#poorly remembered paraphrase

[rue-the-witch]

"Blah, blah. I'm gonna eat a girl out on her period. Blah, blah."

I dunno Peter Steele or whatever

(Look up Wolf Moon lyrics I'm too tired to explain)

[evanpeterswifeyyy]

Phantom of The Opera rant because I just watched the full movie of my favorite stage play and it’s on my mind.

Warning: controversial/ unpopular fandom opinion. Key word: OPINION. Excessive yapping—I’m pulling up recipets yall. This is actually an essay. Despite that, I will definitely make some spelling mistakes, explain things poorly or repeat points. I am human, thanks.

I’m not sure if this is controversial or not, but I don’t fully understand how people like Christine and the Phantom together. At a basic level, I can understand why:

- It has dark romance themes/ tropes (totally different topic I could rant about)

-It’s taboo and edgy, kinda raw

-Many actors who play the Phantom are conventionally attractive

-Christine and the Phantom usually have more on-screen chemsitry (chemistry does not always mean romantic, please be mindful of that)

So, I wanted to write a small little essay picking apart why I believe The Phantom and Christine are a toxic and abusive pairing.

This is not an attack on anyone who pairs them together, nor do I honestly care that much if you do, I just don’t see many in-depth second opinions about this.

With this knowledge, proceed at your own discretion and be respectful:

I want to start off with the main reasons why I believe the Phantom and Christine should NOT be paired together. To preface, I have only seen TWO pieces of media related to the POT. I will be using those as my evidence, as they are also the most popular reditions of the play that I’m sure most of you will know and reference yourself.

Those being:

The 25th Anniversary stage play with Sierra Boggess and Ramin Karimloo

The Phantom of the Opera screenplay starring Emmy Rossum

To begin, in the screenplay Christine has been shown to have known the Phantom since she was a child. Throughout multiple reditions, Christine has always been portrayed as in her late teens to early 20’s during the main events of the play and the Phantom is depicted somewhere around his 40’s-50’s. That in it of itself is creepy.

I understand that age gaps are a big topic in fandoms and media, and I would have little problem with this age gap if it weren’t for the fact that it is implied many times that he has been training her to sing since her father died. To get to Christine’s level in the opera, that would take years. Even if she already had vocal talent. Meaning that she was a minor when he met her.

That would be grooming. Literally.

To add onto this point, I want to paraphrase and quote some of the things the Phantom says to/ about Christine.

“Sing for me, my angel of music”

“Since I first heard you sing. I have needed you with me, to serve me, to sing. For my music”

Now, anyone can interpret these lyrics differently, but how I interpret them is:

He is using Christine for her voice. He has groomed her (in multiple ways) and polished her voice to sing so he can use her for his music. I mean, he literally kills and threatens people who do not allow Christine to be the star of every play once the main events happen.

He calls her his “angel of music”. Which might be endearing, if you remember the fact that he has been grooming her since she was a child to “serve” him. This is an objectifying name. He is saying this in contrast with Christine’s angel of music, which is a literal angel that her father promised to send her. To Christine, her angel of music is her father’s love and legacy. For The Phantom, it is his magnum opus: Christine.

Speaking of Christine and her “Angel of Music”. This leads me to my next point:

The Phantom pretends to be Christine’s father/ angel of music to manipulate and trick her.

During both graveyard scenes (the musical and the screenplay) Christine says:

“Angel or father, friend or phantom?”

The way I interpret this:

It is not a coincidence the comparison. [The split/ play on words]

Angel or friend?

Father or phantom?

Christine believes the angel to either be her father, or an entity he sent. When the Phantom says to her in the next moment:

“Have you forgotten your angel?”

That is him admitting he knows that Christine has believed he was the angel of music/ her father teaching and guiding her this whole time. And in the same song he is manipulating her, putting back on the facade of being her “angel of music” and leading her back to him—where Raoul has to snap her out of it.

Raoul has to literally tell Christine that the Phantom is not her father in both the play and the screenplay. Further solidifying the fact that she believes that the Phantom is her father or a being sent by him.

If we take that into fact, that means that the whole time up until at least now, she has only seen the Phantom as a fatherly figure.

Now, let’s talk about the final confrontation.

I’m already hearing the “but she says she loves him at the end!” Or “then why did she kiss him?!”

Glad you asked!

The final confrontation is the most blatant showcase of the Phantom’s delusion and abuse.

First, lets it back to the fact that the Phantom is shown to be a murderer. Someone who kills for their own benefit without remorse. Christine says it herself, and there are multiple scenes where she speaks of the Phantom and is afraid. She believes the Phantom may even kill her if she does not comply with his rules.

Quotes/ Paraphrases here (from the broadway and movie scripts):

“(to RAOUL, pleading)

Raoul, I'm frightened -

don't make me do this

Raoul, it scares me -

don't put me through this

ordeal by fire

he'll take me, I know

we'll be parted for ever

he won't let me go” (Christine talking about doing the Don Juan play)

“RAOUL

When will that be?

It's an engagement,

not a crime!” (Raoul fighting with Christine about hiding their engagement. It’s implied here that Christine is hiding their engagement from the Phantom because she knows it will upset him.)

The most damning piece of evidence:

“CHRISTINE

Twisted every way,

what answer can I give?

Am I to risk my life,

to win the chance to live?

Can I betray the man

who once inspired my voice?

Do I become his prey?

Do I have any choice?

He kills without a thought,

he murders all that's good

I know I can't refuse

and yet, I wish I could?

Oh God - if I agree,

what horrors wait for me

in this, the Phantom's opera?” (Christine speaks about the Phantom after being told she is forced to play in Don Juan)

With this information, we know that the Phantom kills for selfish reasons. He will do anything to get what he wants. Regardless of even the feelings of Christine.

Back to confrontation, Christine in the movie is shown to have the Phantom force her to put on the wedding dress. She clearly does not want to do it, but feels threatened by him to do so.

The whole time she is uncomfortable. Then, he captures Raoul.

He gives her an incentive and she only has two choices:

-Admit she loves him to free Raoul

-Deny she loves him and kill Raoul

Now, if you know anything about incentives and abusive people. This is the most toxic thing to ever do. It is completely self-serving and both Christine and Raoul know that he is going to kill him regardless and is pressuring her to lie and say she loves him.

Quotes/ Paraphrases:

“CHRISTINE:

Farewell my fallen idol and false friend

We had such hopes, and now those hopes are shattered!

PHANTOM:

Too late for turning back, too late for prayers and useless pity!

RAOUL:

Say you love him and my life is over

PHANTOM:

All hope of cries for help; no point in fighting!

RAOUL/PHANTOM:

For either way you choose, he has to win/you cannot win!”

The Phantom is not doing this out of love. No one who loves someone would threaten to kill the person they love/ choose instead of them. The Phantom up until this point is possesive, infatuated and obsessed wih Christine. There are no signs of real love from him. It is all self serving and an idolized image of Christine.

