' which frankly is a rather christian viewpoint.

There's this idea in Judaism that has stuck with me for the last few years: tikkun olam. To repair the world. What must I do to ensure my part in that repair happens?

There is so little I have control of. The only thing I can change is what I do. If the world around me is hardened and cruel, why must I adopt that cruelty into myself? Will it get me better outcomes in life? Perhaps, perhaps not. I have found it hasn't, but others may find it has. But that's talking about results. And I don't have power over results.

I cannot change the world, cannot repair it alone. But I think I can work to repair myself, and in the process, the smallest portion of the world may be repaired alongside me. Maybe, maybe not. It becomes a matter of faith. Or to put it in a therapeutic framing, it's an 'even if.'

I'll end with this, an old twelve step saying: "resentments are like drinking a bottle of poison and expecting the other person to die."

What is a resentment? Re- as in once more. -sent, as in sentiment. Feeling something once more. It is the reanimated corpse of a feeling, not the feeling itself. It looks like the feeling you know, maybe walks and talks like it too. But it's rotting away. It died long ago. So why should you pretend the corpse is alive? It moves, it rasps, but it's something else now; it only shares a body with the original, nothing else. So maybe it's time to let go, and begin to move forward.

[a-student-out-of-time]

Episode 13 was...something

I have to be real with you all: I don't think I liked this episode very much. And no, it has nothing to do with my theory. This is a lot more serious than that. But hey, we're actually moving forward with the plot, and there's a lot to discuss about this episode

Let's cover the big things in detail, shall we?

Levi the Moral Sociopath

So let's get this out of the way: yeah, I was probably wrong here. I thought maybe Arei had talked to Levi about his secret and they reached a mutual understanding, and that turns out not to have been the case. In ways that NOBODY predicted.

See, we were all under the impression that Levi had moral reasons to kill and that's why he holds "no remorse." Turns out that interpretation was meant literally; as in, Levi doesn't experience remorse. Or compassion. Or empathy.

From the way he describes it, it sounds like Levi has Antisocial Personality Disorder or something similar, something that impedes his sense of empathy. See, there's two types of empathy to consider: Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy.

Cognitive is where you can interpret the emotions of another, while Affective is the ability to share in emotional experiences with others. Low cognitive empathy is what autistic peeps (such as myself) experience, while low affective empathy is what one would associate with sociopaths. They recognize emotions in others and mimic them accordingly, but they're not able to share or really understand them.

Levi...seems to be lacking in both. He has trouble interpreting emotions and he admits he doesn't really feel anything when it comes to the others; their deaths might as well be the deaths of complete strangers on the other side of the world. He murdered three strangers and his own father, yet he barely remembers them because he's moved on since then.

But Levi is not an evil person. Quite to the contrary, he still believes in doing good and helping people, even if he has no emotional attachment to doing so, because it guarantees him a better and easier life than continuously being a delinquent. He may not really be able to feel compassion for others, but he'll still try and help protect them. That's such a rare presentation of a character with low empathy, especially compared to the more common stereotype that they're all serial killers, and I just think that's really neat.

Way more interesting than him being the volatile, crazed murderer so many believed he was.

2. Hu, Veronika and Nico

So while it was largely skimmed over, here's what I did get right: Hu is the one who's attempted suicide three times and Ronnie has engaged in self-harm in the past. The latter didn't share because she decided it would be more interesting to hold onto it, and also because she considers suicide a boring motivation. Concerning.

And as it turns out, we finally discussed the murder method and they managed to draw an important conclusion: Nico's attempted murder of Ace and our current murder do indeed have a connection. That entire scene wasn't just there to happen, I'm still willing to believe that it was due to David's influence and that was the first attempt.

Because, again, the last people we saw with David before the attempted murder were Nico and Hu. And then Nico tries to kill Ace. And then Arei apparently dies in the same method.

Does that mean Nico is the culprit no? No, probably not. As I've said many times, we have to consider that rule that the Blackened doesn't have to be the murderer, they have to be the "most mastermind-y." Nico also really doesn't seem to have any motivations, at least at this point in time. Levi seemed like he did, but as he explained it, it became clear he had even less reasons to do so than we thought. Nico already has very few reasons themself.

This isn't us zeroing in on the culprit, just moving the story along. And boy did we REALLY need that. Now time for the part where Mod complains.

3. The Wheel-Spinning Is Becoming A Real Problem

Now, one thing I've praised DT for in the past is how well it handles foreshadowing. Small details always come back, no matter how seemingly innocuous. It really gives the impression that everything in the story matters in some respect, which is what good stories should do.

...But we've only just NOW started discussing the murder plot, and it took only a couple minutes to say what many of us have been saying: they used the carousel the hang the victim and snap their neck using the trash and the rafters. We're on Episode 13 of this chapter. It took us 5 episodes and 17 months to get here.

That's what's made this trial and this chapter in general so frustrating to me, because most of our time hasn't been spent on what's relevant to the situation at hand. Most of it has been spent on tangents about secrets, or just pointless nonsense and comedy hijinks. And I get it, this is DR, that's to be expected. But at this point? We should have more information than we do, because we only have a handful of episodes to work with and so many things left unexplained.

I harped on the smaller details because time was devoted to them, attention was drawn to them, and I refused to believe they're going to be totally irrelevant to this chapter. Now I worry they are and I have to wonder why time was spent on them this chapter and not the one(s) where they'll actually matter.

There were so many tangents this chapter and so much time spent on discussing them, I want to believe we're building to something for the climax.

"You mean your theory, right?" You may ask.

And I have to be honest, the theory is barely on my mind at this point. My concern isn't just the many, many tangents that don't seem to add anything, but the direction DT seems to be heading.

4. What even was that scene with Arei?

I have...so many questions about David's flashback.

To immediately dispel the obvious question, no, he's not lying here. If we're allowed to see it, that means it's what actually happened. What Arei said in that scene was what really went down. And I'm not really happy about that.

Now, I'll admit, I had a very negative initial reaction to that scene. Arei confronts David about his secret, and it turns out...she's relieved that it's true. My initial reading of that scene was that she was giving up on being a good person because David being a liar has proven it's pointless. She then goes on to say that Eden's probably done something terrible as well, so there's really no such thing as a good person, and it really felt like a cynical, mean-spirited undermining to everything that came before.

But revisiting it, that's not really what happened. TA and Poi pointed out how, no, what she really seems to be saying by "there's no such thing as a good person" is there's no one who's just naturally morally upstanding. And that it's okay, because it means she's not too far gone.

