#this may come across elitist

[paradisecitizens]

I fear media literacy is at an all time low

[aingeal98]

Love how Daisy joins the team in s1 a master hacker beating SHIELD's tech despite being poor and homeless, but comes across as the normal down to earth one so Ward and Fitzsimmons immediately are like "Oh she's so silly she doesn't know anything she's just a civilian." And she does casually prove them wrong occasionally but for the most part she doesn't push back too hard on their general assumptions, only really showing her vulnerabilities to Coulson. He's the only one she really wants to impress and he's already seen what she can do and appreciates it. If they want to underestimate her and be elitist then she's more than happy to save that for when she needs them to fall on their faces.

And then HYDRA happens and fall on their faces they do. Ward underestimates her CONSTANTLY, allowing her to play him like a fiddle and outsmart him into getting away, with him in complete disbelief because no this is only Skye she can't be doing this?

There are two exceptions to the SHIELD agents view of Skye. One is Coulson, who believes in her potential but is still projecting his own view onto her, seeing her as someone talented he can mold as opposed to what she really is, which is someone who's already got her head on straighter than anyone at shield. He'll appreciate this when the house of cards that is the government organization he dedicated his life to collapses, but for s1 while he does value her and believe in her he doesn't quite understand her the way he thinks he does.

The second exception is May, who sees Daisy exactly as she is, good and bad. She doesn't react well to this at first because who would react well to seeing a younger version of themselves before the trauma of being a SHIELD agent left them permanently altered, and having to watch them make what you believe are the same steps you took that lead you to where you are today. But she does still see Daisy in a way the others don't, even if Daisy herself doesn't understand this. Like when Coulson was gone and May got Daisy kicked off the Bus, and Fitzsimmons and Ward were all like how could you do this to poor helpless Skye we were her everything? And May is like. Are you guys kidding me. Get her away from all these suits and red tape for a single day and she'll get us a lead on Coulson. And she did! Because Daisy is a resourceful genius who is quick on her feet and thinks outside the box. And even when May didn't like her she could still see that in a way the others couldn't. So when she did like Daisy? When she actually started to train Daisy? Yeah the bad guys never stood a chance.

[nico-esoterica]

More about celeb sps!

"But what about the millions of other people manifesting them?" 🤔⭐

There's the perspective that they've successfully manifested them in their personal realities, but I'm an elitist. In every other reality, I believe I am the only person my man would ever want to be with, consider, or fathom as a partner. I am the best of the best. I am the only person to ever exist in his world he'd want to be with intimately. I don't care who he's been with. I'm the best lover, best romantic partner, most attractive person to exist in their world. I am always infinitely better. I am what dreams are made of. Billions of the most attractive and good men in the world would kill irl to be with me or even be in the same room with me. Women and other identities too!~

This is how you need to think. If you think anyone's manifesting them? No, they're not lol. Because they'd never do it successfully or have the confidence and conviction to maintain it. They're also not you. And they're weak bitches! I said what I said. I've never thought small in my entire life and I have unwavering confidence, self discipline, and belief in myself. I am self-obsessed and radiate power, magnetism, and sex appeal. I'm also the most beautiful person I've ever personally come across, alive or dead. In a room full of the most conventionally beautiful people, my sp would only have eyes for me. Even in an industry full of surgical beauties! Idgaf! Even if I wasn't gorgeous, my sp would still think I was! Now, let's discuss stalkers and other criminals and what makes you different:

You're always winning in your reality, even if that winning is you losing, lol. You're winning in the assumption that you can't have what you want or who you want. That's winning but just not in your favor.

Even if millions of people are casting love spells or manifesting your person, they will always fail because you've rendered them ineffective in your reality. Also, AGAIN, you are YOU! Someone can only 'take' your sp if you THINK it's possible that they can be taken! That's why you need to STAND THE FUCK UP! Would you wanna be with you? I would wanna be with me! My sp is LUCKY that I even give a fuck the way I do lmao! I also personally believe whoever you're manifesting is manifesting YOU back! That's how manifesting people works objectively if you look at stories of couples who've described how it feels on both ends.

I don't consider stalking to be something celebs want but may be what they expect due to their job and not thinking they're in control of their realities, etc. I also put obsessive fans in that category because their emotional investment makes them money lol. But as a celeb who wants to be genuinely loved as a human being, I do believe they're manifesting the right person for them and that spectrum of possibility will involve someone that's potentially a fan or was one due to the magnitude of their fame. But this person would truly love and appreciate them. That's the difference. When Hailey Bieber and Victoria Beckham were manifesting their men as fans, they wound up in healthy and happy relationships with them. Thriving, tbh.

But the typical 'fan' is usually someone with piss poor self esteem, puts their fave on a pedestal, and may think they have to force themselves on their fave to 'get them to like them' when that's just abuse and assault. That's due to poor self concept and probably due to having an unhealthy relationship with them bc of social alienation from Capitalism, untreated/misdiagnosed neurodivergence because of lack of money and access to quality healthcare, and a combination of factors where their fave is the only 'good' experience in their lives. You're always telling yourself a story. With your sp, celeb or not, it's the same thing.

These people don't believe that they can successfully 'be' with their fave without breaking the law or bypassing personal boundaries and that lack of self belief is because of bad self concept and personal self esteem. They don't think they would ever choose them without them needing to force it to happen. When you're manifesting like Hailey, Victoria, etc, you're putting yourself on the pedestal instead. You're believing that there's no way in hell that celeb sp WON'T want you for just existing. I don't know those women personally but it takes audacity and that audaciousness is a result of a strong self concept about themselves and what they're capable of. But it doesn't have to be all that.

You don't even have to like yourself to manifest a celeb sp, but most people don't tell themselves that they can just exist and the sp will find them and fall in love with them.

That's the difference between a stalker, saesang, and toxic person vs another person manifesting them. You'd think there's overlap but there's a distinct difference in mindset. You don't need to be in creepy group chats full of criminals exchanging stolen personal info or do any weird shit but people do most likely because that's the only way they think they'll get access to their sp. They're still insecure, lol.

That's why people commit crimes anyway and is the way our system is set up. They're still manifesting that fraudulent access but they rarely, if ever, land the full blown relationship where their sp wants them back. Their sp not wanting them back despite all the weird shit (bc people irl DO have relationships w/ toxic people) is proof that they DON'T think or believe this person wants them. Otherwise they'd think it was cute or something because they'd see them as the one and only exception. That rarely happens with celebs, even though I'm sure it does, but that not being the norm means those people manifesting celeb sps simply don't think they can do it deep down.

That's why you're one out of millions or a billion, honestly. Even if someone seems very confident, unless they have consistent commitment to their inner story like con artist Anna Delvey, for example, then they won't be successful.

Because that's all it takes with anything, sp or not. It's the story you're telling yourself. It doesn't have to feel real. You just need to not change it.

Like I said, the other girls are weak bitches. It just is what it is.

[spotlightlowlife]

Greed is every sin

Just as openly elitist power abuser Stolas is the best villain of either series in this Helluverse, Mammon manages to be the greatest sin of all and for a similar reason, being multifaceted via many efforts made to sway our thinking, yet these two are then taken in different directions.

So much range does 'greed' have that he even encapsulates the 'sins' we have yet to meet.

Of those we have met, Ozzie, Bee and over in Pride, Lucifer, Mammon has managed to showcase actions of their sins in his own greedy way. Greed has a bit of everyone, but vise versa? Not if they're supposed to be liked.

A totally desexualised character but blamed for the sexdolls of a famous character whoes 'dayjob' is entertaining at a kinky nightclub, run by the prince of lust. Even though he markets the dolls as multipurpose, fit for everyone at a very affordable price, the sex element is his fault. The dolls were clearly a collaboration and something thought up before a reference was chosen, Ozzie catches feelings for their references and feels he should no longer able to separate business from his personal feelings, whilst Mammon manages to prosper in business in a field that isn't his.

