#this is broadly speaking

[cactiaintracist]

ladies, gentlemen and variations thereupon I've just come to a very important realization. which is, that the 60th dw specials parallel series 4 with 10 and Donna (particularly the RTD episodes)

I can't really explain it but basically;

the star beast = partners in crime (aliens on earth + vibes) wild blue yonder =midnight/turn left(cosmic horror, introspection) the giggle = stolen earth/journey's end (return of a classic enemy)

this struck me when i realized the vibe and the music of the opening of the star beast reminded me a lot of the partners in crime opening

[phantomrose96]

If anyone wants to know why every tech company in the world right now is clamoring for AI like drowned rats scrabbling to board a ship, I decided to make a post to explain what's happening.

(Disclaimer to start: I'm a software engineer who's been employed full time since 2018. I am not a historian nor an overconfident Youtube essayist, so this post is my working knowledge of what I see around me and the logical bridges between pieces.)

Okay anyway. The explanation starts further back than what's going on now. I'm gonna start with the year 2000. The Dot Com Bubble just spectacularly burst. The model of "we get the users first, we learn how to profit off them later" went out in a no-money-having bang (remember this, it will be relevant later). A lot of money was lost. A lot of people ended up out of a job. A lot of startup companies went under. Investors left with a sour taste in their mouth and, in general, investment in the internet stayed pretty cooled for that decade. This was, in my opinion, very good for the internet as it was an era not suffocating under the grip of mega-corporation oligarchs and was, instead, filled with Club Penguin and I Can Haz Cheezburger websites.

Then around the 2010-2012 years, a few things happened. Interest rates got low, and then lower. Facebook got huge. The iPhone took off. And suddenly there was a huge new potential market of internet users and phone-havers, and the cheap money was available to start backing new tech startup companies trying to hop on this opportunity. Companies like Uber, Netflix, and Amazon either started in this time, or hit their ramp-up in these years by shifting focus to the internet and apps.

Now, every start-up tech company dreaming of being the next big thing has one thing in common: they need to start off by getting themselves massively in debt. Because before you can turn a profit you need to first spend money on employees and spend money on equipment and spend money on data centers and spend money on advertising and spend money on scale and and and

But also, everyone wants to be on the ship for The Next Big Thing that takes off to the moon.

So there is a mutual interest between new tech companies, and venture capitalists who are willing to invest $$$ into said new tech companies. Because if the venture capitalists can identify a prize pig and get in early, that money could come back to them 100-fold or 1,000-fold. In fact it hardly matters if they invest in 10 or 20 total bust projects along the way to find that unicorn.

But also, becoming profitable takes time. And that might mean being in debt for a long long time before that rocket ship takes off to make everyone onboard a gazzilionaire.

But luckily, for tech startup bros and venture capitalists, being in debt in the 2010's was cheap, and it only got cheaper between 2010 and 2020. If people could secure loans for ~3% or 4% annual interest, well then a $100,000 loan only really costs $3,000 of interest a year to keep afloat. And if inflation is higher than that or at least similar, you're still beating the system.

So from 2010 through early 2022, times were good for tech companies. Startups could take off with massive growth, showing massive potential for something, and venture capitalists would throw infinite money at them in the hopes of pegging just one winner who will take off. And supporting the struggling investments or the long-haulers remained pretty cheap to keep funding.

You hear constantly about "Such and such app has 10-bazillion users gained over the last 10 years and has never once been profitable", yet the thing keeps chugging along because the investors backing it aren't stressed about the immediate future, and are still banking on that "eventually" when it learns how to really monetize its users and turn that profit.

The pandemic in 2020 took a magnifying-glass-in-the-sun effect to this, as EVERYTHING was forcibly turned online which pumped a ton of money and workers into tech investment. Simultaneously, money got really REALLY cheap, bottoming out with historic lows for interest rates.

