#does not help you

[almondcroissantsandink]

i've been hearing some very disconcerting things from my friend jonathan. that is, when i hear from him.

[sunbentshadows]

Hey all, you know how internet searches suck now? When the results are awful, full-of-AI, death-of-the-internet levels of bad?

Start appending date constraints to your searches - "before:2023".

My results have gone from 90% AI bullshit to ~60% usable - which frankly at this point is a huge improvement.

[trans-androgyne]

Genuinely, what happened to “feminism is for everyone”?

That’s the feminism I grew up with: encouraging people to recognize that fighting sexism and restrictive gender roles helps folks of every gender. We’d push back on the idea that feminists hate men, pointing to inclusive feminist literature and how many men are feminists.

Now, there are so many people insisting that the solution to patriarchy is to openly hate and ostracize men no matter what. Why? What is the benefit? It’s certainly not effective in fighting oppressive structures to exclude half the population from your cause on the basis of immutable traits. It may feel cathartic to say horrible things about men and try to punish them for your frustrations with patriarchy. But the only actual effect I see is the increasing right-wing radicalization of young men, who are being told that the left hates them for the way they were born and presented with an abundance of proof that it’s true.

Why are we going back to treating men and women as different species? It doesn’t fix things to say “well women are the good gender and men are the bad one” this time. If you sincerely want to dismantle sexism, you’re going to have to unpack and let go of all sex and gender essentialism—even that which considers women inherently pure and men inherently immoral.

[hinamie]

mentor

[peacheskoo]

Saw these panels the other day and—

LET JASON BE SILLY YOUR HONOR

He knows he won’t no balls

[thruflames]

the ineffable husbands as that meme

[bamsara]

I think that one thing people fail to understand is that unsolicited literary criticism coming from an online stranger who is reading with no knowledge of what the authors intended goal is, is not going to be received the same as say: the authors beta reader or friends who know what the authors intended goal and has the sufficient knowledge and input to help the author reach that desired outcome.

"But I'm only trying to be helpful" How do I know you have the knowledge and literary skill for you to be able to actaully do that when we don't know each other and you are essentially a stranger to me? Are you applying this criticism based out of personal biased experience and desire to see the story or characterization be driven in another direction or tweaked, or do you know the author's intentions for the character? If the story is incomplete, are you basing your criticism of a character on the incomplete narration with only partial information available of them or are you building up a report until the story's completion? Did the author provide you with the information needed to make a fully informed criticism?

Have you discussed with the author what their plans are or are you assuming them based off the narration, especially if the narration is proven or implied to be unreliable or missing key points of the plot? Are you unbiased enough to help them reach their desired outcome for the characters and story regardless of your personal feelings towards the characters/antagonists and setting? Can you handle being told your specific input isn't wanted because you're a reader and/or have no written anything relating to their genre or topic? Do you understand and respect that the author's personal experiences might influence their writing and make it different than how you would have done it personally? Do you understand if an author only wants input from a specific demographic relating to their story?

If it's for fanfiction or other hobby media, are you holding a free hobby to a professional standard? Are you trying to give criticism because you feel like the author has produced 'subpar job performance' of their fic? Are you viewing their work as a personal intimate outlet or something that must conform with mass media? Are you applying rules and guidelines when the fic is shared for simple sharing sake? Is your criticism worded appropriately and focused on the parts where the author has requested input on rather than a general dismissal and or disapproval?

Have you put yourself in a place where you assumed you have the input needed for the story to evolve better, or have you asked what the author needs and what they're having trouble with? Can you handle having your criticism rejected if the author decides their story doesn't need the change and not take it as a personal offense against your character? Are you crossing that boundary because you think you are doing the author a favor? Are you trying to be helpful, or do you just want to be?