When Christine shows him a bit of kindness during this moment I believe she is being genuine, but I also believe she’s only doing it to save herself.

Christine feels pity for the Phantom because she realizes during this encounter that he has been traumatized and isolated so bad that he feels he has to torture others to get what he wants. That he truly believes that no one but Christine will love him, and therefore he must make sure at all costs that he will get what he wants. Christine, being empathetic, tells the Phantom that she hears him.

I don’t think Christine kissing the Phantom is out of love. Not in a romantic sense. Christine kisses the Phantom not only to save her and Raoul’s lives, but also because she is feeling pity for the Phantom. He has never felt the physical touch of another person as he says in his own words, so she kisses him.

This obviously works, and she sets him free.

Lets talk about the musical because there’s a scene after this where she returns while the Phantom is wallowing after freeing them.

I still don’t think Christine returns because she loves the Phantom. Up until now, she has no reason to except for the fact that she finally humanizes him. No, I think that this scene just further solidifies that she yes, she loves the Phantom. But not in a romantic sense. From the beginning she has been shown to have a fatherly view of the Phantom, and I believe that paired with the memories of her father and the years they spent—she returns because she continues to see her father in him and feels pity for him. She wants to help the Phantom be happy because he brought her a piece of her father. Possibly she even still believes that he was in fact sent by her father to teach her music and take care of her in some way.

This is my interpretation of the scene.

A point I see brought up A LOT when it comes to justifying Christine’s romance with The Phantom is:

“Well, Raoul is abusive in the second rendition and her and the Phantom have an affair.”

Have you ever seen Cinderella 2? Have you ever heard of it? There are 3 Cinderella movies.

But we all refer to the first one because A. It’s the most popular and a classic B. The other movies sold poorly because they were bad and nobody asked for them.

My point here is: so is Love Never Dies.

I said what I fucking said. Cry about it.

But lets imagine for a moment if we took Love Never Dies as part of the main canon:

I don’t think Christine should be with Raoul either.

Another point I see a lot is: “They just meet again and instantly get engaged”

Which yes, that’s definitely a point of contention.

But considering just The Phantom Of the Opera in this case, they have known each other since they were kids. And considering the time period the events are set in, this is actually not that surprising or uncommon and makes sense. Even if Christine didn’t love Raoul, given her position, it would have been beneficial for her to get married. And it might as well be someone she’s known for a long time.

But if you were to ask me, without being forced to choose between Raoul or the Phantom, I would tell you that I believe that she should be with neither.

Both are abusive towards Christine. One just more literally stated than the other.

Edit because I forgot to add this crucial point:

The Phantom of the Opera was NOT a story created by Andrew Lloyd Webber (the man who created the musical adaptation and scores)

It is a story from 1910 by french author Gaston Leroux. If we take that context into consideration, (as someone who has not yet read the book) the movie (based on the musical) and the musical are not accurate representations of the original material or intention.

There were definitely creative liberties taken or misinterpretations. Especially with Love Never Dies.

There were black and white movies made of the story as well. The Phantom is specifically portrayed as a real life monster. This image of him being a handsome man with a scarred face and tragic past only happened in the 20th century.

I believe that is the conclusion of this rant/ essay. I know this probably won’t get a lot of reach, but if you read this whole thing (whether you agree or not), thanks a lot. Truly.

Hopefully this will add more discussion to the topic and give people a more open minded view on the topic, and realize the real nature of the Phantom. There are so many ways to interpret and art piece, and time and time again, this is what I see in it. So to see people romanticize their relationship always gives me the ick (ofc, you do you boo, I can’t stop you). So I’m tired of arguing individually with people, so I might as well have a full reference to come back to.

I’m sure there’s more evidence and points I could have made, but this is long enough. Regardless, I hope you can take away something from this, and if you want to possibly hear about any more of my controversial opinions—leave a note so I know! <3

[heytetsu]

give me a knb episode and I’ll give an analysis on it .. anyways, let’s talk about the brilliant way mayuzumi was handled in the anime. and how protective aomine is of kuroko.

mayuzumi wasn’t revealed until the end of season 3, no one knew a thing. neither did the audience. I enjoy the way it was handled by making mayuzumi appear in the background. Never getting a good look on his face. before we weren’t supposed to. he was a shadow.

he wasn’t supposed to be there.

I also liked the way he wasn’t a copy of Kuroko. long and instead of short. impulsive instead of calm.

the way aomine immediately clocked onto mayuzumi. the way he recognized what he was. how he rested for Kuroko. showing the bond he has for Kuroko.

which leads me To my next thought.

after their first match, with the loose of seirin, we see aomine and his team in the locker rooms. they spoke poorly About Kuroko, calling him useless, or a joke. or pathetic. ( paraphrasing, can’t remember rn. ) aomine doesn’t let that slide. no.

because even with all the shit he says, he has care for Kuroko. basically meaning that he’s the only one who can talk shit about him. he’s his former teammate after all.

then moving to the bathroom scene of the team against hanamiya’s.

the wrath of Kuroko, while calm typically. he’s able to keep his emotions in. yet his wrath was incurred.

staring the words: “it’s not about whether or not I think you can win, but you managed to piss of tetsu. that’s why.”

paraphrasing but god I love the bathroom scene.

Kuroko’s the one who told the scales with his quickly thinking. he knows things. He isn’t a weak player. even if people may believe that.

then to after kises game against haizaki.

where he brings kuroko’s up and says to stay away from kise AND kuroko. always thinking abt his ex bf i swear.

then how he cries when he realizes that it was always Kuroko who held the key to the true zone .. but he had given him up and left him to soon to realize.

[deerydear]

A few months ago... I was watching this video:

My thoughts kind of keep coming back to it.

Something that stands out to me is the sort of focus on 'internal perception': "Do you feel like you were bullied?" "Did you feel ostracized?" "Did you feel singled out?" Sort of a focus on negative emotions.

I think there's a process of rationalization which can effect memory. If I focused my attention in a particular way, I might be able to remember some occasions "in which other people were trying (or intending) to be rude assholes according to their own metric", but I was not affected by it. I have my own metric. I have my own senses. I'm a full person.

In my childhood I was more likely to become a bully than to 'be bullied'.

So I don't remember the sorts of behaviours that she describes.

My family were also atheist immigrants, so I already felt like most people were of an alien species (lol, christians). (I like to try to be impartial and inoffensive on my blog... but I thought it was funny. Sorry.) Culture has such a strong impact. If two people disagree on the fundamental organization and primacy of reality... then...?

So I really just avoided most people. I actually had assumed that devout christianity was more common than it really was in the area I grew up. I remember feeling afraid to be 'found out' to be atheist. There is a minority of crazy, nutso hardcore 'christians' who might wanna persecute someone for being areligious, or of a different religion. I really just did not want to draw untoward attention to my family. I got used to lying in certain situations (like impressing my friends' parents).

The 'stimming' thing is interesting. because I do often do stuff like that. hahaha, Sometimes the people around me will start copying my behaviour!

