#no context writer

[songforten]

there's an interesting thing rtd said from the commentary about the "real mom" line:

i get not liking the line but like. it's an intentional mistake and an intentional character choice, and something we'll return to in the future, and that seems like important context to have when talking about the episode.

[kindalikerackham]

I know everyone is so happy and excited to be watching the downfall of niche internet celebrity (and I am, too -- don't get me wrong)

But like. My favorite part of the takedown video? the final half hour. where hbomberguy returned to room temperature, where he got the chance to talk about the brilliant internet soup that we have, and where he talked briefly about the niches that James Somerton's videos actually could have found purchase, had he done them respectfully

And then he explained how to approach these things respectfully: Just ask! If you want to read out an article, ask if it's okay! If you want to create an animation on top of an incredible essay you found, contact the author! If you want to read out sources to create a cohesive point, go ahead: As long as the original creator is on board.

It all comes down to: collaborate respectfully! Share things! Share profit and credit, especially if you grow to a point where it's necessary.

On the small scale, everyone should be allowed to test out and share information. Use the internet for feedback and for conversation! Use it for teaching others! Use it to learn video editing techniques for your anime guys kissing!

But remember: your responsibility grows as you do, and as your audience does. Do the right thing.

[foxx-queen]

so about the choice in act 3. I feel like the writers wanted to do the suicide mission from me2 AND the companion choice from me1. which clashes at its core because the whole point of the me2 mission was that if you did all the companion quests and worked for it, you could keep everyone alive. and I get wanting the shock of having one of the companions die no matter what, but at this point in the game after the obvious set up, it just feels like one of those haHA surprise! moments

then there's the fact that it's between davrin and harding. the black man and the fan favourite from dai. like it feels so stacked against davrin at that point.

I picked davrin first, and then I went back and picked harding, thinking maybe that was the right choice to keep her alive. and here's where the whole choice gets even worse for me, because harding, instead of using her stone magic, the actual thing that would give her an advantage against ghilan'nain, she climbs up to the exact same spot as davrin, and uses her bow. she tries to use arrows against a giant multi-limbed blight enhanced being. it's stupid! of course she dies!

I had expected that if you picked harding, she would use her stone magic, which would distract ghilan'nain because of the history with the titans, giving lucanis enough time to act. it would have worked really well as a continuation of her character arc, and it would tie into her personal quest in a way that would make it clear that the effort we put into doing that was what makes the difference.

but by not doing that and having her die no matter what, it instead feels like it doesn't make sense. davrin, at least, is just a man with a sword. his death here makes sense because he's against impossible odds.

which brings it back to feeling really bad that the choice was between him and harding. because for this sacrifice / loss to make sense, it feels it should be davrin. for this narrative beat to make sense, it should be davrin dying.

it feels like the writers are saying: the correct choice here is davrin. he's the only companion who should die no matter what. to signpost this at the moment you make this choice, we will have the other choice be the fan favourite from dai. because no one will want to risk her potentially dying.

it feels bad. it feels racist. davrin deserved better.

[luna-loveboop]

I find it funny that Wild, who has basically a couple years ish of full life experience, comes up with the most insane theories for everything

He assumed that the only other explanation to Four being able to split in Four was. That he was quadruplets who'd been hiding this whole time???

Also apparently he believed that his wolf companion Twilight in botw was a diety (and felt very uhh shocked upon finding out that he was not)

Malon made things worse, telling him about her aliens theory

What's even FUNNIER is that every time Wild expresses any sort of confusion at magic stuff that he's never seen before, everyone else in the chain acts like it's crazy for him to be weirded out by it

Honestly maybe Wild's the only one with his head on straight, rather than everyone else who are just like 'it's magic bro' like no he's right this is weird

I appreciate this because it's very considerate of the fact that he woke up with no memories not too long ago, so he doesn't have much experience to explain the stuff that's 'normal' for the chain. Plus the explanations he comes up with are funny.

:)

.

Art and comic and adorable character by Jojo @linkeduniverse au :D

[roseworth]

based on a convo with my brother

[t4tmetalsonic]

in light of recent events

[azriaann]

reunion

[abyssal-ilk]

the wrongful villainization of anders after dragon age 2 is directly linked to vivienne's writing as being a staunchly pro-circle character in dragon age inquisition. btw. and i think we must keep this in mind when we talk about her. dragon age inquisition pulled back HARD when it came to the mage/templar war in an effort to completely villainize what anders had done, ensure that no one could find him sympathetic, and tried to 'both sides' the conflict in attempting to present it as more gray and ended up failing in this attempt, at least imo. this centrist, toothless turn in writing that so blatantly points the finger at the mages reflects highly in vivienne's own characterization. and we must keep this in mind when talking about her beliefs and politics.