I think sometimes when people hear authors go 'please don't give me unsolicited writing advice or criticism' they automatically chalk it up to 'this author doesn't want ANY constructive feedback on their stuff at all' and not "i already have trusted individuals who will help me with my writing goals and- hey i don't know you like that, please stop acting so overly familiar with me'

[blueboyluca]

“When I first heard it, from a dog trainer who knew her behavioral science, it was a stunning moment. I remember where I was standing, what block of Brooklyn’s streets. It was like holding a piece of polished obsidian in the hand, feeling its weight and irreducibility. And its fathomless blackness. Punishment is reinforcing to the punisher. Of course. It fit the science, and it also fit the hidden memories stored in a deeply buried, rusty lockbox inside me. The people who walked down the street arbitrarily compressing their dogs’ tracheas, to which the poor beasts could only submit in uncomprehending misery; the parents who slapped their crying toddlers for the crime of being tired or hungry: These were not aberrantly malevolent villains. They were not doing what they did because they thought it was right, or even because it worked very well. They were simply caught in the same feedback loop in which all behavior is made. Their spasms of delivering small torments relieved their frustration and gave the impression of momentum toward a solution. Most potently, it immediately stopped the behavior. No matter that the effect probably won’t last: the reinforcer—the silence or the cessation of the annoyance—was exquisitely timed. Now. Boy does that feel good.”

— Melissa Holbrook Pierson, The Secret History of Kindness (2015)

[humanityinahandbag]

In my mind, Robin has to tag along on most of Steve's hangouts with Eddie. Eddie thinks it's a SteveandRobin thing but really it's because she's the only line of defense between Eddie and Steve.

She just keeps telling Eddie that he should be grateful. He doesn't get it but whatever.

The actual problem?

If Eddie does anything in the vicinity of Steve that's funny or sweet or, even more dangerous, is really nice and attentive to any random child, Steve suddenly gets a look in his eye that means Casual Hangs Can Include a Marriage License, Right?

On Halloween, helping Steve give out candy, Eddie made a little girls night when he saw she was dressed as a princess and actually bowed and once she and her dad were gone Steve put down the bowl and casually said, "After this we need to swing by City Hall real quick."

Thankfully Robin was there to spray him with a water bottle and throw a full sized Milky Way at his head.

Meanwhile Eddie's standing in the background confused as hell wondering why Steve keeps suggesting bureaucracy as a fun activity and why Robin and Steve are whisper-yelling at once another in the kitchen like it's not even legal and you haven't even asked him out yet! and I'm wooing him, Robin, where's your sense of romance? When you know you know! Did you see how he is with kids? And that's quitter talk honestly Robin, I'll break City Hall's doors down and you can sign the papers it can't be that hard.

[mamaclownhunter]

Ok I lied I have art that was too fun not to share

Listen- I need combative “I hate you bro but I would also die for you” platonic cumplane

I need Shang Quinghua calling Shen Quingqui a hussy and a harlot

I need Shen Quingqui to respond with a full bodied cathartic “bitch” I need them to be venting out frustrations every 2 seconds and ruthlessly gossiping the next. I need them to immediately turn on anyone that talks shit on the other.

Pls for my health.

[yutamayo]

Megan Thee Stallion going through a ridiculous amount of trauma, then flopping face first onto her bed and saying, "I need to find a new anime. Take my fucking mind off this shit." is, I feel one of the most painfully beautiful things I've ever seen another human being do.

[foxstens]

andrew handpicks robin for the foxes and robin becomes the last official member of the monsters and andrew gives robin his bed and robin sits with andrew and neil on the couch and andrew gives robin his knives and nicky leaves robin a key to the columbia house and robin becomes neil's best friend in neil's fifth year and wymack makes robin vice-captain then captain

[tubbytarchia]

so ranchers huh

[lazylittledragon]

ok someone please correct me if i'm wrong but am i weird for thinking those 'audiobooks don't count as reading' posts are ableist as fuck????

[ambrosiagourmet]

This is just a smaller observation that will hopefully someday be part of a larger analysis on Kabru's view of Laios & how Laios impacts him...

But I think it really interesting that Kabru surrenders something for Laios twice, and that these moments are inversions of each other.

The first time, Kabru gives up his life to maintain his control. He changes the course of the entire story with this action, and is willing to die to achieve that. Kabru is (supposedly) entrusting the future to Laios, but he is still very much the primary actor in the overall narrative. He is still the one choosing what the story should be.

The second time, however, Kabru gives up his control to keep hold of something personal and selfish (in the way of dungeon meshi selfishness - it is a good thing to keep this desire. It small piece of what makes him a living creature). He steps aside to let Laios choose the way forward. He surrenders narrative agency for personal agency... not changing the story, but changing himself.

[kimmkitsuragi]

oh my fucking god i don't have any clothesssss