(the following comic is read right-to-left)

I feel kinship with birds and dogs. I often imagine the emotions of the individuals I grew up with, when I'm expressing myself. I think I had more dog friends than human friends... (statistically). but I did have many other human friends. I didn't lack it. Again... Atheist in a religious society. Why bother with people who will get angry over strange stuff?

I guess the tone I want to convey in my response is: "I don't feel judged, I'm judging you. (or not... Everything is situational.)"

She discusses 'being bothered by sounds, smells, senses', but... in my evaluation of myself, I have no baseline for an outside perspective, and I honestly do not want to take other people's opinions seriously. Different people can have wildly different opinions of what is normal, even just depending on how their family raised them. Different cultures have differing standards of polite behaviour. Something that would be considered incredibly rude in Japan, might be nothing to balk at in the USA. (Something still might be rude, but normal.)

I also just have a strong oppositional knee-jerk reaction to anyone attempting to give me any kind of label. (maybe not any kind...)

"Oh, you're not one of THOSE people, right?"

See also: discussion the "autistic kill-switch".

"Feelings like this make feel like I’m not actually autistic sometimes, and I was just a poorly-socialized, privileged brat when I was younger."

I feel the idea of an autism diagnosis is very... controversial. I remember reading a blog post written by a mother whose son could be considered autistic, but her psychiatrist said that he would be unable to give him a formal diagnosis because: "the diagnostic criteria are based on behaviours that someone begins to show when they have become traumatized by being socially ostracized". I'm paraphrasing. He went on to say: "if your son were showing these specific signs of being traumatized, I would be able to give him a formal diagnosis [which may be used to seek formal accomodations, such as in classes, etc.], but since he is happy and healthy, and you are raising him well, he does not meet the official metric for an autism diagnosis."

I remember a discussion which mentioned a family of people who could have been diagnosed 'autistic', but none of them had been. They all saw eachother as normal, (or perhaps that they had their own quirks as a family). No one was ostracized from the family for being 'weird' due to "[what some people refer to as ]'autistic behaviours'."

Aghhhhhhh...

Then I also have more questions.

Excerpt from an old blog post:

She was assuming I was autistic because I was "acting shy." She had no idea of my psychological makeup, my life in the past… anything. Just, "you're shy". Maybe it isn't "autism". Maybe it's the same thing that happens to dogs if they aren't properly socialized with other dogs and people, in their childhoods. They become 'gitchy'. They aren't sure how to react, because they lack experience in certain situations. Some dogs become aggressive. They may see their owner as 'the only safe person', and everyone else as a possible threat. I grew up being raised with puppies. I remember my mom telling me about this --- why it was so important to take the dogs out for walks, to meet new people and animals. Maybe it is possible to change. Maybe it's "getting used to a set of circumstances", which can be adjusted. Can old dogs learn new tricks? Is that up to you? I just... really don't like this idea of "innateness".

I had been doing a little bit of research into this question, a few months ago...

I feel like I don't have an objective perspective on myself. but who does. Anyone? Anyone at all?

Should I get my blood tested for melancholy, next?

I still think this is a very interesting article in reference to cultural ideas of psychological affliction. I feel like the principle might have bearing on the discussion of an autism diagnosis...

plus, the sort of 'effect of the researcher' upon the subject studied.

Does a researcher hold bias? Which way does it tend to go? Can a researcher influence the people? Such as through asking leading questions... or segregating an autistic child into a different type of school experience from the majority of other children. That experience itself can also influence a child in ways that I don't think should be ignored. I wouldn't say "cultural bias causes all behaviour that might be labelled autistic", probably not... but in some discussions of ASD behaviour, I notice that some diagnosed people's self-image and understanding of "their behaviour vs. other people's" has been deeply influenced by what other people have told them, especially doctors and other authority figures. I think that 'making a strong statement whenever one doesn't know something for certain' may cause problems down the line. I think that's the type of mistake that some doctors have made, in the past. "YOU'RE different, YOU'RE wrong, and no one is like you. You're different from all the other children." I imagine what that does to a vulnerable child's self-perception. I hear it in some people's narration.

I don't like to share many details about my family, but I never thought I was weird. I thought the outside world was weird... or I embraced being seen as weird, because I thought it was funny, pseudo-'humble', subversive... etc.

I still don't think I consider myself autistic, but I feel like my knee-jerk reaction is lessening. It's becoming more of a neutral subject.

"Would the man who works as the detective L personally consider himself to be autistic?"

Oooh, an incindiary question...

I think yelyahnaloj had said something on the subject like: "I want to understand the underlying mechanisms and themes of this, not to separate reality into discrete boxes". I would concur. I want to understand human psychology, how people think, and why we do certain things, and how we benefit and harm ourselves and eachother.

Paraphrase again. I remember the sentiment but not the exact words! xD

[raytorosaurus]

Hey this isn’t a criticism of what you said at all—I’m just wondering if you’d mind elaborating! What do you mean when you say bad behavior at dunes shows reflects badly in frank/mcr? Like, should Frank be shutting these people down by speaking up about it, it were you thinking more like fans should know better, or check themselves/each other more? Again, just curious, you have so many good things to say and I wanna make sure I understand. :)

oh sorry i should have been clearer, it's got nothing to do with frank himself! i mean behaviour of the fans reflecting on an artist from an outsider's perspective, whether that's fair or not. e.g. at the thursday shows i went to that anthony green opened at he was like "wow you guys have been so attentive and welcoming to me as an opener, it makes sense that fans of this band and these guys would be so respectful and sweet to me, it's a credit to them" (paraphrased). it's a pretty common sentiment, and on the flipside if ppl see fans of a band acting entitled or disrespectful they're gonna associate that with the band. e.g. there was some pretty shitty behaviour at the front of the queue of one of the my chem shows i went to this tour, and the venue staff there are all gonna remember that - and they're not gonna remember those individuals, they're gonna remember "the mcr fans". if a band opened for my chem and people talked through their set, were on their phones, etc etc, that would make my chem look bad by extension bc it's their fans showing poor show etiquette. so what i meant by that was if ppl can't be embarrassed on their own behalf they could at least be embarrassed on frank's/mcr's behalf, does that make sense? like mcr has historically not been taken seriously because of its fanbase for a number of reasons and some of those were classic misogyny and homophobia etc, but in this specific context where people are showing up to hardcore shows and behaving kind of poorly (obviously it's a minority of people!) it makes it hard to blame the other people there for rolling their eyes at mcr yk? i don't think there's anything frank could do/say that wouldn't make him sound like an ungrateful asshole to the fanbase that made him rich sjdjfjfk, and again it's not that huge a deal in the end, it's just something that bothers me as a fellow fan yk

[lemonade-of-gods]

random ramblings

I have an exam tomorrow on literary criticism (structuralism, bakhtin and all that jazz) so I was playing around with my old otps as an exercise while studying huzzah, and the more I look back on it, the MORE nonsensical all the ship wars are looking

Because its one thing to not prefer a ship and its ANOTHER to just go delulu and say that the canon ship should not have happened because *insert nonsensical galaxy brain level argument here*, and yes I am talking about sasusaku, renruki and nalu

Like Sasusaku has always been the obvious choice, starting from the moment Sasuke went “who did this to you” in his rage to when Sakura calmed him down with a back hug. Sakura got taken a peg down after Sasuke scolded her for treating Naruto poorly. Sasuke THANKED Sakura before knocking her out and placing her on the bench and leaving. Sasuke began attacking Sakura proper AFTER she tried to kill him. There is a dynamic between them, there is ACTION in a way you don’t see with either Naruto or Karin. I could go on and on, but my point is, Narusaku or even Sasukarin was honestly never going to happen. If these two had to end up with anyone, it would be with each other. This is a classic ETL couple folks!! 