Lust ✅

A glutton for the sake of being a glutton, no need for celebration just mindless or stress eating, which fits well as greed and gluttony often go together, taking because it's there.

There's also the deliberate fat design intended to make him more grotesque. 'Gluttony' does not need to be fat, yet the 'Gluttony' we met simply wanted the party goers indulged, however Ozzie wanted his patrons to keep it sexy and Mammon collected cash during the pageant, they did as much as eachother, only the efforts to make him piggish only took away from Bee's thing.

Gluttony ✅

Showy and performative but happy to take the backseat, is seen working and mentoring, adapts to what's new, what works and what others want but also bold enough to openly share selfish motive. As involved and inappropriate as his behaviour may seem he's all business, willing to work with those who don't like him and invest in what doesn't interest him without buckling or offsetting.

Mammon succeeds as a ruthless, confident, both proactive and passive leader who doesn't come across as someone who casually hangs with 'commoners' and whose true influence and power is unknown.

Pride ✅

Way too attentive to be lazy, but, what do people have to say about a boss who puts their feet up and fails to do what they're more than capable of doing, rather, they get others to do? Mammon supposedly 'not doing clown stuff anymore' and Fizz being 'a better clown than he ever was' as according to Ozzie are statements that means little, he wanted a prodigy, we saw imagery of training arc he showcases entertainers in order to fulfil his greed and his trade gets acknowledged. Ozzie has a seedy nightclub where those who work their or visit are expected to behave in a sexy way and Bee expects her guests to indulge, what's the difference? They meet their sin quota whilst not showing us any form of trade outside of being a host, why is Mammon condemned for as in a leading example of laziness? If we're scaling laziness, where does this leave poor, yet to be introduced Belphahor?

Relaxation pairs with recovery, research shows that the Sloth ring has the hospitals and is also responsible for 'upper' medication. Nice right? Something positive, which is where all those we are to like lean towards. That and Bee seems to be friends with her.

Sloth ✅

Spring boarding onto the next sin, Wrath, someone who has been described as attractive (by Bee) and is seen as a leader and god to the imps. It helps to be liked. This is hell where anything supposedly goes, murder is fine but not sadness, sadness isn't a sin but what else is everything, irate. Mammon was allowed to not only be big and menacing but pose a threat to someone who would be frightened of their fallout, allowed to resort to blackmail when he didn't like how things were going and allowed to vow revenge before taking off and trashing the place and maybe even killing his audience who bore witness on his way out, in a rather composed way.

Wrath ✅

Looloo land being a ripoff of Lulu land is so clearly a display of greed, especially since Looloo land is poorly maintained dispite Mammon being a perfectionist, this ripoff could easily be an example of envy, a grasp at control born from following a definitive leader who seems no leader at all, but can do what he wants because this is his realm.

Wlillingness to rip off such a superior, block effort at takedown with an impenetrable contract and still maintain (according to research) a good relationship with shows caution, calculation and willingness to fight.

Mammon even has his face on hell's currency and a banking app, yet who exactly is he supposed to be paying tax to? Lucifer, hells actual owner who doesn't seem to be a leader? Or are they answering to those 'higher up' which places Mammon in the frustrating position of second fiddle to a boss who isn't the best?

We haven't met Envy/Leviathan yet, but we have a host of main characters who live contemptuous lives and look to what others have that they don't, so envy, like wrath affects everyone, have been prominent driving forces since the start along with sadness and tragedy which aren't sins.

Envy ✅

Mammon manages to encompasses all elements of sinning even when he shouldn't really because it's by proxy as someone whose actions are portrayed as self serving and cruel with no excuses or failure to acknowledge, someone who upsets and can be harmful to those we are supposed to root for, something these series shy away from when they want us to like a character. We have a demon who succeeds in being someone you have no business getting mixed up with, in hell, a place you shouldn't want to be, where he is a crowned leader who is after your money if you're lucky.

Greed ✅

[triple-mayday]

There’s hella theories floating around about the reason behind Tucker Carlson’s sudden divorce with Fox News, but there’s one that I love the most.

Its the sexiest, pettiest, most delicious bullshit to ever be conceived. Behold:

We know for a fact that Tucker got bitch slapped across New York City by Rupert Murdoch himself. Not only that, but baby boy was laid off sometime on Friday and notified only on Monday, when he came to work. So, this unforeseen development was like a kick in the balls. For the uninitiated, Rupert Murdoch is the name of the demonic entity responsible for the creation of Fox News.

Tuckerson and Rupert had a special relationship. According to Tucker himself, the now ex-host was “100% [Rupert’s] bitch” (we love a proud sugar baby). Tucker was basically a glorified court jester - he cosplayed for daddy Rupert as a pro-worker, anti-elitist, anti-establishment, Christian, relatable everyman that broke republicans could relate to. That was, of course, a load of horseshit. As said by Tucker himself.

You see, back in Mesozoic Era (circa 2008-2011), our boy was an active participant in shock radio programs where he paraded himself as an open and proud elitist and a self-admitted trust fund baby.

All of this deliciousness speaks for itself. Tucker Carlson is a chameleon that changes his face depending on what’s resonating best with his conservative audience. Which brings us to the nearly orgasmic culmination of events that could have possibly led to Tucker’s current unemployment.

Tuck roleplayed as a hardcore Christian for quite some time. On that fateful Friday night, he turned it up to 100 for his speech at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary gala. Bubba was popping off, calling abortions “child sacrifices” and demanding daily prayers. The audience loved it. Rupert? Not so much.

The thing is, for Rupert business comes before fascism. Grandpa worships money, Jesus is merely a profitable business strategy. For a businessman, the rabid fundie shit was already incredibly off-putting. And Tucker’s villain monologue just happened to be the last drop in the bucket that was already filled to the brim by Murdoch’s ex. That’s right. The chair of Fox News broke off his recent engagement because his fiancée was a Jesus freak.

Now onto the good shit. Rupert’s ex had a favorite show. Guess what that show was?

Tucker Carlson Tonight

The woman in question even had tête-à-tête chit chats with her favorite TV personality, thanks to her connection to Fox News CEO.

Tensions were rising in the Murdoch household. The ex-fiancée’s obsession with Tucker only added fuel to the fire. The woman went as far as declaring that Carlson was a messenger from God. One day, Tucker had a dinner at his boss’ estate. In the middle of dinner the Jesus lady pulled out a Bible and began discussing the book of Exodus with Carlson.

Rupert just sat there like 👁️👄👁️

In the end, the man was too freaked out by Christian fundamentalism and kicked Tucker out after his particularly awful speech. It was also a cute little fuck you to his ex cause now her favorite show got canceled

This is just one theory, but it’s my favorite, so I prefer it above all else, and now you get to experience this beauty with me

God, I adore American politics

[twst-hottest-takes]

I’m just going to open this by admitting that I will absolutely come off as kind of elitist saying this.

But, it genuinely annoys me when people who clearly don’t play video games or know anything about the video game sphere write about Idia and playing video games. Sometimes in the “he would not play that” way, and sometimes in the “it takes me out of the story” way.

To clarify, I’m not talking about game genre or if the game’s popular. With comments Idia has made across the main story, events, homescreen dialogue, ect. we can reasonably say Idia plays RPGs, MMORPGs, MMOs, first person shooters and visual novels. He clearly plays a little bit of everything, and I’m sure popular games have been included too.

The best way I can describe what I’m talking about is by calling it very surface-level. It feels fake when certain writers write about Idia playing games. It just doesn’t feel like the way someone with Idia’s implied gaming experience and his preferences would play/pick his games.