What came off as her giving up really seems to be more of her deciding not to live by some arbitrary standard about who isn't and isn't a good person, because everyone's probably done something they really regret. Her saying Eden's probably done something terrible isn't dismissing all her good efforts, since she still considers her a friend. It's her accepting that labels like "good person" are meaningless, and that it shouldn't stop you from trying to be better.

And she extends a hand to David, hoping that maybe both of them can be better in the future.

And David...doesn't share a word of this with anyone, especially not Eden. That means that scene only exists for the audience's benefit. We're meant to consider what she said for whatever reason, and while my initial interpretation wasn't wrong, I do have concerns about that.

First of all, while this could still work with my theory, this is probably the biggest factor that changes things. At this point, I'm willing to accept there's an 80% chance I'm wrong. The problem is, theory or not, I worry what exactly showing us that scene is meant to suggest. Why did we as the audience need to see it for dramatic irony purposes?

There are only three interpretations that really come to mind, and I have to say, I'm not fond of two of them:

My theory is correct and this is all part of Arei's 4000 IQ play.

My theory is wrong and that scene only exists to twist the knife for our sake, especially if David is the Blackened.

My theory is wrong, David is the rival, and that scene exists to facilitate his future character development.

And that last one is fridging. Like, it's blatant fridging, where a (frankly more interesting) female character dies in order to spur development in a dude. I'm going to be genuinely pissed if that happens, because it renders her entire character arc this chapter pointless and ends it in such poor taste. It's also a very dumb course of action because why would you ever say all this to someone you know is a MANIPULATOR WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE?!

The second one is just poor writing, where it's only there to hurt the audience a little bit more. It's unnecessary and ends things on such a pointlessly bittersweet note. But I'll take that over option 3, because I genuinely don't give a shit about David and I really don't want Arei's death only happen to focus on him more. He doesn't want to change, he believes it's better to sacrifice everyone's lives for some cause he refuses to disclose.

And at this point, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong. Whatever, I expected to be wrong anyway, but that's hardly my biggest concern.

My biggest concern is that DT is resorting to genuinely bad writing decisions and it's going to have a lasting negative effect on the story. I don't understand what other interpretations there could be with that scene, and I really don't like the possibilities we do have. Everything I point to as a basis for my theory could end up being completely pointless to the story, and I have to ask what the point was.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm reading all this in bad faith and something else will happen, and we'll spend the remaining episodes discussing everything I've brought up in detail. I've been burned a lot by stories I've enjoyed going in very poor directions and characters I got invested in bore the brunt of it. Regardless of my theory being true or not, I don't want the same to happen to DT.

And I can see reasons why I may be wrong here: David only really gives a damn about Xander, for instance, and we've yet to really discuss the hows and whys of the murder. And I still wonder why J has been getting so much focus when she was barely in Daily Life.

Overall, while I got really negative here, I hope next proves me wrong and things head in a new direction.

[sepyana]

The most common reason why people think Diavolo's death was undeserved is because other villains who are just as bad him don't get he punishment he does. I do agree with that but I don't think that would make his punishment undeserved, it would just make it disproportionate. So you can think he deserves infinite deaths but still think his punishment unfair.

And I DO believe it's disproportionate, at least when comparing how much harm they caused.

Diavolo's sphere of influence doesn't reach beyond Italy for the most part, compared to Valentine who would have fucked up every country besides USA if Johnny hadn't stopped him. But Valentine dies normally in the end. The only reason he keeps dying is because of his choice. He could die if he wanted to. Johnny says infinite rotation might destroy his soul but we don't know if that's even true.

Dio gets a normal death too. He is just as sadistic as Kira and has caused way more suffering than him but he doesn't get fucking. banished to the shadow realm like Kira.

The only punishment that even compares to the infinite death loop is Kars's. But the way his ability is set up, it's not like there was any other way to defeat him other than sending him to space.

This is just one of many ways to compare their crimes, I didn't even include what happened to Lucy even tho it's a big reason why Valentine is a horrible person for me personally.

There is one thing I didn't mention though. There is a chance that the infinite death loop is not actually infinite. Generally, when stand users die, their stand dies with them. A stand dissapears with their powers. For example: when Risotto is at the brink of death, the needles and the scapels created by Metallica dissapear. What's also true is that Diavolo doesn't get his iron back, even tho that was caused by Metallica too. I'm not sure which one the death loop counts as. Does GER have to keep the death loop active or is it a one time thing? If it's the former, death loop would stop once Giorno dies (assuming GER dies with him). So he would be in the death loop for around 60-80 years. I still think that's the worst fate out of all the other villains' fates but I can definitely see why someone would argue otherwise.

But then again he wouldn't be in this situation to begin with if he wasn't selling drugs to kids. Maybe don't be evil

[the-monkey-ruler]

When and how many times did Sanzang kick Wukong out of the group?

I've talked about this but it was just two times. And agains I do hate that these are seen as such huge examples in the novel as "common" despite being examples of when the group is at its lowest points. These are just 2 arcs out of 33 other arcs that show how the team learns from their mistakes and tries to build each other up rather than a group that is continuously fighting each other. This is a group that continuously grows and changes and as such there are falls backs but this is far from the norm as the rest of the novel shows.

The first was about a year into the journey with White Bone Demon, the first demon they all faced together as a group. We plan to make the group fall apart due to their lack of teamwork worked very well as they have not built a foundation of trust, especially after the Ginseng Fruit arc and the Guanyin Abbey arc. Wukong at this point had killed and threatened more humans than demons in this point in the journey thus making his reliability shaking at best and creating a lot of conflict within the group. Bajie's lack of knowledge of the head-tightening fillet (as it has not been used in front of Bajie or Wujing and thus they doubted its credibility) wanted to get Wukong in trouble but rather it lead to Sanzang telling Wukong to leave as he wouldn't stop killing humans. While Wukong is right in this case that the "humans" he was attacking were a demon he had no proof other than his word and deductive reasoning. He was in the right but in the end, the demon HADN'T done anything yet which made the conflict of "Should people be punished for a crime they hadn't committed yet" comes into play as Sanzang was willing to believe Wukong if not for Bajie's influence but he was still firm that they were not attacked and no harm was done so there was no need to harm others first. Wukong's mind was focused on self-preservation while Sanzang was focused on trusting others and seeing good in everyone.