Then the tide changed with the massive inflation that struck late 2021. Because this all-gas no-brakes state of things was also contributing to off-the-rails inflation (along with your standard-fare greedflation and price gouging, given the extremely convenient excuses of pandemic hardships and supply chain issues). The federal reserve whipped out interest rate hikes to try to curb this huge inflation, which is like a fire extinguisher dousing and suffocating your really-cool, actively-on-fire party where everyone else is burning but you're in the pool. And then they did this more, and then more. And the financial climate followed suit. And suddenly money was not cheap anymore, and new loans became expensive, because loans that used to compound at 2% a year are now compounding at 7 or 8% which, in the language of compounding, is a HUGE difference. A $100,000 loan at a 2% interest rate, if not repaid a single cent in 10 years, accrues to $121,899. A $100,000 loan at an 8% interest rate, if not repaid a single cent in 10 years, more than doubles to $215,892.

Now it is scary and risky to throw money at "could eventually be profitable" tech companies. Now investors are watching companies burn through their current funding and, when the companies come back asking for more, investors are tightening their coin purses instead. The bill is coming due. The free money is drying up and companies are under compounding pressure to produce a profit for their waiting investors who are now done waiting.

You get enshittification. You get quality going down and price going up. You get "now that you're a captive audience here, we're forcing ads or we're forcing subscriptions on you." Don't get me wrong, the plan was ALWAYS to monetize the users. It's just that it's come earlier than expected, with way more feet-to-the-fire than these companies were expecting. ESPECIALLY with Wall Street as the other factor in funding (public) companies, where Wall Street exhibits roughly the same temperament as a baby screaming crying upset that it's soiled its own diaper (maybe that's too mean a comparison to babies), and now companies are being put through the wringer for anything LESS than infinite growth that Wall Street demands of them.

Internal to the tech industry, you get MASSIVE wide-spread layoffs. You get an industry that used to be easy to land multiple job offers shriveling up and leaving recent graduates in a desperately awful situation where no company is hiring and the market is flooded with laid-off workers trying to get back on their feet.

Because those coin-purse-clutching investors DO love virtue-signaling efforts from companies that say "See! We're not being frivolous with your money! We only spend on the essentials." And this is true even for MASSIVE, PROFITABLE companies, because those companies' value is based on the Rich Person Feeling Graph (their stock) rather than the literal profit money. A company making a genuine gazillion dollars a year still tears through layoffs and freezes hiring and removes the free batteries from the printer room (totally not speaking from experience, surely) because the investors LOVE when you cut costs and take away employee perks. The "beer on tap, ping pong table in the common area" era of tech is drying up. And we're still unionless.

Never mind that last part.

And then in early 2023, AI (more specifically, Chat-GPT which is OpenAI's Large Language Model creation) tears its way into the tech scene with a meteor's amount of momentum. Here's Microsoft's prize pig, which it invested heavily in and is galivanting around the pig-show with, to the desperate jealousy and rapture of every other tech company and investor wishing it had that pig. And for the first time since the interest rate hikes, investors have dollar signs in their eyes, both venture capital and Wall Street alike. They're willing to restart the hose of money (even with the new risk) because this feels big enough for them to take the risk.

Now all these companies, who were in varying stages of sweating as their bill came due, or wringing their hands as their stock prices tanked, see a single glorious gold-plated rocket up out of here, the likes of which haven't been seen since the free money days. It's their ticket to buy time, and buy investors, and say "see THIS is what will wring money forth, finally, we promise, just let us show you."

To be clear, AI is NOT profitable yet. It's a money-sink. Perhaps a money-black-hole. But everyone in the space is so wowed by it that there is a wide-spread and powerful conviction that it will become profitable and earn its keep. (Let's be real, half of that profit "potential" is the promise of automating away jobs of pesky employees who peskily cost money.) It's a tech-space industrial revolution that will automate away skilled jobs, and getting in on the ground floor is the absolute best thing you can do to get your pie slice's worth.

It's the thing that will win investors back. It's the thing that will get the investment money coming in again (or, get it second-hand if the company can be the PROVIDER of something needed for AI, which other companies with venture-back will pay handsomely for). It's the thing companies are terrified of missing out on, lest it leave them utterly irrelevant in a future where not having AI-integration is like not having a mobile phone app for your company or not having a website.

So I guess to reiterate on my earlier point:

Drowned rats. Swimming to the one ship in sight.

[hotwaterandmilk]

An IRL friend of mine recently suggested I cut back on posting content because "maybe a dozen or two dozen people" like my posts and they weren't sure why I bothered when there was no money or engagement in it.