I guess you could say some writers don't have the XP to accurately write certain elements of a character, eh?

Since this seems to be in reference to fan-made content, I don't have a whole lot to say other than that. I am not a super hardcore gamer myself, nor do I take time to read many fanworks, so I can't say if I would pick up on some of the same "inaccuracies."

It may read as elitist to some, but I think it's fair to have those moments if you feel you have more experience in or a better understanding of a certain hobby sphere. I think it makes it all the better when you manage to find a fic that handles Idia's hobbies in a way that tracks with what we know, yeah?

This is probably relateable to a lot of people, just in reference to other specific elements of other characters.

Thank you for the ask!

Also I apologize, but it's impossible for me to not say, "It takes one to know one" in reference to this particular ask because Idia can be quite the elitist himself when it comes to his interests and I just found that funny. Please know I mean no offense by it.

[mariacallous]

In Germany, it is in hushed, angst-infused tones that observers now utter the words “Weimarer Verhältnisse,” or Weimar conditions. This refers to the chaos and violence that political extremists sowed during Germany’s 1918 to 1933 Weimar Republic, an experiment in democracy that ended with the Nazis grabbing power. Postwar Germany has gone to extreme lengths—in every field of its culture, economy, and society—to proscribe any return of the precarious conditions that witnessed fierce street battles between the communist left and Nazi right and enabled Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party to capture so much of the German vote that it could come to power in 1933—and from there shut down the democratic state and impose a fascist dictatorship.

This is why Germans today are so deeply distressed about the shocking spate of violence against candidates and campaign volunteers involved in the run-up to the EU-wide European Parliament elections on June 6 to 9. And there is some evidence that the phenomenon, while most intense and sustained in Germany, is not confined to the Federal Republic. In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico was the victim of an assassination attempt on May 15. France, Poland, the Netherlands, and other countries have also seen violence against politicos surge—although its perpetrators are not generally as closely associated with the extreme-right scene as in Germany.

The Dutch political historian Ido de Haan underscores that the far right’s ascendance across Europe is at the root of the problem: “The larger context for this violence is mostly the hard right’s ascendance across Europe,” he told Foreign Policy. He pointed out that the far right leads or participates in governments in Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and most recently the Netherlands, too. The far-right parties, including in Germany, are expected to score particularly well in the EU vote, and headline-grabbing attacks could play into their court, he said.

Indeed, Germany appears to be the epicenter of the phenomenon—and female personnel are particularly vulnerable. On May 4, a prominent Social Democrat, Matthias Ecke, was hanging posters in Dresden when attacked by four teenagers, at least one a known right-wing radical, and badly beaten, landing him in the hospital with broken bones. That week, a female Green party campaign worker in the same city was assaulted. In Berlin on May 7, a former mayor, Social Democrat Franziska Giffey, was assailed and hurt. In 2023, aggressive behavior toward political figures and officials in Germany surged: 3,691 incidents, 80 of them involving physical violence. The numbers show that the lion’s share of perpetrators are extreme rightists. The party bearing the overwhelming brunt of abuse: the Greens.

The hard right has long seen leftists as its primary political enemy, but several years running now it is the Greens party—with its high-profile climate policies and progressive identity politics—that presents an oversized target. The far right brands the environmentalists as elitist, cosmopolitan, and more concerned about the natural world than the human beings living in it. They are pigeonholed as the party that wants to ban and outlaw things like combustion-engine automobiles, domestic flights, and new oil and gas heating systems. But all of the democratic parties are objects of hate for the hard right, and they are singled out as such with purpose and strategic calculation.

“In Germany,” de Haan said, “these cases and others constitute interference in the electoral processes,” which he argued is, for the moment at least, unique in Europe. The Greens and other leftist parties are targeted in an indirectly organized, tactical effort to obstruct their campaigns and undermine democracy, he said. “The extreme right’s aim is to deny the legitimacy of democratic processes. It wants to assert itself as the most visible and consequential political force prepared to stand up and do something dramatic about the system’s perceived failings.”

“These attacks are aimed at destroying the very basis of democracy,” agreed the left-liberal daily Tageszeitung, “at the political commitment of people in their city and community. If everyone is too afraid to run for office, the perpetrators will have won.”

In contrast, the Fico assassination attempt in Slovakia appears to be more similar to past political violence in Slovakia carried out by underworld protagonists or political enemies. The assailant was a lone perpetrator, frustrated with government policies and thus appears “closely related to the specific conditions in Slovakia,” explained Ulf Brunnbauer, a historian at the University of Regensburg. Therre is a “supercharged polarization, a public debate full of hate speech, ubiquitous accusations of corruption and illegitimacy against political opponents, and the big conflict over Slovakia’s geopolitical position: West or East,” Brunnbauer told Foreign Policy.

Experts in Germany say the prominence and expansion of political violence has everything to do with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) itself, an extremist party with convictions that often dovetail with those of full-fledged neo-Nazis, the likes of whom are at home within its ranks. “The AfD is a party with violence in its DNA,” said Heike Kleffner, an author of several books on the German right and head of a counseling center for victims of right-wing violence. “Its language, proclamations, and accusations condone and even call for violence against its political foes,” she said.

So incendiary is the party that several AfD branches in eastern Germany and the national AfD youth section are the subject of German intelligence service observation. The AfD’s politics are so much more radical than those of its far-right peers in the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy group, an alliance of populist right-wing parties that includes Marine Le Pen’s French National Rally, that the alliance expelled the AfD from its ranks on May 21. A new German study found that 28 AfD members serving in German legislatures had been convicted of violence-related crimes, including verbal violence and incitement to hatred.

Kleffner pointed out that right-wing attacks against democratic officials are not new, although their scope has expanded. In 2019, Walter Lübcke, a Christian Democrat politician in Hesse, was gunned down by a neo-Nazi after expressing sympathy with refugees. In 2015, the liberal-minded then-candidate for mayor of Cologne was stabbed in the throat while campaigning.

In response, the AfD denies that it has anything to do with street violence. And it points out that it is also the victim of political violence. On May 22, an AfD politico, Mario Kumpf, was punched in the face at a supermarket in Saxony. Most recently, on June 5, another local AfD official was attacked with a knife in Mannheim, a city in western Germany. But neither the AfD’s number of victims nor the severity of their injuries is on par with those of the democratic parties—and the attacks are not part of a larger political strategy.

The threat of injury has already impacted Germany’s political culture. Candidates and campaigners travel in groups. Party insiders say that they are finding it harder to get new people to run for office.

“No one can say what the threshold is at which democracy tips over,” Holger Münch, head of Germany’s federal investigative police agency, told the German media. “But when 10 percent of office and mandate holders say they are considering quitting because of the hostility and another almost 10 percent say they no longer want to run for office again because of the hostility, this is clearly too high.”

The spike in violence and the dramatic headlines have renewed calls for police departments to do more, and even for the state to ban the AfD. The German government passed a Democracy Promotion Act that would finance initiatives that promote “diversity, tolerance, and democracy” with around 200 million euros a year.

Historians such as Brunnbauer say that the violence on the German political scene is nothing like the pandemonium that raged in Weimar Germany. But others point out that then, as now, the hard right utilized violence to achieve political goals. The hate speech, injunctions to take action, and demonization of political opponents jacks up the animosity that like-minded toughs dole out in fists and clubbings on the street.

“The consensus that existed in the old Federal Republic that [political violence] is unacceptable under penalty of political ostracism has been shattered,” opined the Tageszeitung. More violence could shatter the new normal, delivering democracy in Germany a blow that may not equate with the conditions of Weimar Germany but which looks enough like them to set off alarm bells.