[nocontextlestat]

i just received the loveliest early new year’s gift from the iwtv writers room. a signed copy of the vampire lestat! i thank each and every single person who work on our beautiful show. and thank you for taking the time to sign my gift! you’re much appreciated! i wish all of you the best of luck on season 3!

[pens-swords-stuff]

It makes me so sad when fanfiction writers come to me for writing advice, and they say something along the lines of "I write fanfic (and I'm trying to get into real writing too)", "I'm a fanfiction writer and I plan to write original fiction someday but now is just not the right time for me", or "I'm not a real writer but I write fanfic"

babes you don't have to justify writing fanfiction to me. you also don't need to tell me your plans to eventually write original fiction to be worthy of asking for writing advice.

Writing original fiction is not inherently better than writing fanfiction. Writing fanfiction is real writing. If you want to write original fiction too, great! If writing fanfiction is all you want to do, that is wonderful as well.

Do what makes you happy and be proud in the knowledge that writing isn't easy, and you're actually doing it!

[janitorpostman]

people who are like "oh no they ruined Caitlyn she is on the bad side now" am I the only one glad that Caitlyn's character took this turn? She was the face of the enforcers to the viewers for such a long time. She was kind, compassionate and diligent, the perfect "good cop".

But that's not a fair representation of the enforcers now, is it.

Vi and Powder were orphaned by enforcers. Kind? No.

When in order to survive, they snuck into Piltover to steal goods to sell them, it was enforcers's job to catch and punish these kids, no questions about what kinda life drove these children to do that asked. Compassionate? No.

When Vi got kidnapped arrested. She was put in prison for 6+ years, I doubt there was ever a due court process to determine whether this child was really guilty and deserved imprisonment or not. Diligent? No.

[mummer]

😦

[welcometogrouchland]

It's mostly the fault of poor editorial practices that B&R is so heavily misaligned continuity-wise w/ the main batman book. But walk with me for a minute:

You are Damian Wayne. You are 14 years old and have had one of the worst years of your life last year. Which is saying a lot.

Your brother, one of the people you were closest to, got shot in the head and forgot who you were. Your best friend went to space for a week and came back 3/4 years older than you, taking away your previously established dynamic and leaving you to have to bond all over again w/ a new one. You may or may not have gone wayyy too far with your new superhero team, who now all hate you, because you fucked up big time*

And worst of all, when you do try to do the right thing, you end up forced to watch Alfred, a father figure to you, the only one at your birthday that year, the person who has been so patient, loving and trusting with you, even when you probably didnt deserve it...die. you watch him die, and feel it's all your fault.

And your dad never corrects you on that last point. So you run away.

First to your mom who can tell something's up with you, she knows you don't give up that easy, you decide not to stay with her because you remembered how actually, neither of your parents are good at communicating with you despite their best efforts, so now you're 14 and flying solo.

And you do fly solo. For a while. Make new friends, new enemies. You think you're better off for it. You've got your best friend and your brother back. They're not around as much. It's fine.

And eventually your dad tells you that it's not your fault that Alfred died. Bit late but it's appreciated. Really. There's a bit of a hiccup where you get possessed by a demon and wage war against your father but after that, all in all, you two are...together again.

You start to think maybe you want to give him another chance, for the two of you to be father and son.

And in a change of pace, it works out! It's going good, mostly. He insists you go to highschool, you resist, feel like he wants you to be something that you're not (wants you to be normal), but eventually you acquiesce for your own reasons. He cheers you on at soccer and nosies around at your fundraising events with the other parents and gives you a stern talking to about your choice of girlfriend. Because he cares.

Except all the while this is going on, your dad is currently having his brain slowly taken over by an evil version of himself that he created and every time you look away he's slowly tearing your family apart (your brothers are just barely keeping it together. The ones who didn't get lobotmized that is Jesus Christ). You keep taking his side in these conflicts, for whatever reason. Maybe because he promised it would be different this time, and it isn't** and you're going to stick with him until he keeps his word for once.

But at the end of the day?

It's like your brother says. You're not the one who saves him. Broadly speaking, you've made things worse and needed others to come save you. And what else is Robin really for? You thought it was about redemption and teamwork but guess you're wrong. It's about saving your self destructive, apparently two-faced and erratic father. And you can't even do that right.

* TT (2016) by Adam Glass is a racist ooc mess, but unfortunately it's still canon so I'm referencing here, though like a lot of works authors clearly wish weren't canon but are, it's been subsequently glossed over. Win? Maybe? Or not?