The second time was at the start of the Six-Eared Macaque arc, about 6 years into the journey, not quite halfway there but close! It was when Wukong and gang were attacked by bandits and while Wukong let Sanzang get away, Sanzang asked Bajie to go back and make sure that Wukong subdued the bandits rather than kill them all. Rather Wukong killed their leader and made them scatter still to Sanzang's dismay as they stopped to bury the bodies and pray for their soul as Wukong mocked the dead. They stopped by a local's house whose son was one of the bandits who came home and planned to kill the gang in revenge for their leader. The gang left that night but the bandits followed them and Wukong thought that this man has been given MORE than enough chances to not start a fight and stop being a disgrace to his family (Wukong even offered to kill their son to end their shame but they said he was their only son and THAT is the only reason they said no) went back despite Sanzang asking Wukong to spare them at least. Wukong rather killed them, beheaded the bandit-son, and brought his head back as a trophy. Sanzang was not happy about this and rather as Bajie said to make this guy's garv (his head at least) Sanzang told Wukong to leave after he STILL hasn't learned not to kill humans. He sends him away where Wukong goes to Guanyin and even she asks why Wukong INSISTS on attacking humans when he has the power otherwise. Guanyin of course conveys this in a better way for Wukong to reflect on his actions while Sanzang cools off and realizes he was acting rashly to give up on Wukong so fast. Then Six Ears shows up and that has to be fast-tracked.

Wukong does start to subdue humans, using clever and other tactics to make them see the error of their ways or having them arrested properly rather than executing them himself. We see this at the Ruler of the Kingdom of Miefa as he shaved the entire kingdom's heads to teach them a lesson and with the bandits in with Squire Kou and his household, freezing them with his magic and trying them up while they were frozen. Wukong has immeasurable magic powers and so much strength that he can easily overcome humans without breaking a sweat it is very clear from the start he does not kill humans because he has to but rather because he really thinks that they deserve to die and he should be the one to kill them. It takes him a long time to learn that empathy and start to show that empathy other to his monkeys and his own party of pilgrims and while these moments are where the group is the most divided this also highlights how the group finally becomes one in mind and goal as for the second half of the journey is more focused on their building of teamwork and trust.

[newtafterdark]

Please release the black mold theory

I'll do my very best to keep this as short and as coheerend as possible - which will be a feat because Dan & I came up with the details of it throughout hours of going through the "Welcome Home" site.

The "Black Mold Theory" focuses on the black-ish growth that is both visible and referenced in one way or the other on several main- and hidden pages... and how it is a harmful entity towards everyone in the Restoration Project, the puppets & everyone who is interacting with "Welcome Home" in-universe, even just the smallest amount.

Now, why do I call it "black mold" specifically? Well, it looks, behaves and causes harm similarly to black mold in real life.

But with a conscious entity behind it.

The current events start with the WHRP crew receiving items that were part of the production of "Welcome Home" - with the first person to handle them remarking that everything "feels wet".

This continues as more people get brought in to help restore or simply file away art, photos, writing, merch, vinyl records... with now even a proper rule being put in place to "not touch any item with bare hands".

While that is a common rule for handling any old and damaged thing you're trying to restore... it is worrysome that the WHRP are very instant on that rule, as it is something the restoration folks would do so anyway.

Then... look at how the exibition looks like on the "Staff Only" page.

(Please go look through it yourself, it is so well-made! https://www.clownillustration.com/staff-only)

The walls are overgrown with a dark substance, looking either red or blue but mostly black, with clear hand prints on the walls and splatters of it on items & WHRP folks' notes-

It's on so many things, even seemingly pouring out of the safe from the inside. A safe that is seemingly holding old production items that were supposed to be given out as random prizes to the exhibition visiors.

And then there's the entity on the ceiling. You know, the blue-ish black mass clinging to the pipes and more notes by the crew, its fuzzy tendrils reaching out to hold itself in place on said pipes.

To observe? To watch as visitors touch the items that looked so prestine in the daylight, only to be shown to be contaminated with something when the lights are off? To now know that people are carrying parts of it our into the real world and into their own homes through having had hands-on contact with all the items present?

That is horrible enough for the people who touched it in real life - but... what if I told you that we have seen this thing in Home as well? Or more like... under Home?

When the "Welcome Home" site first went online, the mass on the Characters Page below Home looked like this. Something in the depths barely aware of the attention on it as we look into the dark abyss it's in.

Now, after the most recent update? Oh, the abyss is looking right back at us. And the black mass around it is growing as well.

The mold is actively spreading from under Wally's house, leaving him to deal with the brunt of its influence on the world he lives in.

Just how it is in the Real World, it is in the World of Welcome Home. As above... so below. Like the spiral imagery both Wally and the WHRP crew keep sketching on little notes.

Now... here is the part where I explain in detail why I call this thing "black mold" -

I've had to deal with the influence of black mold on the human body personally... and too much of this haunting entity reminds me of it.

The way black mold grows out in webs and clusters... how it thrives in wet and dark places - something that 100% happened to the items that the WHRP crew got their hands on, because old things rarely get stored in a way that keeps them from receiving lasting damage, especially water damage-

-and what it does to the human brain. Auditory halucinations (the phone ringing to one of the WHRP folks), visual halucinations & nightmares (perhaps the same member recalling a nightmare (?) of them seeing Wally sit at the end of their bed with a phone that kept ringing), sneezing (it's what the moldy bolders of the "Staff Only" page are named too), coughing, nausea, migraines, troubles with breathing, flat-out fainting... and heavy memory issues.

Everything we have seen the WHRP crew deal with... or, at least the person who is writing the newsletter, who also seems to be the person who opened the parcel that started all this - is not just happening in the Real World either. It is happening in Home too.

Memory issues are something Wally himself is dealing with as well, as we can see from the Guest Book sketches he left us so far. He can't seem to remember his past with everyone else in Home, but at least he still remembers that he loves all of his friends dearly & thinks about them a lot, even if he can't reach them right now.

We can hear the difference in Wally's voice recordings as well. To me, there is such a noticable difference to how he sounds in the actual show recordings (when things were still okay™) compared to the soundbits we have gotten through the bugs.

In those, he sounds like breathing is hard for him and like his focus isn't entirely there. Which is something that can happen if you're spending too much time in an area with high humidity, even without mold. It's exhausting to deal with and I feel so sorry for Wally, because he can't physically leave Home right now.

... now, we could leave the horror at that. This is already a dire situation for everyone in-universe.