[not-poignant]

Out of curiosity, when did the, 'fanfic doesn't need to adhere to canon, everything is valid and good, don't give concrit unless specifically asked for' attitude become the norm? Genuine question.

I was active in fandom back in the LJ days, when sporkings and comms viciously mocking Mary Sues were the norm, but then I sort fell out of fandom spaces for the past (checks notes) fifteen years holy shit. The current attitude seems diametrically opposed to what I remember fandom being like (kinda shitty, it was 'cool' to be an asshole back then), and I'm just curious as to when and how the shift happened. I mean, I assume it was a gradual thing, but is there anything in particular that stick out to you?

(Also, because tone doesn't convey very well through ask, and I don't want to leave you with a poor impression-- this is by no means a defence of the 2000s attitudes, nor an aspersion on the current ones. I'm genuinely only curious about the evolution from one to the other; I hope that comes across.)

Hi anon!

TL;DR because my response got LONG -> Anon this existed before Livejournal as an attitude, in fact modern fandom was literally born out of being not canon compliant (*waves aggressively to Spirk shippers*) and this existed on Livejorunal too and there have always been big pockets of fandom that really frowned on sporking even there, like that was not cool when I was on LJ, unless you were a certain age, or in certain spaces in fandom.

But also AO3 was its kind of final death knell re: making it cool to bully 13-16 yo writers (who were largely the victims of sporking) and killing dreams, which was born out of meta happening on LJ and in other places about like... not trying to make people miserable for writing a free fic out of the love in their heart that someone else didn't like or think was good enough.

Anyway, the longer version of this under the read more!

(For everyone else, welcome to some of the uglier aspects of 00s fandom!)

So there was actually criticism around all the stuff you mention 15-20 years ago as well. I was also on Livejournal during that time and there was a pretty big proportion of people in certain fandoms who recognised even then that like... setting up communities to mock say, Mary Sue writers, was actually a pretty weirdly cruel thing to do to people who were providing free labour and the literal only 'payment' they could get in a kind of energy exchange was people just not being complete dickheads to them.

So things were already changing, especially in many LJ communities and awards communities. There were a lot of big debates over whether concrit should be asked for, and a growing movement of authors who said they welcomed constructive criticism for example, instead of assuming it should automatically apply. There was also a lot of meta around the function of fanfiction and whether it should even be 'good' by published standards if the author was just doing it for themselves, and for fun (esp if they were just going to get punished for it by folks who were elitist, judgemental, grammar purists etc.)

Things really changed around the time of AO3 (2009-2010 - literally around 14~ years ago, you may have just missed the big change anon!), Strikethrough and the Dreamwidth exodus. There was a massive swing away from leaving concrit unless the author specifically asked for it, and fandom became a lot more generally able to recognise that a lot of labour goes into fanart and fanfiction and that paying with public criticism is shitty actually. Also people were just more able to recognise that like most fanfiction writers aren't trying to become professional writers and many don't want to be.

(I would actually say things changed around the time of fanfiction.net too - rude comments there were definitely noticed and could create some pretty forward 'hey why are you doing this on something you literally don't have to read' responses from fellow readers - idk what fic sites you were on. The small indie fic sites where you could often only comment via email for example, definitely drew a lot more critical attention than sites that tended to have public comments).

The 'fanfic doesn't need to adhere to canon' literally exists since the very first Spirk slash fic in modern fanfiction in the last few decades. Literally, as soon as you write Kirk/Spock, you're not adhering to canon. Our fanfiction 'ancestors' literally paved the way for a legacy which is about not adhering to canon in order to see the world/s and thing/s you want to see, be entertained by, by turned on by, or enjoy, from the very beginning. You may not have been in slash circles anon, but the foundation of queer same sex fanfic is in many ways the foundation of fandom. But yeah, this is literally where fanfiction started! As soon as you're shipping characters that aren't canon for fun (or for whatever reason), you're making it pretty clear that you want stories different to canon, and you have to change things to often keep those characters in-character.

So yeah! That's been there for decades. Idk what circles you were in on that front! While it was fairly common for a while to criticise characters for being OOC (Out of Character), imho, a lot of folks started to recognise that they literally weren't paying for what they were criticising, and they could just walk away and potentially not like...blast the fanfic. Some folks started to recognise more that people were writing with ESL, or were teenagers (some 40 yos in fandom realised they were mocking literal 15 year olds in their proto-podcasts and websites and realised actually that's just...mean? Really mean? Not the way to nurture new generations of fanfiction writers. Definitely in no way encouraging), or were writing for themselves, or writing for like one other person, or writing for fun, or writing for free, or writing for personal reasons etc.

'Don't Like Don't Read' wasn't just about political stuff, it was also about just walking away if you feel the urge to slam a fanfic in the comments.

I've been in fandom for around 2.5 decades anon, and there were so many spaces that were not actually as shitty or mean-spirited as the ones you were in? Or ones that at least had a lot of different thoughts etc. Like, sporking (mocking/bullying badfics and sometimes the folks who wrote them) was disapproved of by a lot of people in fandom even while sporking was at the height of its popularity (the Fanlore page goes into more detail about this). It might have just been the fandoms you were in, or the people you were hanging out with (and that might have been dependent on your age or just if you were around people who wanted to be 'cool' back then - in the same way that being an 'anti' is cool among certain crowds today. It's possible to spend years in certain crowds and never get an image of broader fandom for example - we can all end up in spaces like that! I know I have.)

When I started writing fanfiction (which no one will EVER find lmao), generally giving positive comments was normal. Constructive criticism was actually pretty rare and there were already fanfiction aggregate sites that generally disapproved of it in their Rules of Conduct. People were encouraging and polite. And this was around 20 years ago on Livejournal and private indie fanfiction websites.

I would actually say there was never exactly an evolution from 'one to the other' because like thousands of people in fandom already believed this and argued in defense of supporting fanfiction and transformative works via accepting that people are labouring for free and that not everyone wants to become a 'better writer' etc. - the meta was there on Livejournal in the 00s. There were communities where sporking was seen as hip/fun, and communities where it was literally banned or at the very least, super frowned upon.

There were meta fandom communities where sporking was the subject of discussion and you know eventually in a lot of those meta communities, that's where a lot of folks decided actually that calling out the fanfiction of 16 yos as 'cringe' or 'badly done' maybe said more about us as human beings and what we wanted fandom to be, than it did about the actual fanfic itself. By the time AO3 came around, people built it with this in mind.

To this day on AO3 it's mostly considered appropriate to say you want concrit in your author's notes, and to otherwise assume as a reader it's never welcome if it's unsolicited. That started during the LJ era. And it was talked about at great length. There's obviously going to be people who disagree! But for the most part I'm a big believer in compassion and 'not everyone is here for the same reason' and 'they literally gave this to us for free and it's meant to be fun' (like yourself! What we do/think/argue 10 years ago on LJ is sometimes different to what we do 10 years later lol, I used to be against trigger warnings pre-AO3! Times change a lot :D )

So yeah, this was definitely something that was around before you and I came to fandom, and it was something that continued to grow as an attitude during, until finally it kind of won out on AO3. But yeah fandom as we know it was born in people literally not being canon compliant to make some gay dreams come true (Spirk shippers bless them all), at a time when there was no representation.

Even in the earliest days of fandom where comments could only happen via email, one of the earliest phrases authors used were things like 'flames will be used to roast marshmallows.' For those reading who don't know, flames are hate comments, critical 'this fic is bad because' comments etc. Except you emailed them directly to the author, because there was no place for comments on a fic.

And this started because authors in part got death threats for writing gay stuff.