I definitely felt a bit like that a few years back, particularly when I'd see people repost my scans on other platforms and get tens of thousands of likes. If I'd shifted platforms and focused on engagement that could well have been me.

However, that's not really what I've ever been about. I share what I share because I like it and want other people who like these works to enjoy what I have in my collection too (or to discover new works they might not have encountered). Nobody has to engage with what I post though, I could get 0 likes/reblogs and I'd still keep plugging away because ultimately this is just a hobby and I'm just a fan.

I don't want to harp on with the cheesy "you should do things for yourself first and foremost" with hobbies, but at the end of the day my affection for certain series and artists won't evaporate just because my posts about them aren't popular on Tumblr.

I've been here for 14 years and have only just hit 10,000 followers. I'm not an important internet person by any stretch of the imagination and I think that's OK. If I'd been angling for something beyond simply being a fan of certain things, I can see how this might be considered failure. For me (personally) though, I don't feel like my hobby needs to have any form of hustle attached to it. This is what I do to express my affection for things.

Not everyone will feel the same way as I do about sharing content online and that's fine, we're all individuals and we engage with things differently. I just wanted to express this while the thoughts were still fresh in my mind.

Enjoy your hobbies in the ways that work for you. You'll find people who appreciate your contributions (big or small) wherever you go online and if you move onto different fandoms or hobbies, you'll find new folks who like what you do there too. Just don't feel locked into numbers as the ultimate way of judging your own love for media.

[skaruresonic]

The common rebuttal to "this reads like fanfic (derogatory)" is "read better fanfic," which is true in certain cases, but on the other hand, there is some grain of truth to the idea that you can tell when someone's primary mode of literary analysis is fanfic instead of... well... literally anything else. It's okay to like or even prefer fanfic, but if you want to take your craft seriously you also need to read books, dude. Published books will teach you a lot of stuff fanfic doesn't, like proper dialogue formatting and how to introduce your reader to unfamiliar characters. Even the crappiest book (well, if it's not After or 50 Shades, which started off as fanfic to begin with lol) will have been subjected to some sort of editing process to ensure at least the appearance of proper grammar. That's not a guarantee with your average fanfic, and hence why you can't always take all your writing cues from fanfic because it's "so much better" than commercially published original fiction or whatever. Frankly, fic writers tend to peddle some absolutist and downright bad takes sometimes. "Said is dead" is a terrible rule, though not because said is invisible and a perfectly serviceable tag; that's just part of it. Dialogue tags are a garnish, not a main dish that can be swapped out for more ostentatious words. If your characters murmur and mutter instead of simply saying stuff, your readers are going to wonder why nobody speaks up. "'I'm explaining some very plot-important shit right now lol,' she elaborated," likewise, is a form of telling. Instead of letting the reader extrapolate that "she elaborated" via the contents of the dialogue itself, you're telling them what to think about it. And that's why it's distracting: your authorial hand is showing. Writing is an act of camouflage. You, as the writer, need to make your presence as invisible as possible so as to not intrude on the reader's suspension of disbelief. That's the driving reason behind "show, don't tell." And overall, everyone could stand to cut down on the frequency of their dialogue tags anyway. Not every exchange needs "he said" or "she whispered" attached as long as you establish who is doing the talking before the exchange. Some people will complain of confusion if you go on for too long without a dialogue tag, and that definitely is a risk, but at some point you also need to resist the temptation of holding the reader's hand. If they can't follow a conversation between two people, chances are they weren't meeting you halfway and paying that much attention in the first place. In fact, you don't even necessarily need action beats in between every piece of dialogue, as Tumblr writing advice posts will often suggest as a fix. Pruning things often cleans them up just fine.

Another fanfic-influenced trend in writing is, I guess, beige prose? A heavy focus on internal narration with lots of telling. It's not a style I can concretely describe, but every time I click on a non-mutual's writing, I feel like it always has, like. This "samey" voice to it. There's no real attempt to experiment and use unique or provocative language, or even imagery half the time. It's almost a dry recital of narration that doesn't leave much room for subtext. I see this style most often in fanfic where you can meander and wax poetic about how the characters feel without ever really getting around to the plot. And it's like. DO something.