For Sakura particularly, Naruto represents an innocent and childish life (Naruto you’re a fine guy no lie, Hinata was suited better for you) and Sasuke is the dangerous option that forces her to sexually mature and grow up (remember, we’re focusing on structure here not the execution, whatever your opinions may be), so Kishi wasn’t wrong when he said that pairing Naruto and Sakura would have been unfair (paraphrased a bit). Naruto isn’t losing out much either, a gentle girl like Hinata who has loved him from the start (you see the pattern of first love coming up here?) was always his better match in the long run.

You can achieve the same effect with FTL as well, if we look at Renruki and NaLu. Kubo gave the angst of separation and pining with Renji and Rukia and the metaphor of “the stray dog barking at the moon”, which was not exactly a thing with Ichigo and Rukia. An argument can be made about “black sun and white moon”, but since Orihime gave the push to Ichigo for going to save Rukia, it didn’t quite feel strong. But in the interests of staying fair, I’ll say that we did have two options: bickering friends or, “we used to be friends but now we’re enemies”.

THEN came the nail in the coffin.  

Legit all bets were off the SECOND Ichigo tossed Rukia into Renji’s arms and basically gave his blessing/aashirvad to run away and basically saying ”Jaa Rukia, jee le apni zindagi” (Translation: go Rukia, live your own life, this one’s inspired by DDLJ hehehe). Like I would not give away the woman I am in love with to my romantic rival and tell him to TAKE HER AWAY. HELLO. THIS IS GOING AGAINST THE NARRATIVE BEHAVIOUR. THIS IS GIVING SECOND LEAD SYNDROME BEHAVIOUR. ICHI HAS BECOME THE KULJEET TO RENJI’S RAJ (Or more accurately Simran’s dad lmao.)

So what’s the point in saying all this, you may ask. Well, now that I’ve said it I’ll make my argument: STRUCTURE and NARRATIVE decides whether the author’s writing decisions were poor and not the reader’s preferences. And I’ve taken a neutral stance earlier on the last ship in my list but now I’m committing: NaLu HAS to be canon. 

I had said earlier that NaLi could potentially be canon, again for the sake of fairness, but looking at it now I’m changing my opinion. Natsu and Lisanna were set up to interact more but Mashima changed his mind halfway through and just didn’t do much with Lisanna. You can see how great his writing decisions are there, but the technicalities are to be reserved for another post, another day. If I am to try getting more fancy about it, Lisanna represents Natsu’s childhood while Lucy represents a mature and adult future.

Point is that by process of elimination, Natsu and Lucy have to end up with each other. Or remain as friends. Considering Natsu said to Lucy “we’ll be together forever”, these two will be a thing at some point in the future, unless Mashima pulls a HIMYM or something (TOUCHWOOD, even though the guy did canonize Gruvia, Gajevy and Jerza...)

[oldmanyellsatclouds]

I started a commonplace book in I think 2020? And then didn’t actually use it much because of how poor my executive functioning has been. I’m trying to get back into it now, despite the still poor executive functioning.

I’m bringing this up now because my commonplace book is a hilariously apt example of the principle I mentioned in my table of contents artwork (can’t remember the specific wording so I’m paraphrasing myself here): why do you immediately fail after deciding the parameters for success? (Poorly paraphrased… )

The fact that it’s phrased as a question makes sense in the specific context of the artwork but sounds a bit weird out of context when treating it as a principle. The idea isn’t that I actually have an answer for why, just that it’s a notable trend where, when trying to set up a structure or rules by which to do something/live, I’ll immediate fail/break structure/abandon the rules. Like new year’s resolution diets.

Back to the perfect illustration of this principle in my commonplace. If you’re into commonplacing, you’ll know that it’s basically just a collection/reference book of quotes and information that’s interesting and important to you, specifically, but an important part of it is figuring out a system to organize that information so you’re able to refer back to the information you collect. When you’re writing things down by hand in a bound notebook like I am, it’s kind of hard to physically organize your notes unless you have multiple books or separate the book in sections (which requires you to guess at how much space each topic will require). I didn’t want to do that, so at that point index pages, table of contents, and visual organizing principles become important.

So at the very start of my commonplace book I decided my key organizing principles. I’d write quotes (the majority of the text in the book) in green, my words (comments, paraphrasing, organizational headers etc.) in purple, and underline and make key information pop with red.

I would have table of contents at the beginning, organized by category, like an index.

(eg: topic A: p. 1-10, 23-27, 45/ Topic B: p. 11-17, 28-31, 55-67 / Etc.)

Then I would have a bibliography at the end, which is just listing the articles (or other media) collected in the book in order of appearance

So what did I do, immediately after writing down these principles? I wrote the second page all in red instead of green, and I wrote (right under “in order of appearance”) the bibliographical information of the second article I included in my book.

It’s just an absolute picture perfect example of setting up parameters and immediately stomping all over them. Not on purpose mind you. Anyways…. I guess that’s one way to unconsciously fight my perfectionist tendencies. Nothing like making glaring mistakes right off the bat to make you less afraid of making mistakes going forward.

This has probably been a long and tedious read if anyone did bother to read, but I find it hilarious.

[adultswim2021]

Aqua Teen Hunger Force #82: "Chick Magnet" | April 19, 2009 - 11:45PM | S07E04

Chick Magnet is funny enough, so I respect it. In this one, Aqua Cup gets a big giant “Chick Magnet” which is a golden tiger or dog or something’s head doing a big scream, and it says CHICK MAGNET right on there. When you plug it in it radiates lavender energy out around it’s general vicinity. Over time we realize that it doesn’t attract chicks, but instead it pulls the Aqua Teens’ feminine sides to the surface and causes them to act all woman-like. To paraphrase Yoko Ono, Chick Magnet is the Shake Like Me of the world.

Sorry. Anyway: they start to suspect this is what’s happening, so they eventually throw the thing out. It comes with a mysterious screw that they’ve been not using on it, and the end is that Carl tightens it and actually does literally become a chick magnet, with a big horde of babes all flying towards it and sticking to it.