So you know, from the very beginning, authors in fanfic have by and large had a very low tolerance for criticism / hate over something they're doing for free and making no profit out of, when they're changing/altering the canon as they please to create representation (or hotness lmao), that is literally a labour of love in a world of very little representation. From there, things have just grown. The whole 'flames will not be tolerated' existed even before Livejournal did.

Honestly there are still people who love sporking and you could probably find groups and Discords dedicated to that even now (actually you literally can, there's a Dreamwidth group for it), it's kind of wild but it started to get cool again. Just like 90s clothing :D (Which is also wild because I can just take that crap out of my closet and wear it again).

But yeah it also sounds like you may have been in some pretty crappy pockets of fandom! When I was on LJ in the 00s I avoided those places and still got to experience fandom across multiple fandoms (mostly NCIS, Captive Prince, HP, Profiler, The X-Files and some others) and communities.

I was super active in some fandom communities and saw a lot of meta happening, and my view during the early and late 00s was that sporking was largely pretty frowned upon after a very brief (like 3-6 month) era where it was cool for only some folks, and then everyone (including some - but not all - of those folks) was like 'heyyyyyyy hang on a minute.' It was something that the bullies did, and enjoyed, and otherwise folks kind of stayed away from it, especially once they learned people were becoming too scared to write fics, which is the inevitable outcome of mocking/bullying folks and fics that have been made purely out of love for something.

Like, publicly making a spectacle out of what a 13 yo (they were often teens - and it's kind of sad how many 40 yo women were doing the sporking :/ ) wrote out of love, just for fun/clout was not considered cool by everyone even back then, because like, a lot of us saw that as killing new generations of fandom (some folks who sporked considered it a win if a fic or account got deleted, this is not based behaviour), not actually creating good writing, internalised misogyny (Mary Sue hatred and self insert hatred), etc. It's hard to explain because I do really think we were in different corners of fandom at the time, but I don't know anyone personally from my time on Livejournal who actually liked sporking as an idea or enjoyed it or enjoyed listening to it or reading articles mocking fic.

I knew about it from very lively 'is this okay' 'actually no it's not even if it's just for fun this is trying to hurt people and saying 'it's just the fic' is not going to be the bandaid a teenager needs to understand why older folks (generally) in fandom are mocking them for being new at a skill' discussions on LJ in meta fandom communities. So this is how much I could be in fandom and not be a part of it and also have like a wildly different experience to your LJ experience!

I think if I'd been a teenager during that era it would have seemed a lot more appealing (in the same way that many teens are antis now before they grow out of it), and fuck it if I was a more bitter person who was just around people who liked to make fun of what other people created, perhaps I would have enjoyed it too, I can see a lot of reasons why a person would fall into that in LJ -> but I was an adult on LJ trying not to be mean to people or what they were creating, so yeah I was maybe just in very different spaces! (Don't get me wrong, I have my giant fucking character flaws, but I was very scared of people hating me so like I didn't want to do things that would make that happen, lol, and also I was scared to put up fic myself during the era of active sporking. I know for myself that sporkers didn't just scare away writers of 'badfic' - they...intimidated a LOT of people).

Before AO3 I was on FF.net, posting fics on LJ, posting on Schnoogle, gossamer, and a couple of other archives. So I don't think my experience was that 'narrow,' I just think I wasn't around like... anime at that time or other places where it might have been happening. I also avoided like...Draco/Malfoy where CC drama was happening and I know sporking was popular in that specific arena / pairing for a while as well (er, as well as anything to do with Mary Sues).

So yeah! That's about where that is. Generally gatekeeping fandom is just seen as not a great thing to do to people, and that creates other kind of beliefs that are generally upheld as being more inviting/nurturing. After all, if someone truly wants to get better at writing, they can ask, or do courses, but as we all know, everyone has to write some bad stuff to get good at it, but not everyone wants to be good. Folks are in fandom for different reasons. I'm rambling now so I'm going to finish my lunch! :D

[witchwyfe]

places to kiss: knuckles and rafe if you don't mind!

prompt - places to kiss: knuckles

pairing - (non canon) rafe cameron x female reader

cw - mentions of alcohol, like one curse

“I know this is like really boring and elitist and stupid,” Rafe sighs in one breath, earning a laugh from you. “But thank you for being here with me.”

You lean over to rest your head on his shoulder, his chin nuzzling the top of your head. “’Course baby, I like being here with you.”

He kisses the top of your head, trying to hide his giddy smile, but you feel the curve of his lips against your scalp. His hand is warm at your lower back, heat radiating through the thin fabric of your dress. The two of you listen to Ward blabber on about something or other, neither of you are really listening.

Eventually you stand, setting your shoulder on Rafe’s shoulder. “I’m going to get another drink. Do you want anything?”

He’s quick to shoot to his feet, hand finding your elbow comfortingly. “Let me get it, sweetheart.”

You shake your head. “I’m not sure what I want yet.”

“Then I’ll come with you.” He offers. You thread your arm with his, leading him towards the bar. Rafe looks surprised when you order your drink immediately without thinking about it.

“He’ll take a Mai Tai.” You tell the bartender with a kind smile, slipping some money across the bar as a tip.

You take a sip of the champagne you ordered and give him a wink.

“Thought you didn’t know what you wanted.”

“I did.” You smirk. “I wanted to get us away from that table. You looked miserable baby.”

He chuckles, pressing a kiss to the top of your head. “I love you; you know that?”

“Yeah, I know.” You smile, leaning your head against his mouth so he can press another kiss to it. “I love you too.”

Once the two of you finish your drinks, you take his hand in yours, pulling it up so you can press your lips to his knuckles.

“Wanna dance?”

“Hell yes, I do.”

© witchwyfe 2023. absolutely no reposting, translating, or modifying, even with credit.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for trolling an elitist in an online game?

This was three years ago and was such a brief and dumb moment that I often forget this actually happened. I've played this particular online game for over ten years now. The game has a few different modes, and one of them is a sort of PVP where you play against several people at once globally.

I was playing this mode as usual one day and one person I got grouped up with while playing struck me as a shitty person right off the bat. His display name only said "UPDog" and his profile picture was that "Blue Lives Matter" flag. My first thought was, "UGH! This ought to be good!" Keep in mind, for some reason, this game tends to attract all sorts of awful people, so I have a habit of checking the profiles of these people to see just what flavour of awful they are.

The short version is this person was an elitist, trashing other players for using boosts during their gameplay and calling them desperate cowards. I could've ignored it, but I decided to respond. People can't directly chat with each other in this mode, so all I could do was edit my own profile to say, in short, to knock it off with the elitism without mentioning any specific players.

This ended up setting "UPDog" off as he updated his profile to attack me directly. I don't remember what all he said, but there was a lot of name-calling and taunting. I wasn't mad or anything. In fact, I found it hilarious that he chose to retaliate so aggressively over a game that people can play however they want. I decided to have some fun with this and take the piss out of him, and this is where I may be the asshole.

In a series of profile update exchanges, he got increasingly salty and belligerent as he continued to call me names, misgendered me in several ways (I'm NB), made several comments about "smacking (me) around", claimed that I was the one making nasty comments, and was bragging on top of it all. Meanwhile, I calmly called him out on his poor behaviour, poked fun at his elitism and sexism, said it's past his naptime, touch grass, you're falling for obvious trolling, etc., and live-updated my friends about the situation, who all had a laugh at his expense. One friend even said his harassment was like his display name: a lame joke.

When the multi-PVP session ended, which I won, he set his profile back to what it originally said. I did the same, went back to playing the game, and thought nothing further of the moment except for a few giggles.

I recently came across him again on the same game mode and he is still the same wanker he was three years ago. Not a single thing changed. I didn't bother messing with him this time since I had better things to do with my time, but part of me was hoping he'd see me and go off again just to give me a reason to go for the piss-take. That didn't happen, so there was no interaction.