Other tells that the author is taking their cues from fanfic mores rather than books: >>too much minute description of eyes, especially their color and their movement >>doesn't leave much room for subtext (has a character speak their every thought aloud instead of letting the reader infer what they're thinking via action or implication) >>too much stage action ("X looked at Y. Y moved to push their seat in. X took a deep breath and stepped toward Y with a determined look on his face. 'We need to talk,' he said.") >>tells instead of shows, even when the example is about showing instead of telling ("he clenched his teeth in agony" instead of just "he clenched his teeth") >>has improper dialogue tag formatting, especially with putting full stops where there should be commas ("'Lol and lmao.' she said" instead of "'Lol and lmao,' she said." This one drives me up a wall) >>uses too many dialogue tags >>"em dashes, semi-colons and commas, my beloved" - I get the appeal but full stops are your friends. Too much alternate punctuation makes your writing seem stilted and choppy. >>"he's all tousled brown hair and hard muscle" and "she's all smiles and long legs." This turn of phrase is so cliche, it drives me up a wall. Find less trite ways of describing your characters pls. >>"X released a breath he didn't know he'd been holding" >>every fucking Hot Guy ever is described as lean and sinewy >>sobbing. why is everyone sobbing. some restraint, pls >>Tumblr in general tends to think a truism counts as good writing if you make the most melodramatic statement possible (bonus: if it's written in a faux-archaic way), garnish it with a hint of egotism, and toss in allusions to the Christian God, afterlife, or death. ("I will stare God in the face and walk backwards into hell," "What is a god to a nonbeliever?") It's indicative of emotional immaturity imo, that every emotional truth need be expressed That Intensely in order to resonate with people. >>pushes the "Oh." moment as the pinnacle of Romantic Epiphany >>Therapy Speak dialogue. why is this emotionally constipated forty-something man who drinks himself stupid every morning to escape gruesome war memories speaking about his trauma like a clinical psychologist >>"this well-established kuudere should Show More Emoshun. I want him to break down crying on his love interest's shoulder from all his repressed trauma" - I am begging u. stop >>"why don't the characters just talk to each other?" "why can't we have healthy relationships?" I don't know, maybe because fiction is not supposed to be a model for reality and perfect communication makes for boring drama?

>>improperly using actions as dialogue tags ("'Looks like we're going hunting,' he grinned") >>why is everyone muttering and murmuring. speak up >>too many adverbs, especially "weakly" and "shakily." use stronger verbs. ("trembled" instead of "shook weakly") >>too many epithets ("the younger man" or "the brunette detective") >>too many filter words ("he felt," "she thought," "I remembered")

>>no, Tumblr, first-person POV is not the devil; you're just using way too many filter words (see above) and not enough sentence variation to make it flow well enough. First-person POV is an actually pretty good POV (not just for unreliable and self-aware narrators) if you know what you're doing and a lot of fun crafting an engaging character voice. Tumblr's hatred of first-person baffles me, and all I can think is you would only hate it if your only frame of reference was, like, My Immortal. Have you tried reading A Book? First-person POV is just another tool in your toolbox, and like all tools, it can be used properly or improperly. But it's not inherently a marker of bad writing. The disdain surrounding it strikes me as about as sensical as making fun of the concept of characters. Oh, your work has characters in it? Ew, I automatically click off a fic if it has characters in it. like what.

[cleverreports]

We report about our first thorough look at the sky today: it looks especially big, and the clouds look especially distant. We feel slightly ridiculous about missing their proximity - just yesterday, some cumulus were hovering just above our head. It is a little bit colder still.

[leonardcohenofficial]

you've almost definitely answered this before but i can't find it on your blog - do you have any film recommendations for people who are trying to move away from only watching hollywood blockbusters? i feel really stupid trying to find movies that are challenging but not so intimidating that i won't "get it". thanks in advance!!

i can definitely get more specific with recs but generally speaking there are lots of resources for finding films that are not just hollywood blockbusters out there! the 1001 movies you must see before you die list is a great start; i stay up to date on what criterion/mubi/other boutique services make available; seeing what gets nominations and awards at different festivals can be useful to see what new works people are getting excited about; looking at roundups/reviews/letterboxd lists of films by people of marginalized identities can help broaden your horizons; reading film blogs and talking to trusted friends about what they're into has also introduced me to tons of new-to-me films i might never have heard of let alone seen; if you live in an area where you have access to independent cinemas checking to see what's playing is also a good resource—all of this is to say that expanding your horizons does require active participation and effort but is not necessarily difficult to do! as said above i am definitely happy to give recs with more specifications (genre, decade, etc.) but this is what i do to find films that i might not have otherwise checked out