But... what if this has happened before? What if the mold has spread so far throughout the country (or even other parts of the world) by speading itself through merchandise? And, remember - handling just a bit of something infected with it makes you forget so much already... would forgetting the entire show existed be so out of place now?

It got so much attention and so much of itself out there in the few years so much merch was produced by the Marlow company...

And look at what we're doing now. The WHRP is powered by people with their hands stained with the mold... and we keep spreading it further and further.

With every sticker we get told on the homepage to put on our own homepages, with every fanart, with every type of creative project related that we share online in so many places...

Meanwhile, Wally and his friend have no control over any of it. What can a being made of fabric, locked away in a dark moldy place do? There is no sunshine to dry the mold out. All they can do is yearn to be let out into the light as they try living and surving as the mold is trying to fully taking hold of them.

(It also is interesting how the Sally's house in Home is the only one with lights still on inside too, while everyone else's is dark. Is symbolism of light enough to keep the mold away at least in the world of Welcome Home?)

In my & Dan's opinion, the black mold is using Wally and the others like the puppets they are, Wally especially, because he is the face of the whole project after all.

Perhaps it is even taking advantage of now unfortunately ongoing thing with "mascot horror" on the internet, by focusing so much on him, but that is admittedly a reach on my part.

A last fun thing (genuinely, I'm having so much fun with these horror theories) to think about in combination with this theory that it is mold that wants to spread through merchendise-

Well, the new Makeship plush would be quite the addition to the storytelling of this, wouldn't you think? :)

This is the best way I can explain Dan's and my theory, though I am sure I might've forgotten smaller bits that lead to us crafting this theory. I don't think I will talk more about it because I rather observe than make up things for "Welcome Home", but theorizing with friends is always fun!

Again, this theory is based only on a few things we have gotten shown through the site so far, there is still so much Clown and their team want to show us, so please do not take this theory too seriously!

I for one will be genuinely excited if I have to throw this theory out the window after the next update! I am simply here to enjoy a beautiful and haunting story made by so many skilled folks! :>

[anti-ao3]

okay, sorry to hammer on the topic of bullying, but the whole "bully with a sad backstory" belief is extremely harmful to victims/survivors.

idk where it started, but firstly, i do think that school shootings influence this belief. everyone always says that school shooters have been bullied and/or abused at home, which might be true sometimes. but that isn't the root of the problem. the root is white supremacy. it's lack of gun control. because if all victims of bullying became school shooters, then where are all the marginalized groups, like black kids, disabled kids, women, lgbt+ kids etc.? if anything, though, they would probably be demonized. since most school shooters are white, then you'll see them being treated like poor little guys on the internet. i'm talking mainly about the usa, but here in brazil, where i live, we also have school shootings and we learn that the shooters were part of neonazi communities online.

fiction does reinforce this, to the dickheads who think "fiction doesn't affect reality". there are too many bully characters to possibly mention here. but most of them have something in common, they're abused and/or neglected at home, or maybe they're also bullied. but trust me, that is very uncommon in real life. i only had ONE bully who was also mistreated. all my other bullies were privileged, rich kids that just loved making my existence unbearable. and again, many of the victims of bullying i knew, including myself, weren't white, or they were disabled and/or fat. before anyone says it, yes, i'm very aware that bullies learn from their parents and families. but that doesn't always mean they're ABUSED, too. if anything, their families probably encourage their kids being an asshole to minorities.

the reason i'm saying all of this is that bullying is not treated seriously at all. i've been dismissed and ignored several times when i tried to open up about my bullying, including to my school and actual therapists. ppl often tell me it wasn't "that bad" or i'm exaggerating, and it was just "kids being kids" or "boys being boys". or worse, they'll tell me that i have to acknowledge that maybe my bullies/abusers had a tragic backstory too, and i have to forgive them. which is absolute bullshit.

bullying ruined my life. on top of my abusive household, i've become insecure, terrified of social interactions, of group assignments, of presentations, parties and so on. i'm always expecting everyone to hate me. i keep thinking everyone is looking at me and laughing at me behind my back. basically, i've become paranoid. i can't trust anyone. and that probably explains why i seriously hate bully characters and the way society treats bullies overall. i actually remember making a post about bullying on tumblr, and some idiot tried to make it about the bullies and how "they're victims, too".

maybe i'm being too unfair or too harsh because of my personal experience, but i feel very unwelcome in fandoms where bully characters are beloved. nobody thinks my trauma with bullying is valid. society tells me it's not actually abusive or traumatic. no matter how many lives we lose to bullying, nobody cares. and to be reminded of that when i want to interact with a media i like is so daunting.

[rin-and-jade]

would y'all happen to know how to handle a persecutor-gatekeeper? our system has one who can force dormancy & switches and trying to find resources on what to do about them hasn't been fruitful. it's not a regular persecutor situation due to their executive control over other alters, and even if it were they're too emotionally closed off to attempt the "appeal to emotions" route. any advice?

(this is rather lengthy but i promise everything i wrote here is important,, as surface leveled, short answers will not cover everything i want to convey)

I'd consider myself a gatekeeper with persecutive tendencies (its the better way to say keeper + persc role for my comfy-ness) and anger issues/holder. As a logical keeper (ISTJ) and ex persc who is also not easily appealed by my own people's 'puppy eyes' and begs, though can be influenced by rage,, I feel qualified enough to tell you my story from how i came up with persecution, what i did in that moment of life, and how i overcame and changed my overall view which renders myself as docile, where i pursuit functionality and etc which made me open this blog for the better of others.

Back then i was a really rude person, though not necessarily causing harm to anyone,, till something sets off the fuse and made me go wrecking some havoc (for short, i've seen how badly my people are doing/coping and as i was never exposed to healthy ways to fix things back then, i resorted to this in order to 'fix' things). I'd hog all the time i had outside at front and never let any friends see my other people, they can beg me how many times they want to and i never let it happen but if i was being nice i'd only give a whole day and back at it again. It's as easy as not doing what i say to push someone to dormancy, creating an environment where there are no such thing as mercy until i achieve the 'ideal' results that's wanted.. or is that what i actually wanted?

Slowly yet surely i begin to notice that my strict and forceful actions did not grow any results,, on this section i don't remember much but got the gist where this is the time i actually tried to loosen the 'ropes' i invincibly tied to my people because i was curious enough if that will generate results. It did. I also shunned down anything they say to me but at that same time i actually took it to consideration. Things are going smoothly because i decided to stop adding unnecessary pressure and ACTUALLY telling what i find troubling and talking it out instead of just bashing their head without a word, not even telling what they did wrong. It took me months to regain everyone's trust because i did an unbelieveable amount of damage that was irreversible,, thankfully i was forgiven. From that period on i dedicate myself to unlearn some nasty ways of doing things, then you can guess the rest from here.