Hey! Didn’t Rick and Morty sorta do this at one point? I mean, I’m sure the idea of a literal “chick magnet” being in media wasn’t invented with ATHF. I remember a promo for USA Network’s Weird Science using actual physical “Babe Magnets” in a promo for the show. For some reason, this promo has not left my memory banks since it aired. I don’t even remember what my father’s voice sounds like anymore. He’s still alive, I just don’t like talking to him. 

This one’s real simple, but I thought it was funny enough that I sorta chalked it up as “basically good” episode of the show. Some of them lines were good. The stuff involving the literature the Chick Magnet was shipped with was fun. Hey, there were references to the movie! Two! I don’t feel like typing out what they were. Hey, look at the time.

Squidbillies - Volume Two DVD (April 21, 2009)

Volume Two, SEASON THREE of Squidbillies came out on dang old DVD. I deleted my digital copy of it today, actually. Fancy that! I didn’t feel like renaming all the files. You know? That’s a thing I’m doing, organizing files. I just decided “I do not want to have these on my computer just because some of the episodes have commentary.” I am positive that god will provide me with these episodes when I need them again. And I don’t even believe in Squidbillies Volume Two on DVD.

MAIL BAG

This might be my worst blog entry yet, so let's also answer some MAIL BAGs poorly:

I think you said you didn't like this sketch but I think my MVP sketch for season 4 is the Cinco Urinal Shower. Just the right level of gross without crossing the line, the "bottle juice fellow" guy being the custodian, the random hip hop beat that pops in and out, and its always great when someone pleads for help from Jon Mugar and he just stands there. It's all good, bro. Worst goes to JJ Pepper, kangaroos is ran-dumb shit.

I remember not liking the urinal shower thing the first time I saw it, but I've come around on it. You are right, Jon Mugar looking too spooked to help is an underrated motif of the Tim and Eric universe. You are also right about JJ Pepper being bad

Can you explain what you mean by “UCBness”?

Being younger and funnier than me : (

[the-judicial-assistants-notebook]

Massive TGAA/DGS spoilers ahead!!

You, know, I've never really thought about them keeping the original twist (I was very shocked when they even implied it HAHA), and I get why you like it, but I think I'm ultimately glad they didn't do that. Not only because it would have flushed ALL respect I had left for Mikotoba down the toilet, but also because I don't think?? they would have discussed it all that deeply??? I feel like the game just did not have the time or space to give that sort of plot point the focus it would need, and we sort of get a glimpse as to how Susato herself would handle it if they did. She would just... accept it, as she has always done, as is what is expected for her.

When the truth of Iris not being a Mikotoba is revealed, Susato is very calm. Her previous outrage and confusion (which in itself was relatively muted considering the circumstances) are pretty much allayed, and she says (paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact quote) that she is slightly disappointed because she thought she had gained a sister. And I think that's how she would have seen it if it had been true.

See, Susato has lived her entire life being the epitome of the ideal Japanese lady, which includes never quite questioning her "betters", of whom her father is very much included. Despite what Mikotoba has done to her, I don't think Susato sees any of it as flaws on his part or even views herself as a victim. I certainly do, but if we're looking at Susato herself, I think she's largely made peace with the person her father is. He's a brilliant man, a respectable doctor who had an international education, he gave her the same opportunity which is far above what most men during the time would do, the partner of a genius detective whom she admires and respects inordinately and he listens to her, again, far above how most fathers would treat their daughters. In light of that, him leaving when she was a baby is trifling. He still came back. He still stayed with her for most of her life. So what if it wasn't wholly his decision to do so? Most fathers are even more distant. So what if he took another lover after her mother's death? Most husbands have mistresses while their wives still breathe. She's lucky. Her father is a bright, kind and good man who just so happened to abandon her because he couldn't see past his own grief to the small, sobbing bundle who was orphaned before she even understood what the word meant and then had to contend with being replaced by a boy (she loves Kazuma. She does.) when she did. She has a sort-of brother and now a sort-of sister. Her family is larger than she could have imagined -- what does it matter if her closest blood is a stranger who lies to her at every turn he can? He keeps her clothed and fed and educated and lets her believe she's loved. She's lucky.

If the game had kept the Iris Mikotoba twist, I don't think it would have been made a large deal of, personally. In fact, I don't think Susato would know what to do with her father's remorse if it had been given to her. I think him placing a fine point on it would actually ruin her more than if he had addressed it because it would force her to confront how poorly she was actually treated by a father whom she has always seen as being good and kind and generous. Not that I don't think she knows that, but more that I don't think she wants to confront it. Her father and her relationship with him exist in this nebulous space of distant contentment in Susato's mind, and I think that's where she'd like to keep it. It's not in her nature to expect more of him, not in her culture, and I believe she's made peace with that. He is her father. Regardless of the liberties he has afforded her, she still thinks of him as her better. I think having him behave in a way that lowers himself before her would be strange and uncomfortable to her. Would it be nice to see Yuujin apologise for what he's done? Sure. Do I think their relationship would improve as a result of that? After much time and deliberation on Susato's part, yes (because I do think she'd forgive him if he asked. It'd be difficult and unpleasant to her, but she'd forgive him and mean it). But the game would never show that, and we'd only see the aftermath if at all I think, which I feel would be a little disappointing. So, all in all, I think I'm glad that entire plot was handled the way it was. I think they did what they could, kept it very faithful to the characters and left enough room for speculation on its effects for the player to decide.

And, you know, I personally think he still ran away that second time even though Iris isn't actually his daughter. He named her after his dead wife, this establishing a connection between them, and then just went ok that's another baby so im out holmes good luck bye 👋 o7 (okay this is me being unfair because he didn't actually have a choice this second time, but like. still.)

[heyftinally]

I specifically want to elaborate on this part:

Decontextualizing and rephrasing an interview: I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in academic best practices, but I do believe one thing, if a person is speaking on their own identity and lived experience, it is always much better to directly quote than it is to rephrase. As I read this source, I initially didn't know that it was AI, and I was already upset. An interview that is widely available on the internet with no pay wall, was poorly sourced and made more vague than it was in the initial text. By creating one degree of seperation between the original words of A WRITER (whose literal job was largely based in choosing the right words to describe experiences they had) harm is already done. It makes vague what was once clear, and removes Keri Hulme's voice from her own narrative.

As someone who has spent a LOT of time and effort on the nitty-gritty of quoting others in professional documents, I feel like I have a pretty good foundation on which to speak about this.

As a general rule, you want to directly quote the speaker as much as possible.

First and foremost, this is because you don't want to put words in their mouth or misrepresent what they said, as that's dishonest on your part as the interviewer/writer/etc, and harms your credibility. Remember the "Coolsville sucks" meme? Yeah, don't be that person. Quotes should be full and verbatim as much as possible, because anything else presents the possibility that you aren't accurately or fully representing what the speaker said.

The second reason is because when you re-word someone else's quote, you inherently inject your own biases into the new version you create. What that means is, consciously or unconsciously, you are influencing the way readers perceive what was said. This is bad because at best, you're speaking over the person who's quote you re-worded. At worst, you're manipulating your readers to think as you do, regardless of what the original quote said.