[ifindus]

Waiter, waiter!! More Viking Scotnor headcanons please! (If you have any ofc :3 )

Oh no!! Not my weakness!! 😳

Their relationship during the viking age was mostly very amicable, apart from a few minor fights and arguments later on. In contrast to England and Denmark, Norway and Scotland mostly co-existed peacefully beside each other and even developed a friendship. Norway has always been a traveller and would rarely stay in one place for long, but he would often spend his summers and occaionally autumns in his territories close to Scotland before moving along on his next adventure. During these months Norway and Scotland would hang out and Norway would tell Scotland stories about all his adventures out on the sea, exploring westward, as a hired soldier for the Byzantine emperor, helping out Denmark with his wars agaisnt England, and joining Sweden on his trips east. Scotland would think these were the coolest stories and always look forward to Norway's occasional visits. And sometimes Norway would even bring him exotic gifts he'd picked up on his travels.

[backjustforberena]

Rhaenys Targaryen being perceptive as HECK:

Devotion has never sat well with him. Where he goes, he wishes to be his own master. [...] Not as such (will he challenge her). But neither can he allow her to command him.

"Neither can he allow her to command him." - We never see Rhaenyra actually order Daemon's flight to Harrenhal. Not directly. It was his choice to go when he did, it was his plan to being with, at the start of the whole thing - to create a toehold in the Riverlands. It was Daemon's instincts and feelings. He follows his own path.

Again, Jaehaerys's murder was done without Rhaenyra's sanction, he chafed against staying on Dragonstone whilst she searched for Luke's remains, and he took charge of the war council and drew his sword against Otto without waiting for her leave to escalate. He addresses Otto's terms before she does. Whilst he shows loyalty and believes his motives to be selfless and his allegiance as true, it's not true deference. He seeks power/independence where he can.

Devotion and love don't sit well with him, though he has great capacity for it - we see him struggle with those feelings and the warring sides of his nature during Harrnehal: his brother, his niece, his second wife. His ignorance of his daughters. There is a corruption to his love. An acidity.

"Where he goes, he wishes to be his own master" = he goes to Harrenhal, and wishes to be his own master, and even King.

He doesn't not challenge her "as such" = he never raises banners against her, never pushes for his own claim other than in private conversations. Still, his behaviour causes Rhaenyra to have doubts in herself as Queen and others to have doubts in her as well.

It absolutely challenges outside perceptions of her rule - his lack of communication creates fractures in her council, leading, amongst other things, Alfred to question her suitability. It also makes her strategy wayward as they cannot be sure of ground support for any campaign. She's doing things she shouldn't have to do because of his behaviour.

His behaviour also challenges her because the things that he does impacts how her cause is received. Her name is cursed in King's Landing because of what he enacted, leading to the death of Jaehaerys. They blame her for what he did in her name.

Otto Hightower would never have allowed this. Hotter blood has prevailed, I think. The young men have taken the bit in their teeth. They wish to punish, to avenge. Soon they will not even remember what it was that began the war in the first place.

Otto Hightower did, indeed, not allow or know anything about sending Arryk to assassinate Rhaenyra, leading to the death of both twins. In fact, Otto was appalled by the scheme.

It was, as Rhaenys surmises done on the orders of the "young men" (Aegon, and the less young Cole) - as punishment and revenge for the death of Jaehaerys.

Aegon has "declared" war following the death of his son and has seized on offence. He did this whilst his blood ran hot: a scene where he is smashing up Viserys's model.

We teeter now at the point where none of it will matter. And the desire to kill and burn takes hold and reason is forgotten.

The deaths of the children (Luke & Jaehaerys) in the scene with Alicent and Rhaenyra, ultimately don't affect the idea of peace or war. Alicent does not change her behaviour due to the loss of a grandson, and Rhaenyra does not for the loss of her son, either to make war or peace more or less likely. The road is already set. They reach a point where it doesn't matter.

Rook's Rest represents a point of no return. They pass the point.