IN CONCLUSION.. If using emotional ways don't work, then opt for logical reasoning. We all have something we care about that contributes to why someone does this or that, the good or bad way. The last thing i wanted to be is being wrong so factual proofs and basic common sense (that punishment doesn't breed better results, things like that) might help. There's one thing that could change me sooner at the past, possibly by asking "why are you doing this?" because i was villainized right off the bat (which was fair) even though i had good intentions. I think showing friendlier ways to achieve the same thing would help putting a stop to the current actions too,, but i want to emphasize that your keeper can't be forced and need to make it's own decision, pushing it is also counterintuitive. This work requires you (your people) and the keeper in need of change, this does not work in one direction/way/party.

If you feel like needing extra help/guidance and get in touch with me to do this step by step, come to the DMs and i'll be happy to provide you with anything, i assume you can take matters in your own hands as i don't want to meddle unless consented, hope it was a-ok day for you!

- j

[confused-catastrophe]

Is a straight actor playing a queer character queer baiting?

Quick summary for those who dont wanna read allat: No, I do not think it is queer baiting for a straight actor to play queer characters.

If you do want to read allat, please proceed.

Queer Baiting is a method used to attract queer audiences with the suggestion or implication of LGBTAQ+ relationships/ characters, while de facto, no LGBTAQ+ relationships and/or characters were featured or mentioned at all.

There is another phenomenon in the media industry called "queer catching", similar to queer baiting but instead when the queer audience catches on to the bait, the creators of the show will make a minor side character queer and usually only mention it once in an interview, leaving it ambiguous to the audience.

Both of these cause harm towards the LGBTAQ+ community, as explained by Dr. Hill, "Queerbaiting can also influence and perpetuate the stigma surrounding the LGBTQ+ community, as it prevents society as a whole from seeing "LGBTQ people as just normal, everyday folks operating in a culture where they can live happy, healthy, normal lives out in the open."

Now onto the main point of this "rant": Is queer baiting queer baiting if the actor playing the queer character is straight?

After some extensive research on the topic, I have concluded that, no. A straight actor playing a queer character is not queer baiting. However, casting a straight actor to play a queer character can limit the ability to accurately represent LGBTAQ+ people in the media. Despite this, we as a community shouldnt bash the actor, but rather the producers behind the show, because at the end of the day, the responsibilty of queer inaccuracy in the show falls with the producers. Plus, there have shows with accuratetly portrayed and like able queer characters played by straight actors, Cate Blanchet, Colin Firth, and Jake Gyllenhaal are examples of this. I do think there are more deeper issues within this discussion, including; the purposeful exclusion of queer actors, negative depictions of queer relationships and characters, and, as usual, patriarchal, conservative, and right wing beliefs infecting and limiting the ability to show queer characters in the media (e.g., Hays Code).

When discussing queer baiting in media, The Heart stopper situation is almost always (inevitably) involved, so let's talk about it.

Kit Conner played Nick Nelson, a bisexual character in the show Heartstopper. One of the main purposes of the show was to depict Nick's journey to discovering who he is with his boyfriend, Charlie Spring. After the show was released, the discussion of Kit's sexuality was immediately up to debate. This debate quickly propelled into Kit coming out as bisexual on twitter to avoid more controversy. Obviously this is an extremely fucked up thing to do, especially with the fact the Conner is only 20 as of today. Forcing a young adult into coming out because you dislike the idea of straight actors playing good queer characters is extremely counterintuitive and hypocritical. I also think this because one of the only reasons this debate sparked attention was because of stereotypes and assumptions common within the bisexual community. I feel like this also contributes to bisexual erasure-rooted in biphobia-. Not only that, I feel like creating a strict system in which queer people can only play queer actors does more harm than good. It limits the ability for queer people to be casted for characters that aren't gay but have deeper meaning behind them, not to say queer characters don't have a message deeper than just their sexuality. Do not twist my words. Im saying subjecting aspiring queer actors to only one specific type of character based on their sexuality is requisite of this same arbitrary stigma-that queer people are only good at playing queer characters-. Although I understand why people are uncomfortable with straight actors playing popular queer characters and why people are often quick to speculate on the actors actual sexuality, we need to realize that the way people identify sexually and romantically, is none of your business. That same thing applies to anything within the LGBTAQ+ Community. If you think otherwise, you are a homophobic, good for nothing piece of shit with no fundamental understanding of privacy, and human etiquette.

A last thought I have on this topic is how the term "queer baiting" has been misinterpreted and incorrectly defined over the years to describe hetero actors playing queer characters. Not only is it incredibly hurtful towards these actors but also towards the LGBTAQ+ Community...

Citations:

•https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2023/02/13queerbaiting-heartstopper-kit-connor/

•https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/11why-heartstopper-star-kit-connor-was-forced-to-come-out-as-bisexual

•https://www.health.com/mind-body/lgbtq-healthqueerbaiting#:~:text=Queerbaiting%20can%20also%20influence%20and,Hill.

•https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wikiHays_Code

•https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphobia

•https:www.health.commind-bodylgbtq-healthbi-erasure#:~:text=Defining%20Bi%20Erasure,Downplaying%20bisexuality%20as%20a%20phase

[memegetter]

[ID: A youngish person with light skin is addressing the camera from inside their home, gesticulating with one hand. They're wearing a black t-shirt and glasses, and have a white streak in the front of their black hair. They look a bit tired and upset. During the video, screenshots of news headlines are overlaid to underline the point they're making at the time.]

Transcript under cut:

During this time when we are all becoming increasingly aware of just how much propaganda we're being fed on a daily basis, can you please, (please, please, please), try to also internalise the idea that maybe, just maybe, your understanding of COVID has been similarly influenced.

Maybe there is a reason why we have a disease that is currently the third leading cause of death that has been shown to damage every single organ system in the body, that's been shown to have long term effects in 1 in 10 infections.

That's not 1 in 10 people, that's 1 in 10 infections, so if you're on your third, the math is mathing. Maybe there is a reason why we can have all of that going on at once. Meanwhile, word on the street, and word according to a lot of common media, is that it's either over or it's mild.

It's ripping through communities enough to still be the third leading cause of death and people are surprised to get it. Level of misinformation out there is immense and none of us are immune to it.