In the end, I don't think I was wrong to needle him nor do I regret it, given how he behaved, but what do you think? AITA?

Add. info 1: I know I should've reported him for harassment, but the game's customer support leaves a lot to be desired and they wouldn't have done anything about it anyway.

Add. info 2: Neither of us have blocked each other. We wouldn't have seen each other in-game if so and I don't feel like bothering over a manchild that I don't come across regularly and can't even search for (don't know his username, just his display name).

What are these acronyms?

[spiders-hth-is-an-outlier]

Okay, this may come off sounding overly Buffypilled, but I think the fatal flaw that keeps preventing the pieces from coming together in SyFy's The Magicians (a show that is often good in its elements but Does Not Cohere) is that it can't figure out the nature of its core metaphor around magic.

But Milo, you say, maybe not everything has to be like, a metaphor? Maybe it can just be a fantasy show where people cast spells and bop around between dimensions because it's fun and entertaining? And to that I say, yeah, theoretically it can be that, but stuff that wants to be emotionally resonant is usually not that.

So there's typically an operative metaphor to these things, an idea that gives structure to the supernatural elements and helps us understand what's going on thematically. So like in Buffy and Supernatural, the structuring metaphor is The Pleasant-Seeming World Vs The Monsters Below Us. You understand the story by locating various characters in terms of their role in the conflict -- predators, protectors, prey -- and there's an ongoing tension around whether or not it's okay for protectors to dabble too much in Monstrosity, if the powers and tactics of the Monstrous can ever be repurposed for good.

That's not the structure of all stories, even in that genre! Teen Wolf and Harry Potter both have "secret occult world parallel to the familiar one" premises, as does The Magicians, but none of those stories impose the predator/prey metaphor onto their worlds. Teen Wolf structures its metaphors around the opposite assumption: that the supernatural element (The Wolf) is inherently neutral, and that accessing it makes characters simultaneously more dangerous and more capable of good. Hunters are bad guys in that universe, but good guys in Buffy and SPN, because the audience understands that "magic" is carrying a different set of meanings in the different stories, right?

The novels that The Magicians is based on has an extremely clear and pointed perspective on the meaning that magic carries metaphorically, and it's a positive meaning. Magic stands in for the power to make sense and meaning out of your own life, which is why the books follow Quentin's process from being a frustrated child using escapist child-stories to distract himself to playing an active role within those stories to assuming authority as a Magician King to ultimately killing the god of his childhood fantasy stories and creating his own Magician's Land to explore. Gaining more magic is always good in the books; it makes Quentin more sure of himself and the world, and it makes him more able to change it. It's an obvious metaphor for evolving over his 20s from a child who consumes stories to an adult who tells his own story.

But that's not the case in the show. A significant percentage of the show is an argument with itself about what magic even is -- does it solve problems or create them? If it's the reason lives across the multiverse are constantly at risk, is that bad? It sounds bad! But it's also power, and the show is highly sympathetic to the desire to Have More Power -- often completely divorced from the purpose or use of power. Gods seem mostly terrible, except Persephone, who's right to give Julia divine power, which we want Julia to be able to keep? But why do we want Julia to be a god? They're terrible! It's not clear. The nature of the power isn't clear, but the show has a general bias toward more power being a good thing -- except that the Library clearly has too much power, and so probably does Brakebills, both of which withhold magic for purposes that are protective or elitist or both? The show advocates for fewer restrictions on magic, but it also shows total carnage resulting from minor fuckups with magic, so -- does it really want the Library to just throw open to the floodgates? Doesn't it pretty strongly imply that a bloodbath would ensue if people had unfettered access to magic?

I realize it kind of sounds like I'm saying complicated stories with conflicting perspectives are bad, but I'm not. I just think it's difficult to know how to feel about anything that happens in the show because of this extremely loose approach to its use of themes. Alice is presented as wrong and bad when she tries to stifle magic, because the other characters like magic, but is she wrong? Why is she wrong? Why do the other characters like magic so much? It's presented as something that provides -- meaning or joy or some quasi-spiritual sense of identity ("the secret heart of who you always were"), but the show doesn't actually make that case, it doesn't demonstrate that the characters are better or happier because they're Magicians -- not in the same clear way that Scott McCall or book!Quentin are demonstrably more confident and comfortable and wiser at the end of their stories than they were at the beginning. As many times as I've watched The Magicians, I have to say I get less convinced every time that any of them benefit much from being Magicians -- and yet the story itself seems sure that they do, that magic has inherent value of some kind.

That's a weird combination, and it leaves me with the uncomfortable sense that the addiction metaphor is the one the show is fleshing out most fully. Fogg offers Quentin magic in exchange for his pills. Julia can't access magic legally and immediately behaves exactly like a junkie. If you do too much you'll be consumed, leaving an angry ghost. Kady's literal substance abuse, like Fogg's, is entwined at every step with the struggle to cope with the traumas of magic. Eliot is possessed by a creature of enormous magical power who is enthralled by the sensation of being high and has no perception of limits or consequence. They go back and back again to this entangling of magic and intoxication and addiction and self-destruction, but they never seem either aware of or willing to admit that they've created a world where magic itself is an addictive intoxicant, unable to provide real solutions to anyone's problems, but just pleasurable enough compared to the pain of sobriety to keep people chasing the sensation right over the cliff.

It's not intentional enough to be a metaphor that carries through consistently and explains everything, but it returns so frequently as a subtext that it ends up seeping into all the gaps where they've refused to show up with any other clear thematic agenda.

[inklessletter]

Threatening to report minors for interacting with your public, non-functionally-age gated blog is a fucking joke and it is report abuse. Your blog is public, minors are probably viewing it right now. What is wrong with you?

Hi Anon. I was just about to reply the same way I did to the other anon that actually insulted me so gratuitously, because, seriously, just by the tone alone you might as well deserve it. But I am civil, because I see that there is a genuine lack of understanding of that rule, so I'm going to explain this one to you (though I don't have to, Anon, you should already know this, it's common sense, but I get that you may just not be aware).

Firstly, my blog is public because, if you cared to scroll down for half a minute, you'd have seen that I don't aim to post or reblog +18 stuff, and when I do post content that might be sensitive, I rate the post as Mature, so there's no need of a warning for the whole blog, it's just silly. I am careful like that, even though I have never posted anything explicit whatsoever. But I don't know if I'm going to come across an explicit post that it's so good that it deserves a reblog, or post something explicit myself (that, as I say, I would rate it as I should, and always respecting this site's ground rules), and those are the post I'm warning minors about, not the whole blog.

Secondly, (and this is where I think most people get lost in this issue) about the minors dni thing, you should keep in mind a simple thing: when OPs say "MINORS DNI" they are not protecting minors, they're protecting their blogs, their creations, and above all, themselves. No OP of age with the minors dni warning in their blogs sets this rule for the kicks, if we make a +18 post and allow comments or reblogs from clear minors this could be a potentially serious problem depending on the country or the laws that they apply to that. It is that simple. It's for our own protection. (Besides, some people just don't want minors interacting with their blog/posts, and that's okay).

And before someone goes like "how could you say that you're protecting your blog and not what kids see!!", I'm going to tell them (and I think I might be speaking for many of us here) that I am not responsible for monitoring what minors consume or don't consume on the internet, unless they're my kids. It's their parent's/tutor's/people who are responsible for them, not me. And believe me that I don't mean this in a rude way, but it is simply not my problem.