Rhaenys sees "the desire to kill and burn" take hold over reason in close quarters - she sees Aemond burn his own brother. That is the kind of savagery: the unforgivable. The bloody war between dragons and the hateful act of kin against kin. It's chaos.

Rhaenyra’s council is wayward. She has a hard task. I must hope she will rise to it, but I fear she’ll need you by her side sooner than late.

After Rhaenys dies, Rhaenyra has one council session, where each of the men around her have individual ideas - they argue amongst each other but none of them have no true plan to offer her. There is no progress.

Nor does she rise to command them: they continue to ignore her, shoot her down, not work with her, leaving her isolated. As Rhaenys fears, she needs Corlys. Rhaenyra soon offers Corlys the role of Hand.

[ganymedesclock]

Any genre of game can have a disabled protagonist if you aren't a coward / willing to put the work in, but I'm currently batting around the concept of specifically point-and-click puzzle adventure games with a highly disabled protagonist.

Often, the pace of such games tends sedate and contemplative. Your character is seldom in a hurry; they are mostly faced by trying to figure out how to accomplish a particular task, and if a deadline is imposed, it's an extra thing to juggle.

This could be an interesting presumption to incorporate from a watsonian lens, through the viewpoint of a protagonist who may have limited mobility, pain and/or fatigue that make hurrying punitively inaccessible. It'd let the player familiarize themselves with early puzzles if the first thing they have to figure out how to do is say, get their player character out of bed in an environment where they don't have their usual fallbacks.

(also if this is also a walking adventure, it'd let you dodge accusations of the insurmountable waist-high fence- your intrepid hero MIGHT be able to climb over those bricks if they didn't have two bad hips and a walker to worry about!)

[crysdrawsthings]

I think Emperor is actually completely justified in trying to get BG3 protagonist to eat more worms.

If you were stuck dealing with the concentrated dumbassery of either Tav or Durge beamed directly into your brain for months on end, you would too grasp at any straws promising that they would grow a braincell or two.

[anonymouspuzzler]

going through some of the tags in your blog (hope you don’t mind) and briefly stumbled across art of buck wearing crop top … life changing stuff and made me wonder: what’s the ‘fanciest’ clothes he has, and what occasion would he use them?

literally LOVE when people go through my tags thank you for your service... as for Fancy Buck Clothes probably the closest he'd have is something like the button-up in this ref sheet? I don't think he wears it often if at all; maybe if he's gotta go undercover somewhere with a dress code, or if he wants to dress up a little for a date with Davey (not like they can really go anywhere, but it's the principal, you know?) otherwise he sticks to his worn-down practical wear pretty much all the time.

[antisocialxconstruct]

RE: the spotify post you reblogged and your tags about owning your music again.

I wanna do the same...but...how??? Where do you buy music nowadays? CDs arent really a thing anymore, i cant buy digital versions that I can keep. Records are making a comeback, but like the process to get that digital????

Do you know/have any insight on where to actually buy music (to own it) and legimately supporting artists??? Thats not streaming???

This is such a good question and honestly I WISH I could hit you with a bunch of reliable links 😭

I feel like I've heard some criticism of Bandcamp as well, but two things they definitely have going for them is 1) a lot of indie and non-English language artists are on there, and for a lot of them it may really be the only sorta-mainstream platform where they can sell music directly to fans, and 2) musicians still get like an 80% cut of sales (I think), and you can download real, actual MP3 files that are Yours and can be copied and transferred and preserved.

I also think it's worth looking up individual artists that you want to support. Most of them have websites, and often (though not always) they have online shops where you can still buy their music directly, along with other merch. If they're selling merch but not CDs or downloads... idk, you could pirate their music and then buy a shirt or an enamel pin or something, that's still materially a lot more useful to them than streaming their music on spotify especially if they're not very well known what with that whole "you only get paid if you're already famous" policy.