When presenting a quote from someone else, your job is to communicate as clearly as possible the speaker's original statement and intention. If giving the direct quote is not possible, careful paraphrasing is vital.

If I say "Sara James then went on to express her dissatisfaction with the pay she received", what would you assume the original quote is?

It could be "Yeah, I found out I was only getting paid ⅓ as much as my costar, even though I have 40% more screen time and I did almost all of my own stunts, so needless to say I'm not happy and I've been talking to my team."

But it could ALSO be "I was surprised when I found out what we were all getting paid. Not to sound like a total nepo baby or anything, but normally the projects I do pay more, y'know? But then I found out that the reason pay was lower for everyone - not just me - was because production was donating a whole bunch of money to the local children's hospital since we filmed in the lot next door. Which I thought was really cool of them! Like, obviously the hospital doesn't get much say in the filming, so I thought it was really cool of production to give back as, like, a thank you. Plus we got to go visit the kids, which was just amazing!"

TECHNICALLY in both of these, you could argue that displeasure about pay IS mentioned - but the specifics of the situation are entirely lost in the oversimplified paraphrasing, and THAT is why changing direct quotes can be dangerous.

So, yeah. I just wanted to elaborate on that particular point because it's one I covered *heavily* while in college. How you quote someone is important.

":')))))))) you realise that gen AI is available to everyone though right??? Queer creators can use it just as much as anyone else??? I just don't understand this post... It really feels like a cheap way to get on the 'AI Bad's bandwagon, and coming from such a thoughtful and insightful creator that's incredibly disappointing... It's okay to not comment on subjects you're not an expert in y'know...?"

Y'all know the drill, I am replying to this publicly but that is not an invitation to send any negative messages to the person I am replying to.

Anyways, let me start by saying that the original context of the post you're replying to is discussing an event where a queer org used generative AI to steal an interview with Keri Hulme. So let's start there. To be clear I don't even know if the original interviewer was queer so let's put the identities of stealer and stolen from to the side. I want to explain the harm done in this example specifically and I hope this is illustrative of what harm generative AI can (and does) do.

The original place I saw generative AI was a queer org that explicitly says they are using generative AI "for good", and as a way to bring more queer history to light. So let's take them at their word, and assume they are not out to cause harm. This is the best example of generative AI that I can imagine, so I hope that makes it clear that I am not coming at this issue from bad faith in any way.

Here is the harm they are causing:

Decontextualizing and rephrasing an interview: I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in academic best practices, but I do believe one thing, if a person is speaking on their own identity and lived experience, it is always much better to directly quote than it is to rephrase. As I read this source, I initially didn't know that it was AI, and I was already upset. An interview that is widely available on the internet with no pay wall, was poorly sourced and made more vague than it was in the initial text. By creating one degree of seperation between the original words of A WRITER (whose literal job was largely based in choosing the right words to describe experiences they had) harm is already done. It makes vague what was once clear, and removes Keri Hulme's voice from her own narrative.

The original interviewer is not paid, or given proper recognition: I get it, sometimes just copy pasting an interview doesn't feel transformative enough, but something that one would learn if they worked in the queer history field and weren't a literal robot rehashing what has already been said, is that not everything needs to be transformed. In those cases, we give credit to the person who said the original words (in this case Keri Hulme), and the interviewer who facillitated the conversation (in this case Shelley Bridgeman). This case (again a best case scenario), takes the attention and byline away from the original interviewer and gives it to an AI.

The original publisher of this story is deinsentivised from paying interviewers in the future: The original publisher of this interview has ads on their website. As a person who also has ads on their website, taking an article like this and rephrasing it for no good reason (the orginal word count was not prohibitive and the rephrasing did not make it more readable), takes money from the publisher. It's pennies, but it's also removing numbers could have been used to justify further interviews with asexual people and archiving of asexual stories. The org that stole from this publication does not interview people themselves so the money and numbers that could have gone to continue to preserve asexual stories goes to stealing them instead.

These are just the active harms that I saw in this specific case. As you said, I am not an expert in generative AI, and will not be speaking as if I am. But I will say that asking me not to speak out on active harm that is being caused in queer history spaces, is disrespectful to my many years in this field.

To illustrate this even clearer: if you were a patron, you would know I recently took down an old article. I have been rereading and editing our backlist of articles, and I found one that no longer fit my standards of sourcing. My standards had recently raised due to a video made by HBomberguy about someone in the queer history space who was stealing from other creators. I watched this video not as a work project, but because I watch most of HBomberguys videos, and this one made me think more critically about sourcing. An AI can't do that. All an AI has is what has been inputted, and it is right now impossible to input every available peice of information about ethics into an AI and get a coherent ethical basis on which it will function.

It is a distinctly human trait to absorb information and change in that way. AI can rephrase information that already exists, steal it, recontextualize it even, but it cannot create something altogether new.

Do I believe that there one day might be an ethical use for Generative AI? Maybe. Do I believe that coming into a queer history space, stealing the words of a Maori asexual author, rephrasing them, and giving the original interviewer and publication no form of compensation for their work, is accomplishing that? No.

On a more personal note: I am coming at this issue with a bias. As a queer history creator, I do not want AI in my space, because it is literally damaging to my financial prospects. It has been like pulling teeth to try and get patrons in the current state of the global economy. I don't blame anyone from that, but I feel very disrespected that I am being asked to compete with a machine now. Not only that, but I am being asked to shut up and be fine with it? No, absolutely not. I cannot and will not stay quiet as space that I have fought tooth and nail to create in mainstream discussions is taken and given to AI.

AI was not supporting me when I was sent gore to try and scare me off of discussing queer history. A person did that. AI was not there to tell me I had written too many sad stories, and I needed some happy endings to remind myself of the good in the world. A person did that. AI was not there when I was being harrassed for supporting and including asexual stories on my website. A person did that.

And after all that, I am being asked to lie down and take it when my ability to pay the people who supported me in those ways, is being threatened. Nope. Not going to happen.

An AI doesn't have to make rent. An AI doesn't understand what it feels like to have to stop holding their wife's hand in public. An AI didn't get calls from people needing comfort in reaction to the election. Pay me for my work, and get this AI nonsense out of my face.

[maximuswolf]

Who is the Greatest Male Rock Singer of All Time Based on Their Lyrics and Singing and Why?