I have no issue whatsoever with minors interacting in non-rated posts, everyone is welcome here, that is actually the first rule of this house. That this is a safe place, and I think I can't stress this enough. What I am asking is for you to understand that I, as responsible for this blog, draw a line on minors interacting in rated/+18 post, either mine or something I reblog, under the consequence of being potentially blocked and/or reported. I have the right to do both blocking and reporting people that don't go with the rules, and honestly, I don't even have to warn about it, I'm just being clear here so we all know where we stand. It is, honestly, not hard to understand.

So, you see, there's a reason for that rule, and I thought that it was absolutely clear without having to go through this big-ass text post, but maybe you just didn't know it. I am not gate keeping anyone, I'm not an elitist, I am not an kid-eating ogre (I do actually like them, little wips of a person), I am just saying that in this particular blog, in my house, this is a rule that should be respected if you want to stay. If you don't then don't follow me (or block me, even, so you don't have to deal with the posibility of someday finding any of my post in your dash, it is really, really okay, since as I said before, I am not responsible for what you consume or not, but you are.)

And that, dear Anon, is what's wrong with me.

Have a nice night

🤍🤍🤍

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.4.7 What about the communications revolution?

Another important factor working in favour of anarchists is the existence of a sophisticated global communications network and a high degree of education and literacy among the populations of the core industrialised nations. Together these two developments make possible nearly instantaneous sharing and public dissemination of information by members of various progressive and radical movements all over the globe — a phenomenon that tends to reduce the effectiveness of repression by central authorities. The electronic-media and personal-computer revolutions also make it more difficult for elitist groups to maintain their previous monopolies of knowledge. Copy-left software and text, user-generated and shared content, file-sharing, all show that information, and its users, reaches its full potential when it is free. In short, the advent of the Information Age is potentially extremely subversive.

The very existence of the Internet provides anarchists with a powerful argument that decentralised structures can function effectively in a highly complex world. For the net has no centralised headquarters and is not subject to regulation by any centralised regulatory agency, yet it still manages to function effectively. Moreover, the net is also an effective way of anarchists and other radicals to communicate their ideas to others, share knowledge, work on common projects and co-ordinate activities and social struggle. By using the Internet, radicals can make their ideas accessible to people who otherwise would not come across anarchist ideas. In addition, and far more important than anarchists putting their ideas across, the fact is that the net allows everyone with access to express themselves freely, to communicate with others and get access (by visiting webpages and joining mailing lists and newsgroups) and give access (by creating webpages and joining in with on-line arguments) to new ideas and viewpoints. This is very anarchistic as it allows people to express themselves and start to consider new ideas, ideas which may change how they think and act.

Obviously we are aware that the vast majority of people in the world do not have access to telephones, never mind computers, but computer access is increasing in many countries, making it available, via work, libraries, schools, universities, and so on to more and more working class people.

Of course there is no denying that the implications of improved communications and information technology are ambiguous, implying Big Brother as well the ability of progressive and radical movements to organise. However, the point is only that the information revolution in combination with the other social developments could (but will not necessarily) contribute to a social paradigm shift. Obviously such a shift will not happen automatically. Indeed, it will not happen at all unless there is strong resistance to governmental and corporate attempts to limit public access to information, technology (e.g. encryption programs), censor peoples’ communications and use of electronic media and track them on-line.

This use of the Internet and computers to spread the anarchist message is ironic. The rapid improvement in price-performance ratios of computers, software, and other technology today is often used to validate the faith in free market capitalism but that requires a monumental failure of historical memory as not just the Internet but also the computer represents a spectacular success of public investment. As late as the 1970s and early 1980s, according to Kenneth Flamm’s Creating the Computer, the federal government was paying for 40 percent of all computer-related research and 60 to 75 percent of basic research. Even such modern-seeming gadgets as video terminals, the light pen, the drawing tablet, and the mouse evolved from Pentagon-sponsored research in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Even software was not without state influence, with databases having their root in US Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission projects, artificial intelligence in military contracts back in the 1950s and airline reservation systems in 1950s air-defence systems. More than half of IBM’s Research and Development budget came from government contracts in the 1950s and 1960s.

The motivation was national security, but the result has been the creation of comparative advantage in information technology for the United States that private firms have happily exploited and extended. When the returns were uncertain and difficult to capture, private firms were unwilling to invest, and government played the decisive role. And not for want of trying, for key players in the military first tried to convince businesses and investment bankers that a new and potentially profitable business opportunity was presenting itself, but they did not succeed and it was only when the market expanded and the returns were more definite that the government receded. While the risks and development costs were socialised, the gains were privatised. All of which make claims that the market would have done it anyway highly unlikely.

Looking beyond state aid to the computer industry we discover a “do-it-yourself” (and so self-managed) culture which was essential to its development. The first personal computer, for example, was invented by amateurs who wanted their own cheap machines. The existence of a “gift” economy among these amateurs and hobbyists was a necessary precondition for the development of PCs. Without this free sharing of information and knowledge, the development of computers would have been hindered and so socialistic relations between developers and within the working environment created the necessary conditions for the computer revolution. If this community had been marked by commercial relations, the chances are the necessary breakthroughs and knowledge would have remained monopolised by a few companies or individuals, so hindering the industry as a whole.

Encouragingly, this socialistic “gift economy” is still at the heart of computer/software development and the Internet. For example, the Free Software Foundation has developed the General Public Licence (GPL). GPL, also know as

“copyleft”, uses copyright to ensure that software remains free. Copyleft ensures that a piece of software is made available to everyone to use and modify as they desire. The only restriction is that any used or modified copyleft material must remain under copyleft, ensuring that others have the same rights as you did when you used the original code. It creates a commons which anyone may add to, but no one may subtract from. Placing software under GPL means that every contributor is assured that she, and all other uses, will be able to run, modify and redistribute the code indefinitely. Unlike commercial software, copyleft code ensures an increasing knowledge base from which individuals can draw from and, equally as important, contribute to. In this way everyone benefits as code can be improved by everyone, unlike commercial code.

Many will think that this essentially anarchistic system would be a failure. In fact, code developed in this way is far more reliable and sturdy than commercial software. Linux, for example, is a far superior operating system than DOS precisely because it draws on the collective experience, skill and knowledge of thousands of developers. Apache, the most popular web-server, is another freeware product and is acknowledged as the best available. The same can be said of other key web-technologies (most obviously PHP) and projects (Wikipedia springs to mind, although that project while based on co-operative and free activity is owned by a few people who have ultimate control). While non-anarchists may be surprised, anarchists are not. Mutual aid and co-operation are beneficial in the evolution of life, why not in the evolution of software? For anarchists, this “gift economy” at the heart of the communications revolution is an important development. It shows both the superiority of common development as well as the walls built against innovation and decent products by property systems. We hope that such an economy will spread increasingly into the “real” world.

Another example of co-operation being aided by new technologies is Netwar. This refers to the use of the Internet by autonomous groups and social movements to co-ordinate action to influence and change society and fight government or business policy. This use of the Internet has steadily grown over the years, with a Rand corporation researcher, David Ronfeldt, arguing that this has become an important and powerful force (Rand is, and has been since its creation in 1948, a private appendage of the military industrial complex). In other words, activism and activists’ power and influence has been fuelled by the advent of the information revolution. Through computer and communication networks, especially via the Internet, grassroots campaigns have flourished, and the most importantly, government elites have taken notice.