Also depending on where you live it's still worth checking out brick and mortar music stores! Contrary to how it feels, CDs really are still A Thing, and stores that sell vinyls are likely to also still sell CDs, even if the selection may not be y'know... the entire broad wealth of music you can find on the internet. But in this era of streaming, I would imagine physical music stores could use all the foot traffic and sales they can get, so you're supporting musicians AND local businesses. (Just remember to mask up 👍)

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

Outdrawn

f/f contemporary romance

two cartoonist who’ve been rivals since uni, and now have competing webcomics online, have to work together on the relaunch of a cult classic at the comic press they both work at

they both struggle with art-related physical and mental health issues, and complicated families

[amphibious-thing]

We have got to stop associating puritanism with people who don't have sex. A lot of the people who spread anti-kink, anti-porn and anti-sex worker rhetoric are sexually active. It's just that they have the kind of sex they believe is moral and pure. Sexless lesbians are not your enemy. Most of us are just acespec.

[aro-culture-is]

Alloaro culture is wanting a similar word to qpr for a committed partner you have sex with sometimes that is not romantic: qpr isn’t right because it has the word platonic in it.

hi! in a very gentle way, i am vibrating to let you know this is incorrect :)

from the POV of someone who's been around the aro community since ~2013-2014 on tumblr, the only time i've seen folks start to say that qprs couldn't include sexual components has been when

they've learned an incorrect definition of QPRs, or

in one particularly notable case, the individual proposing it turned out to be quite sex negative and upset at the mere thought that people could think that qprs could include sexual activity. this individual suggested an alternative term for individuals desiring sex in QPRs in a rather explicitly alloarophobic measure. when gently called out from what had seemed to be a genuine attempt at coining a new term, the above came to light. smaller cases of this pop up every once in a while, but this one got some notoriety.

queerplatonic was always meant to mean "queering the idea of a platonic relationship", "queering the idea of what a relationship means", and by explicit definition, has always been broadly and radically inclusive. any relationship, so long as the partners involved agree it is a queerplatonic one, is queerplatonic. no exceptions. this can mean it involves romance, sex, traditionally platonic elements, and anything and everything those involved desire out of it.

tldr; the word platonic is in queerplatonic to say it is counter to the idea of a restricted "platonic" relationship.

[curryswirl]

ive seen a lot of responses to this post that are clarifying what they think "make art for yourself" is intended to mean-- that its not really referring to making it for no one to view but rather its referring to what you make and why. and i just wanted to do a little follow up and say that you guys are definetly correct in a lot of instances~ in those instances, i in fact agree, also. i do think determining what you want to make via what you think people will like ONLY is probably an unhealthy way to create (although it can certainly be a component of your decision making), just as i think doing it for ONLY likes and numerical engagement is not the way to be either!

i was specifically responding to cases where i have seen people problematize the desire to have ones art seen at all, though-- something i have come across frequently, too. i wouldnt be suprised if this was an extreme evolution of the former, as that tends to be the case for heavily parroted rhetoric online.

it was an angry post and i stand by it, but i do apologize if it made anyone feel like they are "doing it wrong" or whatever. in truth, i think my motivation for making the post stems from, at its root, the sadness i feel when people blame other people for the tendecies that have been incentivized wrt engagement online... and i would never want to make anyone feel that exact way.

like, some people also identified the problem as due to "people not caring enough to reblog" or some other cultural shift due to individual shortcomings. i dont think thats completely and utterly untrue in all cases, but in my opinion much of this behavior is due to the platforms we engage on, and the behavior they incentivize, not some modern widespread negligence of artists by individual people.

websites are set up the way they are because long form, complex engagement does not make as much ad revenue. over a long period of time, users have been conditioned to scroll quickly and see more ads because thats what the UI encourages... and those who post are conditioned to desire a climbing number of likes/notes/whatever, because shorter and shorter dopamine hits have diminishing value.

there is intention behind every website beginning to look the same. there is intention behind every aspect of a user interfaces design. and it is my belief that this has caused it to be less rewarding to take time to leave a comment or to stay on one post for a long period of time.

if you combine that with the general, worsening life experience of the working class-- with the emotional fatigue, the intellectual drain... the amount of ignoring you have to do, the amount of swallowing of horrible, seemingly unchangeable horrors day in and day out just to bare living on this earth, you get an emotionally exhausted populace that does not have the time or energy to truly invest in engaging with art.

this is not your fault. this is not your peers fault. if youre not a billionaire, a capitalist of influence or in a position of power or authority, its probabaly not your fault either.

i guess what im trying to say is please continue to strive to punch up, and to always question the systems that incentivize our behavior before you turn to punching sideways and criticizing the people who are living in the same world as you. empathy is everything, and its all we have.