Who is the Greatest Male Rock Singer of All Time Based on Their Lyrics and Singing and Why? The Late Elvis Presley Because His singing was REALLY clean. His vibrato was brilliant, and his full, lyrical timbre drove everyone wild. His versatility was also without question, covering several musical genres with plenty of ease and originality. Even the distortion in his voice was done in as healthy a manner as possible. He may have lacked great range (just over 3 octaves), but his projection and air management were top-tier, and he could still reach the fifth octave. Singing was natural to him, like his second nature, and he only got better with age. He is still one of the best singers to ever live.He had a voice that can be replicated. He had a look and style that was never matched. He a story so complex and raw and human. He had a rhythm and an ability to sing so many genres (rockabilly,rock,gospel,country,blues,soul and R&B). He had insecurities and flaws, he was miguided and vulnerable and naive at times. But he was beautiful soul with so much kindness and generosity and treated people love and loyalty and based his judgment on character. Things that many people did not reciprocate to him, and still don’t. He was a southern gentleman who loved his family, especially his mama. He was dynamic and energetic, he was spiritual and broke boundaries and expectations. He apperciated and respected all kinds of music and created something his own. He was humble and never gave praise to himself but to others instead. He remembered where he came from—dirt poor, and feared losing everything. He was a wonderful father and son, and his parents and daughter loved him for who he was and not what he had. he has been misjudged and lied about and accused and treated poorly in the past and present. Very few musician and performer have been under that much scrutiny, even those who would be rightly scruntized. He was and is loved by millions. One of the first singers to be loved by guys and girls. (Martin sheen paraphrased) he was trend setter and the true king of rock and roll. He’s the greatest of all time. Submitted January 03, 2025 at 12:54PM by Amber_Flowers_133 https://ift.tt/moxLVni via /r/Music

[aerelin]

Questioning Tumblr Ethics just before I sleep. Basically: there's an option to opt-out of being included in AI Scraping (which I have learned is actually illegal in European Countries but I guess the EU hasn't slapped Tumblr on the wrist for this), but TOS still states that Tumblr has the right to do absolutely whatever the fuck they want with anything you post.

Compare this to the scare a few years back with DeviantArt's TOS:

Paraphrasing, DeviantArts TOS stated in what may have been a poorly worded section that "we can't be held responsible if your content is stolen by third parties outside of DeviantArt's reach", and this was misinterpreted to being something like "we have all the rights to use your content without permission" of course, paraphrasing, but when reading the TOS yourself it was clear (despite being poorly worded) that they were indeed denouncing(?) Responsibility certain uses of hosted art, the unclear part was who was using the art in the art theft basically. I dunno this was a good few years back, I haven't seen the post since maybe like 2018.

But the scary thing is that Tumblr is NOT being vague or poorly worded in their TOS and how they can just do whatever the fuck they want with your content. If you make a viral hit post like the fuckin shoelaces from the Prez meme, they can make money off it without your permission and without monetary compensation for creating the meme for them basically. And I recall them not only selling the shoelaces meme idea as actual shoelaces, but several people were stating that they not only did not ask permission but didn't even monetarily compensate the original creators behind that post.

And that's okay in accordance to the Tumblr TOS.

From my understanding of the following screenshot of the section I'm referring to in the TOS:

That's allowed because it helps promote the services and, through them acquiring money and payments, helps improve the service (or so we'd wish they would lol).

That is to say that even if we opt out of AI scraping (which is extremely evil of Staff to make it Opt-Out and not Opt-In. They know they're catching the hundreds of fanart blogs that haven't logged in in years. They know they're catching literally thousands of deactivated blogs that technically no longer exist as profiles but their POSTS all still exist and by default they have access to scraping their posts because those posts *still* exist and the original Poster doesn't exist in order to Opt that content OUT of being scraped (could be misunderstanding this technicality of deactivated blogs but this does make more sense to me than staff being nice and like "oh we won't include deactivated blogs uwuuu" leave)), with Tumblr having some shitty AI service deal, they could really just argue that they can STILL! Scrape our content if the AI is used on Tumblr itself or somehow Benefits Tumblr in any manner. Because that's considered appropriate use of our content in the TOS regardless of AI involvement.

I may be overreacting, but either way I think this AI partnership bullshit is just that. It's actual fucking Bullshit. Those blogs I no longer remember the password for are all fair game for AI scraping and even if I remember the password I know I'm still at risk for my content being used however the fuck Tumblr wants to.

AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN like, a third party stealing content and Tumblr doing all this is that, third parties can be DMCAd. Tumblr has your permission to use anything you post for monetary gain simply by you signing up and using their services. And sure, they state this in the TOS. we agree to it. Technically they saved their ass here because we AGREE to this by using their platform. But just because they put this in TOS and therefore "we are not the bad guys, we told you clearly", does not mean this is all scummy and shady and simply a jerkass move.

[joeahj]

Teaching

As effective learning and teaching cannot occur in poorly managed classrooms, it is crucial to have knowledge of effective classroom management strategies (CMS). Learning objectives should be diverse for group lessons. Instruction Instruction Checking Questions (ICQ) are key for lower levels as those learners ―familiarise themselves with the language and the questions can be perceived as input by the teachers. ICQs help to reinforce the triangle of motivation, confidence and ability. New and creative tasks need to be ICQed. ICQs can be avoided in monolingual classes. 1. (Teach First:) When Checking for Understanding (CFU), you always teach first. Remember, the purpose of CFU is to verify that your students are learning what you are teaching while you are teaching. By teaching before you ask a question, the students are equipped to respond. You have to present the information content well first, then your students should be able to answer the Checking for Understanding correctly. We will cover what to do when they do not have the correct answer when we get to the “E�� in the TAPPLE framework. Scaffolding is important. Helps to scaffold thinking around well-defined structures (subjects), after which the students can skill transfer and start applying to new situations? It's hard to learn critical thinking in a vacuum. 2. Ask a Question: During CFU, always ask specific questions about what you are teaching. Don’t ask students if they understand the content. Often, students’ opinions of their learning do not match reality. 3. Pause and Pair-Share: When you ask a Checking for Understanding question, always ask the question first, then pause for several seconds before selecting a student to respond. The pause, also known as wait time or think time, provides an opportunity to all students to think of an answer even if they aren’t called upon. If you call on a student prior to asking the question, the other students are free to tune out. By presenting the question to the whole class, everyone stays engaged because no one knows who will be selected to give a response. If you also have the students discuss the question and answer in a pair-share then student engagement increases. It gives students a chance to practice and correct their answers.

4. Pick a Non-Volunteer: The only way you can truly find out if students are learning the information you’re teaching is to randomly select three non-volunteers to answer your CFU questions. When you call on volunteers, you are being validated by your brightest learners and could be getting a false impression that every student is learning.

5. Listen to the Response: Listening carefully, you will need to determine the level of student understanding. Based on this determination, you will be making an instructional decision. Ideally, students will always have the correct answer to your CFU questions, but sometimes they won’t. What you do next depends on what you hear when the student responds. Is it correct, partially correct, or just plain wrong?

6. Effective Feedback: Based on the accuracy of the student’s response, you can do one of three things: echo, elaborate, or explain. If the student is correct, you echo the correct response back. Restating the correct answer provides an affirmation to the student who just answered. When the response is tentative or partially correct, you should elaborate. Elaborating and/or paraphrasing will reinforce the correct answer to the student who was called on and will also benefit the rest of the class. Finally, if two students in a row cannot answer, then you will need to explain, or reteach. You may also give active learning tasks to students to aid their learning.