It's really tempting to believe this stuff because it's fucking everywhere and it's nicer to believe. None of us want to still be in this mess. That's the thing about propaganda. Often all it has to do is cast doubt.

Our governments were incredibly clear about the fact that they opened up for the health of the economy, not for the health of the people. If we all had access to the data that demonstrated the long term impacts of this virus, that should have caused fucking riots.

But everyone was exhausted and traumatised and lonely and the idea that we could all go back to our normal lives was a really nice one. So being told that it was mild despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary was enough.

It's enough to just doubt whether it really is that bad and that's extremely easy to do because for a lot of people it does feel mild, but this is the thing. You can't feel organ damage. You can't feel vascular damage. You can't feel immune system damage. So if you can't feel them, what would we see if they were happening?

What would see is more people getting more sick, more frequently and staying sick longer would see more heart events, more strokes would see more diabetes, more cancers, and if you look at the data on a health scale, that is exactly what we are now seeing.

The level of misinformation is so fucking wild. I distinctly remember them saying that this disease couldn't hurt kids. And now children are one of the fastest growing groups experiencing post COVID damage.

And here's the kicker, right? None of what I'm saying, according to the actual empirically reviewed data, is in any way controversial, but this feels terrifying to say, because I know that none of you want to hear this.

And so if I have a request for you today, just take a little bit of time to sit with the fact that the data that we have is so different from the lives that we are being encouraged to lead. Sit with your gut and look around you. It is not normal for this many people to be coughing in fucking late November.

Everyone is sick. Can you remember a time pre-pandemic when it was like this? Is it possible that maybe the people who are ignoring climate collapse and who are telling you that genocide that you can witness with your own eyes isn't happening - maybe they wouldn't be super honest with you about a disease that would stop the economy if they actually paid attention to it?

And I know the buck stops with this being a public health failure. I know this is ultimately not your fault. But we have been made into the vessels via which we enact harm upon one another and I'm sick of watching it.

It feels genuinely sanity destroying to have had my shit rocked so severely and to have had my life be made so small by this disease and to have people who care about me not do anything to stop it from happening to them, to stop them from doing this to other people.

So I guess if I'm asking you one thing today, it is just to take a moment to sit in the discomfort of the fact that we have all internalised propaganda.

We have been asked to take on appealing, but ultimately untrue ideas about the biggest fucking global ongoing event of our lifetimes in order to make us prioritise keeping the economy alive instead of each other.

[dailykafka]

Like your blog and how you expose the humanity of such a well-known writer. On the other hand, I kinda fear that this focus on the relatability of Kafka’s diaries somewhat takes attention away from his actual literary work, that it contributes to the common trend on social media where people only engage with literature to see themselves and are not interested in empathising with other perspectives or learning about the literary craft or historical context behind the words.

Do you ever think about that?

First, thank you. Second, prepare for a little essay😃.

I completely understand what you mean and I have thought about how my blog shapes people's perception of Franz Kafka (and generally how blogs dedicated to real people could shape other's perception about these people) but at the same time my blog has no educational purpose. What I mean by this is that I don't claim that my blog is here to popularize Franz Kafka (though I recognize my impact), that is not why I created the blog and it should not be taken as such.

There has definitely been an increased interest in Franz Kafka and with that, there have also been more people who misunderstand him, his writing, etc. But I don't think just because I run a blog about a certain individual (who happens to be popular at this time), I somehow have a responsibility to give as precise portrayal of that individual as possible. I think people should understand that the internet is not a place to fully learn something (especially on platforms that don't claim to be educational). If people like Kafka they should also go out of their way and actually read what he writes and not reduce him to "that relatable man".

But at the same time I think we are looking at this a bit more seriously than it needs to be - authors have been popular for their letters/diaries for ages, authors have been misinterpreted and misunderstood for ages (and have been popular as a result of misinterpretation e.g. Camus/Nietzsche) but that does not mean the "core" of the author is lost.

I also feel sad sometimes when I see how people treat Kafka but I realize that this is not something that can harm his image. There have always been people who have engaged with certain things at surface level (this does not mean we should judge them. people engage with some things more deeply and some - less, it's normal) and Kafka is not an exception.

It might seem that Kafka's works are "sidelined" compared to his diaries but I have known Kafka through his works (literally discovered his diaries after I got more interested in him/his life) and people (maybe not gen z yet but older ones) have known him for his works. He is a writer first and "some dude with a diary" second.

I think what is happening now (on tumblr or on tiktok) is a consequence of a larger trend on social media - rising anti-intellectualism and superficial relationships with works of literature. Kafka's "newfound" fame just coincided with this trend and it makes us feel as if Kafka is being "rebranded" to be more relatable. But in all this situation, once again, it is important to realize that while you can be influenced by given information on the internet, you shouldn't base your judgment only on that information and you should learn more with actual books/articles etc.

I try as much as possible to show "authentic" Kafka but still how I (or anyone else) might portray Kafka should not be taken at face value. At the end people should do their own research.

[theres-whump-in-that-nebula]

I hate researching occult and spiritual stuff in general because everywhere you look for information is rife with people into it as a gimmick who use fancy words but do not explain what the fancy words mean, or how anyone arrived at the conclusions they seem to be jumping to; and it’s also rife with people trying to scam the very soul out of their viewers.

“There is a book banned by the church which says there are three types of humans………” and then he never says the name of the book in the short. When you scroll in the comments, the first one pinned is his own comment: a promotional code to buy a book HE WROTE. Like wow you’re not even trying to be convincing at this point. Shut the fuck up and get a real job💀💀

I don’t want your pseudoscientific, pseudospiritual, phrenological, appropriated nonsense; I want diagrams and manuals. I want source material. I want to talk to a ghost. I want to behold the other side and see if it’s even there.

Okay so one thing I have consistently seen in videos of people documenting paranormal activity is the use of an EMF detector, because whatever it is we perceive as ghosts or spirits causes spikes in electromagnetic activity. I am inclined to believe this more than most things I see on the internet because it is so consistent; so now I have an EMF detector. Groovy. Now onto protection…

“Black tourmaline absorbs EMF radiation; so wearing this bracelet will protect you from harmful electromagnetic frequencies which some people find helpful during ghost hunting.” Ooookayyy so by that logic, if I wear a lead bracelet to a dental X-ray, the lead bracelet will draw the harmful rays away from my chest and into my wrist? That’s not how physics works. Radiation is a field, which is the reason why you wear a whole lead bib when you get your teeth X-rayed. Lead absorbs radiation, but it does not draw it away; it is a shield. Furthermore, dentists do not make bibs out of black tourmaline for people to wear while they look at their teeth.