** again Zdarky's characterization of Damian is so outdated as to be ooc, and considering the way he constantly and explicitly uses it to illustrate Tim's strengths as robin, I'd argue there's. Also implications there. But the batshit insanity of the main batbook compared to B&R rn is crucial for this post, so I'm attempting to justify it. This time..

[fairuzfan]

For Liefer to pull up a Camus quote like this is quite laughable because of how the dynamics mirror each other. In the modern day, we have a status quo where Palestinians continue to be imprisoned and murdered and raped and segregated, denied basic medical care for years on end, all on their own land — while Jewish Israelis (to make distinction from Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, as many liberal zionists love to point out) suffer no consequences for anything, even if they play a direct role in the continued erasure and genocide of Palestinians. So if given a choice between suffering no consequences while benefiting from the status quo (that will not change unless the oppressed take it upon themselves to change their circumstance) and suffering consequences in the form of direct personal loss (with the strategy of forcing things to change by ennacting the same type of violence that the occupied experience on a daily basis onto the occupiers), of course someone who stands to lose nothing from the continuation of the status quo would rather the status quo continue if he has something to lose otherwise. Camus, when he said this quote, was not being righteous or overly sensitive. If anything, it shows how little he understood at the time of saying this quote. Because he didn't understand that an Algerian will suffer in both scenarios even if he (Camus) is safe, and for him to say something like this when people lived generations worth of violence for his and his family's (social) benefit is annoying and just plain offensive. Who is he, as a Frenchman born in occupied Algeria, to say what is worth justice when he only stands to lose anything in one scenario but not the other? He did not experience life as an Algerian native in French occupation. He might have observed it, growing up poor, yes, but he never LIVED it. Liefer might have observed the horror of settler colonialism, but that's nothing like experiencing it firsthand. To be the object of hatred to people who have higher status and more rights than you. It's just not his place as a person with nothing to lose if the status quo continues to comment on anything like this. What's the underlying meaning of this quote? "I'd rather others continue to suffer than myself experiencing suffering once."

I'm not saying Liefer doesn't have a right to mourn whoever. Im not even saying he has a duty to accept the consequences he experiences. But to say something so heartless as "I prefer the safety of my own rather than justice" within the larger, nearly century worth of context, is just insensitive and really belies his true opinions of the liberation of Palestine if he's so comfortable saying this outloud with moral authority in the middle of what is an outright bloodbath of Palestinians across Palestine. It's the timing of saying something like this because to say it now of all times when the entire world ignores or even encourages the violence in Gaza but mourns the death of Israelis? An Algerian born Frenchman and Israeli are going to be mourned on an international scale... but Palestinian and Algerian natives? Their deaths are regarded as facts of life by the rest of the world.

This makes it seem like I hate Camus, but I honestly don't, but I think the way Leifer is holding this quote up at face value and as the height of reason really is annoying. People like to mention Camus' "if" in this case as proof that he's actually saying "this is not real justice so therefore I do not have to accept it," but who is he to say what is or is not justice? The point I'm getting at is the people who benefit from occupation, in this case, Camus and Liefer have no right to determine what is or is not justice, despite their personal beliefs. The occupier has no right to tell the occupied what they should do to get freed. That alone is an arrogance in assertion that is so offending — the assertion that the occupier knows how to free the occupied in what *he* considers justice and the occupied just need to do whatever the occupier tells them to do. Because whether they both like it or not, they still benefit from and are part of the occupying force, and therefore have no real reason to fight the occupation at their own expense — the occupation is a violence that they are alright with inflicting if it means they cannot lose anything or anyone.

Also the idea that liefer indirectly compares himself to Camus is a little funny to me.

[rpmemegraveyard]

PSA: This RP Blog is firmly Anti-AI.

There's been somebody (or some people) using anonymous messages going around certain RPC's threatening people that if they don't become less selective and write with them, they'll use their writing to feed an AI so they can write with that instead.

Not only is this weird and blatantly creepy, as people are allowed to be as selective as they please and threatening someone only looks bad on your end. Even outside of the broad debates about AI, AI generated work has no place in the RPC, a collaborative hobby between artists and writers to engage with another human being.

This blog will not engage with people who openly use AI to generate writing, graphics, or whatever the machine coughs out with stolen work. AI's are well documented to scrape different places for data. You are using stolen work. AI generated content, writing especially, goes against what the RPC stands for. End of story.

[k-0re]

SHITTING CRYING THROWING UP

SHES FUCKIGN GAY GUYS ‼️‼️🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈IM SO FUCKING HAPPY YOU DONT UNDERSTAND

ANOTHER SLAY FOR THE GAYS