[oorpe]

fuck certificate mills

Jesus Fuckballs Christ is ITIL certification a grift and a half. The job wants me to get certified on this basic ITIL 4 thingy. That means I have to install the official peoplecert proctoring spyware on the company laptop. Don’t really want to install god knows what surveillance crap on there but hey, not my property so fuck it. It’s not like they haven’t already breached our entire organization with this shitty software. I wouldn’t trust it but again, not my call. I already took the training course last spring, but I’ve been putting off scheduling the exam because I can’t stand reading the intentionally confusing jargon and nested, byzantine multi-level definitions of incredibly samey-sounding concepts. But alas, now I’ve officially run out of time on the test voucher I got last year. So I had to begrudgingly schedule the exam for the level 1 or whatever it was called for next week. I had the training a year ago as stated, but I doubt I’d remember any more had it been yesterday: the lecturer was absolute dogshit. It was in it’s entirety just a 2-day slog of him reading out poorly made powerpoint slides and me dozing off and leafing through the mock exams. It was the last thing I did before going on summer vacation last year. It sucked ass.  So, as all good students do, I procrastinated until the last possible moment, and then started looking around the peoplecert website yesterday for the actual course materials. And holy fucking shit you guys, what shifty anti-user nonsense their little course book app is! It’s a characteristically clunky browser-based “ebook reader” that allows you to add bookmarks and highlights and annotations in limited capacity. It’s pretty bog-standard features-wise, but what really pissed me off about it was how it fucks with page printing in a really underhanded way. I usually print any longer reading materials out, partly because I can’t stay on task when reading off a computer screen, and partly because I just like it better that way. So I print my reading materials liberally, that’s why I bought the stupid laser printer after all. And let me tell you, this company fucking hates the fact that browsers let you print web pages out. There’s an in-app print to pdf prompt, sure. But this is actually a trap designed for maximum frustration. The in-app print option arbitrarily restricts printing to 2 pages at a time. There’s a 40-60s “progress bar” before the download starts (as expected, this is complete bullshit, it only sends a request for the pages after the timeout has elapsed.) The printed pages are unnecessarily rendered into incredibly poor quality .png with impairingly large and up-keyed incrimination-focused watermarks all across. Judging by what I gleamed from the http requests made, there’s a hidden cap on activating this “print” feature of a 100 activations, and this isn’t disclaimed, so you might spend hours trying to laboriously print out what you need to read, only for it to tell you to go eat a dick 90% through the book. In short, it’s the worst print button the world has ever known. I hate this print button with great passion. So, I figured, fuck that. I’ve used a browser before, I’ll just print from the browser prompt on every chapter (the app loads the book into view chapter by chapter) and that’s that. Well, not so fast! The browser’s print preview just shows a blank page with a shit-eating little <p>don’t you know it’s impossible to print html?!? what are you even doing you dog-brained fuckstick, now go use our awesome print feature little donkey</p> (paraphrasing only slightly) plastered on top.

Fuck me, these people really don’t want people reading their garbage book, huh.

Ok. Let’s dig a tiny bit deeper, what is it doing here?

It turns out that the app registers a few event handlers for the beforeprint event, so that when you open the browser’s print dialog, it can remove and re-add the main content iframe. That in turn displays only their little passive-aggressive message, until some logic clears it a moment later, and the actual chapter becomes visible. Of course, the browser’s print dialog tries to print the current state of the page, and only captures the single paragraph that is visible at that moment, hence the preview from before.

Well, that’s annoying and profoundly anti-user. Let’s continue. Eventually they have to give my browser workable markup in order to display this stupid thing, it’s just a matter of digging.

It turns out the chapters are rendered via two nested iframes (some other dickish obfuscation scheme I’d assume), so I grab the inner one and quickly look over the markup. Yup, fantastic, the buck stops here. I can just open the src= of the inner iframe in a new tab and use devtools to drop a few fuckery-inducing script tags and the style tag that hides the page contents initially. A presto, the chapter is suddenly entirely printable with minimal hassle! Someone really should let these people know that it’s actually not that hard to let their users print out this material. In fact it takes some pretty grifty fuckery to screw with a basic browser feature in this way! Anyway I didn’t actually read a goddamn word of the material because I was so pissed off about this comprehensively wrong-headed approach to basic accessibility. But I did manage to download and re-collate the stupid book into a single file today, which was naturally a lot more fun than reading their godawful business management wank, so all in all a decent day of “work”. At least I’ll have the materials fucking accessible for the inevitable round 2 after I botch this stupid exam.

[missmaywemeetagain]

Missing Ask

Alright, so my missing ask draft is gone. I cannot find it anywhere. *sob* And I cannot remember who asked it (it may have been a Nonnie). But I HATE that this happened and I desperately don't want to leave that wonderful person hanging, so I will ATTEMPT (though likely poorly) to remember what it was and what I said.

The gist was that this lovely person enjoyed PS and felt very emotionally connected to the story and characters because they have gone through/experienced some similar things, and that my writing conveyed that emotion accurately to their experiences.

And to that (probably poorly paraphrased), I said something to the effect of how glad I am that I was able to capture the emotions of their experiences through Reader's emotions, and that those emotions were portrayed realistically. It's an honor to me to hear things like this because one of my ultimate goals as a writer is to help people feel something. I feel like I'm doing something meaningful when y'all can connect with or relate to or imagine yourself in these situations. So thank you for one of the highest compliments, dear reader, and I really hope this response gets to you somehow!! I'm so sorry your ask was lost into the cyberverse somewhere! 💗

[neuroglitch]

@spooky-systems I sent something similar privately, but I actually think that this bears mentioning in public because I think it's important.

I just wanted to thank you for reblogging a discussion I was having, and adding a strongly-worded addition.

I am not reblogging it here because kindness and compromise is my way of fighting. To paraphrase a very relatable quote from Everything, Everywhere, All at once: "When I choose to be kind, I am not being naive. It is necessary, and it is strategic".

But I still get hurt. And as I try to kindly explain the hurtful nature of what someone said, or did, I have to downplay and minimize the harmful effects.

And I think it's extremely important to remember, and highlight, that anger can be kind. Anger can be protective, and healing. It is equally necessary to "win the war".

When we meet people who we disagree with, with kindness, we are fighting against harmful ideas, and in that sense, kindness is on the offense.

When me meet people who we disagree with, with anger, we are in fact protecting our own. We are establishing boundaries. We are saying "No. They do not get to speak about you/us this way". Anger is on the defense.

Both are so important, and too often people have a superiority complex about "their way". And I know that you struggle with anger, and I know it can be destructive and harmful at times. But I wanted to let you know that in this instance, it was healing. It made me think: "Ah. I am not crazy*. I'm not paranoid*. My upset is legitimate, and we all deserve better".

So thank you ❤️

**I have a psychotic disorder, and I am in fact crazy, and oftentimes paranoid, so this is about my personal understanding of my own reactions, and internalized saneism, not a poorly worded way of distancing myself from psychosis.