Ergo: If you want to protect yourself from the ghostly hand of influence in the form of EMF radiation — assuming EMF radiation spikes aren’t a pop culture gimmick common to alleged haunted houses, created by cooking ramen noodles in a microwave in a hidden room — the best course of action would be to wear a lead vest to your seances; because

1.) lead is PROVEN to block radiation, and 2.) a vest of lead would block this radiation from meddling with your vital organs.

Why isn’t anyone advocating for those looking to the occult to wear lead vests during seances for protection? Because they’re ugly and don’t match the Witchy Aesthetick™ companies appropriated and are now profiting off of far and wide. A lead vest is not as marketable or “natural” as black tourmaline. And let’s be honest, many many people who get into the occult nowadays are doing it to look cool or be cool because they feel as if they are boring, with gigantic holes in their self-esteem, and don’t know how else to fill them in any other way than playing into trends deemed “edgy” and “in-style” and making it their whole personality. (If you are not one of these people; then I am not talking about you. I am talking about other people. For the love of god I’m not pissing on the poor. Please.)

Also, the majority of the online witch space is filled with white people messing with other people’s cultural practices as a sort of game; which obviously impacts the credibility of the information these witches present, as well as other, worse things which I don’t even need to mention… New Age spirituality is to the cultures its practices were taken from as Taco Bell is to genuine Mexican cuisine. It can be nice and may very well work as intended but it lacks the depth and reasoning of the original.

Not to say new-age is all bad; it isn’t. There are just so many people who don’t care what something is, where it came from, or why they’re using it because “witchy” and “hippie” are hot on the market these days. It’s frustrating. That’s all.

[dm-clockwork-dragon]

All due respect, but you’re pretty wrong about a few things.

1. That’s not what death of the author means. It’s a common misconception, but death of the author is a literary analysis technique in opposition to “word of god”. An example of death of the author would be “word of god from JRR Tolkien says lord of the rings wasn’t inspired by his time at war, but analysis of events and his life shows a lot of similarities and influences on it, and interpreting the series as about his time in the war is a valid approach despite what he says”. It’s not ignoring things about the author or deciding the author has no involvement or influence.

2. JK Rowling does actually continue to make royalties off of Harry Potter stuff.

3. Buying the game is funding her, and she uses the money to fund transphobic politics that has done real harm to transgender people in at least the UK, and funding efforts to keep Scotland and Ireland colonized.

4. Reclaiming queer and fag and dyke isn’t the same as continuing to fund JK Rowling. You can’t “reclaim” a franchise. Queer, fag, dyke, etc don’t make anyone money. They’re words being weaponized emotionally, and their impact is as strong as we let it be. Harry Potter is a brand and a franchise with PR and accountants and corporations at the helm. It’s not something that can be “reclaimed” and to say so indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what reclaiming is at all. Harry Potter itself has some cruel caricatures in it, yes, but the real problem is the actual funding of JK Rowling and those she works with that agree with her, or just care about money more than the people she’s hurting.

I understand your intentions here, and why people get defensive about enjoying HP. But I hope you’ll genuinely listen to me and think about what I’ve said, because you really have said a lot of incorrect things here. JK Rowling has and will continue to do genuine, tangible harm to our community.

And this isn’t in the body of your post, but it’s something I’d like to add. This game isn’t the Harry Potter you grew up with. While Harry Potter itself had aspects of antisemitic caricatures, it wasn’t the main focus. This game is made of and about blood libel. I adored the books when I was a kid. This game is nothing like them. If you remove it from the discourse about JKR, you can still recognize that it’s a game using the setting and name of Harry Potter to sell a story about oppressing Jewish-coded slaves, but it’s okay, because they’re EVIL slaves. It has the superficial trappings of Harry Potter, but it will not have what you loved about the books.

Have a good day.

So I do very much appreciate you trying to be civil about this, and I will certainly give some consideration to your points, But could you provide me with some sources for the information here? I don't mean this to come off as dismissive, but I'm not keen to take the word of an anonymous person on the internet over my own education in literature, finance and economics. Or to reverse my views on cancel culture and the spread of undeserved hate towards people who are just trying to enjoy a nostalgic part of their childhood, just because a very opinionated person online has ignored my examples of how other creators have had their IP’s reclaimed by fans. Especially when your argument to the contrary would suggest that the queen community has not battled lawmakers, lawyers, PR and accountants for years in reclaiming much of the language we use today, let alone all of the other times we have fought against systematic abuse and won. I don’t feel like “its hard” makes for a very valid argument for why we should not only avoid trying, but demonize any of our own who do. And again... I actually have no love for the books? I grew out of them, and looking back, very much recognize that they are hot trash, and not something I care about. I'm also not defending this game, and have no intention of buying or supporting it. I just... really don't like seeing communities start wars within themselves when there are real, actively malicious enemies waiting at the doorstep. Witchhunts and the persecution of heretics are something the 15th century catholic church was known for. I’d rather not see the trend continue

[impishtubist]

Enjoy an essay on the subject of why Remus and Sirius suspected each other. I think that it was Order missions that Remus was off doing (although presumably not the werewolf missions like he does in the second war since I have to imagine at least one person would say that him going in twice is a bad idea) that made Sirius distrust him. I also think this influenced James and Lily, for them to go along with the Switch idea. Because no matter what we all choose to interpret as why James and Lily also didn’t tell Remus of the switch, we can’t deny that with their son’s life on the line, they kept him out of the loop which I feel is particularly damning regarding how much they themselves trusted Remus. One of Remus’s flaws is the inability to not listen to Dumbledore (he’s similar to Hagrid in that regard, both of them feel like there’s this debt they can never repay—allowing Remus to attend Hogwarts and letting Hagrid be groundskeeper after Myrtle died—and they are utterly loyal to him as a result), so of Dumbledore told him the mission had to be absolutely secret, well, nobody will ever be told what Remus is doing. I think he’d have tried to lie, but his friends knew him a bit too well for that and knew he was lying and couldn’t think of a single reason for him to not tell them what he’s actually doing unless it was for Voldemort.

Now, my personal interpretation for why Remus (and likely others, for everyone Sirius knew to accept Sirius as the traitor) distrusted Sirius was the result of two things: Sirius’s family and Sirius being viciously protective and ruthless when it came to the Potters’ safety. It’s apparently common knowledge his younger brother was a Death Eater, for both Sirius and Remus to “know” he was killed for trying to defect and we know per Avery and Mulciber what the school aged Death Eaters (something which I think included a big chunk of Sirius’s relatives and childhood friends) liked to do, meaning everyone saw how people raised like Sirius tended to turn out and there was a little corner of Remus’s mind wondering just how Sirius turned out so different (here, we see Sirius’s own reluctance to talk about his family—shown in the way he only mentions Bellatrix when Harry sees her name on the tapestry and that whole scene—damn him, as Remus didn’t know a lot about his childhood. I think the only person who could breach those walls Sirius had was James, so James knew the nitty gritty details of Sirius’s life while nobody else really did), and then, started wondering if he really was different at all. Now, we move onto reason two (and this is something that I think plays a role in everyone saying “of course, Sirius Black is absolutely capable of blowing an entire street up and killing 13 people), and that is that Sirius is willing to do whatever he feels necessary to ensure the Potters survive. I think he used darker magic than the rest of the Order, having been taught it young and feeling the rest of the Order is hobbling itself by refusing to do anything toeing the line (and Voldemort was winning the war by this point so Sirius wouldn’t be wrong if he felt this way), because dammit, Sirius is going to make sure James and Lily and Harry make it out alive (and I adore the idea of him using the spells his family taught him to protect rather than simply harm). I also think there were multiple efforts to recruit Sirius. I think he basically told them all to go fuck themselves, but some people did notice the Death Eaters approaching him to talk. I lost my train of thought however, so we’re leaving it off here.

Essay time on Imp's blog!

Yeah, it makes way more sense that Remus was off doing missions and being super secretive about it, and that's why Sirius suspected him. It's not about him being a werewolf at all.

[fresiants]

The Lestrange couple is actually interesting.

Bellatrix does come from an extremely messed up family. Not only do they behead their slaves after they become too old to carry tea and stuff their heads and hang them on the wall, you know, normal stuff. Then, according to the Black family tree, her father was only 13 when she was born. So you know, clearly healthy stuff. Also, if Filch is to be believed, hanging students days on end by the thumbs was common practice not too long ago from the 90s, and torture instruments are manufactured with enough regularity (I don't believe those things would have survived Fred and George, nor the Marauders).

In his forth year, Arthur was punished badly enough so that he has scars he keeps well into adulthood despite the wonders of magical medicine. (Most scars do fade away after a decade or so, which makes me think the whipping was either extreme or their was some Black Magic involved) for being out of his dorm.

We don't know much about Rodolphus, but his father or uncle was one of the first associates of Tom Riddle, and he would also in all likely hood attended school to taste this kind of extreme discipline that left Arthur scared for life. Also, according to Sirius they were part of a gang of bullies.

So is it any surprise that Voldemort was able to recruit followers who if not violent themselves, where quite desensitized to violence. So, even if Voldemort is extremely sadistic and does not treat his followers well to put it mildly, to people like Bellatrix, it must have seemed not that bad and normal. Also, their hatred for Muggleborn might have also mixed with envy. During the second half of the XXth century, corporal punishment was on the decline, and frankly, six of the best cannot in honesty be compared to the strappado. I would imagine members of these pureblood Slytherin gang of bullies viciously mocking muggleborn students and their inability to keep up with what they would perceive as normal things. It would probably like humiliation through babying, escorting them to "safety" while constantly mocking them:

"Twenty and already dizzy ? How adorable ! Let me take pictures of you. See, we don't hate muggles, we find them so wee!" (proceed to wrap them in frilly stuff before taking pictures).

Is this a response to my post about Severus and Lily? If it isn't, please ignore this whole post lol.

I agree that in the wizarding world, these acts were perceived as normal, as evidenced by the prevalence of bullying and violence that went unpunished and ignored everyone, even by the teachers who were responsible for safeguarding them. Regardless of the gravity of the situation, students were only ever subjected to detention as a form of discipline.

But we must consider that Severus hated the Marauders for bullying him and always tried to persuade Lily to stay away from them for this specific reason. It's understandable that, given his character, he might find it difficult to empathize with others. However, it's still a shame that he couldn't see the similarity between the Marauders and Mulciber's group. If you see your housemate bullying other kids, shouldn't it remind you of your own bullies? I think this situation was also heavily influenced by the house rivalries at Hogwarts.

Severus probably harbored a "serve them right" attitude when Mulciber bullied Mary McDonald, as if attacking a Gryffindor student was a form of avenging his own bullying. This is a childish mindset that many victims adopt, seeking to hurt their bullies by wishing harm on those around them. You may have heard people say things like "I hope your child experiences bullying in the future, then you'll know how it feels" or "I hope your daughter gets cheated on, so you'll feel the pain you caused others." It's the same type of mindset where you can't hurt the bully, so you hope someone they care about gets hurt instead. As someone who was once a victim of bullying, i totally understand why some people might think this way, but I refuse to defend this behaviour as it is wrong in my book.

Hence, I truly believe that even if Severus hadn't called Lily 'Mudblood', their friendship wouldn't have lasted long. Severus cherished Lily because she was the first person to ever show him kindness, and he loved her deeply to the point that he thought she was the only friend he needed. He only cared about his and Lily's well-being (as an individual) He couldn't care less about other Muggle-borns and this didn't sit well with Lily.

Things were already looking bad for Severus. But here's where things got worse. Lily Evans... the only person Severus ever care about... failed to comprehend why Severus refused to let her to associate with the Marauders. In fact, she felt offended by it.

Snape’s whole face contorted and he spluttered, “Saved? Saved? You think he was playing the hero? He was saving his neck and his friends’ too! You’re not going to— I won’t let you— ”

“Let me? Let me?”

Lily’s bright green eyes were slits. Snape backtracked at once.

But we also shouldn't ignore the fact that Severus called everyone(muggleborns) aside from Lily 'Mudblood', which mean she had probably tolerated him a lot, hoping that he would finally get a grip and realised what he was doing was wrong.

But of course, that never happened. Doesn't really help that his only friend wasn't very understanding herself and already had feelings for James even when he was bullying Severus, which was confirmed by JK Rowling herself in an interview. (I mean... why would Severus feel the need to remind Lily that James wasn't a good lad if she wasn't interested in him?)

Interviewer: How did they get together? She hated James, from what we’ve seen.

JKR: Did she really? You’re a woman, you know what I’m saying. [Laughter.]

She was referring to the stereotype that women are attracted to 'bad boys' *puke*