Ronfeldt specialises in issues of national security, especially in the areas of Latin American and the impact of new informational technologies. Ronfeldt and another colleague coined the term

“netwar” in a Rand document entitled “Cyberwar is Coming!”. Ronfeldt’s work became a source of discussion on the Internet in mid-March 1995 when Pacific News Service correspondent Joel Simon wrote an article about Ronfeldt’s opinions on the influence of netwars on the political situation in Mexico after the Zapatista uprising. According to Simon, Ronfeldt holds that the work of social activists on the Internet has had a large influence — helping to co-ordinate the large demonstrations in Mexico City in support of the Zapatistas and the proliferation of EZLN communiqués across the world via computer networks. These actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed a network of groups that oppose the Mexican Government to muster an international response, often within hours of actions by it. In effect, this has forced the Mexican government to maintain the facade of negotiations with the EZLN and has on many occasions, actually stopped the army from just going in to Chiapas and brutally massacring the Zapatistas.

Given that Ronfeldt was an employee of the Rand Corporation his comments indicate that the U.S. government and its military and intelligence wings are very interested in what the Left is doing on the Internet. Given that they would not be interested in this if it were not effective, we can say that this use of the “Information Super-Highway” is a positive example of the use of technology in ways un-planned of by those who initially developed it (let us not forget that the Internet was originally funded by the U.S. government and military). While the internet is being hyped as the next big marketplace, it is being subverted by activists — an example of anarchistic trends within society worrying the powers that be.

A good example of this powerful tool is the incredible speed and range at which information travels the Internet about events concerning Mexico and the Zapatistas. When Alexander Cockburn wrote an article exposing a Chase Manhattan Bank memo about Chiapas and the Zapatistas in Counterpunch, only a small number of people read it because it is only a newsletter with a limited readership. The memo, written by Riordan Roett, argued that “the [Mexican] government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy”. In other words, if the Mexican government wants investment from Chase, it would have to crush the Zapatistas. This information was relatively ineffective when just confined to print but when it was uploaded to the Internet, it suddenly reached a very large number of people. These people in turn co-ordinated protests against the U.S and Mexican governments and especially Chase Manhattan. Chase was eventually forced to attempt to distance itself from the Roett memo that it commissioned. Since then net-activism has grown.

Ronfeldt’s research and opinion should be flattering for the Left. He is basically arguing that the efforts of activists on computers not only has been very effective (or at least has that potential), but more importantly, argues that the only way to counter this work is to follow the lead of social activists. Activists should understand the important implications of Ronfeldt’s work: government elites are not only watching these actions (big surprise) but are also attempting to work against them. Thus Netwars and copyleft are good examples of anarchistic trends within society, using communications technology as a means of co-ordinating activity across the world in a libertarian fashion for libertarian goals.

[obsessivelollipoplalala]

Regarding your post about fanfiction writing.

This is why I'll always emphasise how important being taught reading comprehension is in schools, I've seen posts going around on every platform for years about how English/any other language literature is useless in school because you have to interpret lines. The more someone reads, the more familiar they become with different writing styles. This maybe a very controversial take and I may come across as "elitist" but the lack of reading comprehension amongst people on the internet nowadays really annoys me.

It shouldn’t be controversial at all to state the fact that the reading comprehension on tumblr is absolutely abysmal. This is the, “how dare you say we piss on the poor!” website. The lack of reading comprehension and general critical thinking skills on here is the root of so much discourse, and I think much of tumblr’s discourse about school, in particular, comes from people who were obviously terrible students (lmao) and are angry their English teachers made them read books they weren’t interested in. They’re really out here sounding like conservatives railing against the humanities, but English class is incredibly important because it teaches you how to actually READ and analyze text. As you said, reading a lot exposes you to different writing styles and genres, as well. The best way to become a better writer, aside from practice, is to read more.

I feel like you unlocked a rant in me lol but I can’t stand the general edgelord “12 year-old who hates English class” vibe this site gives, and the insufferable outrage whenever you tell them that they should read more books.

[badnikbreaker]

You come across as elitist. I'm sure you don't mean to, but I just wanted you to know that it can be intimidating for people who may want to write with you.

normally i would delete this but yknow what. what am i, if not a glutton for punishment, and this is feedback i've gotten before. i just genuinely don't understand how.

my rules outright beg mutuals to send me asks and write me starters unprompted. i regularly encourage people to just assign our muses a pre-established relationship. i am constantly posting and reblogging opens and prompts and starter calls. i am nothing but encouraging in inviting my mutuals to write with me. i send ppl prompts all the time. i am doing just about everything short of DMing each mutual individually to be like 'can we write pwease?'

like, who am i being elitist to? because i'm sure as hell not being elitist to mutuals, since i am pleading with them to write with me, and i'm allowed to have boundaries about not writing with nonmutuals. if THAT'S what you mean, you don't take issue with me being elitist, the issue is me having boundaries. is it cause i write with the same handful of people a lot? some of that is because those folks are my friends, most of it is that those folks are the ones who actually write with me, who like my starter calls and send me asks and answer my asks and et cetera. like, what is my "it" that can be intimidating? is it just me like...liking my own writing? not visibly hating myself?

i know this answer is coming across as bitchy, and i'm genuinely sorry about that. i believe with all my heart that this wasn't meant to be a mean message. but this is a genuinely baffling and hurtful thing to hear when i am begging in my literal rules for my mutuals to write with me. when i am constantly throwing out opens and prompts to make it easy to do that. when i am so open about my willingness to come up with aus or verses to justify writing with pretty much any muse. when i am honest about how i'm not great at plotting but i'm always happy to do so when folks bring me an idea! when i am saying 'it doesn't have to be hard, let's just have fun!' like, i genuinely don't know what more i could be doing.

[anchorandrope]

We need to talk about how Larry isn't a conspiracy theory but how there are some "larries" who have cultist or conspiracy theorists' thoughts

I've been hesitating a lot whether I should make this post or not, but as a person who was a victim of a cult for 5 (almost 6) years, I think I can explain relatively well how affects me and how detrimental it's for everyone.

Before I start, I would like to clarify a couple of things:

I'm not a professional on this subject, so I may not be able to explain it very well, but I will do my best.

I myself am a larrie, I'm not an "anti who pretends to be a larrie" or a "rad" (?) or anything else... I'm just a person who suffered a lot for a cult and doesn't want her fandom to become one.

I recommend researching and reflecting beyond the sources and reflections that I include, there's a lot of information and testimonies on the internet that you could read to understand better.

As this is a long post, I will divide it into the following parts:

Index

Definitions: cult, sect (and the comparison between them), belief, hypothesis, theory and conspiracy theory.

Which of these definitions applies to Larry?

Why is it wrong to label Larry as something it is not?

How to tell the difference between a larrie and a person who uses Larry as an excuse to have something to obsess and theorise about.

Why is it important to put aside cultist and conspiracy thinking?

What to do if I come across one of these "larries"?

"Defenders of reality" can also engage in these behaviours.

Final clarifications.

Conclusion.

Survey.

Definitions.

If you are already very clear about cults, sects, beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc., you can skip this part, although I don't recommend it.

What's a cult?

"A religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people."

Source: Cambridge Dictionary

"A small group of people who have extreme religious beliefs and who are not part of any established religion."

Source: Oxford Dictionary

What are the characteristics of a cult?

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

The leader is not accountable to any authorities.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before they joined the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and to radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before they joined the group.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Source: International Cultic Studies Assosiation

What's a sect?

"A religious group that has separated from a larger religion and is considered to have extreme or unusual beliefs or customs" or "A religious group with beliefs that make it different from a larger or more established religion it has separated from."

Source: Cambridge Dictionary

"A small group of people who belong to a particular religion but who have some beliefs or practices that separate them from the rest of the group."

Source: Oxford Dictionary

What are the characteristics of a sect?

They have significantly smaller memberships than churches

The membership base of sects is drawn from the lower social classes

Sects are not aligned with the state

Sects do not accept the norms and values of mainstream society. Sects are detached from society, and in opposition to it.

Sects demand a high level of commitment from their members and they have a high level of integration. They may expect members to withdraw from society all together.

They do not have ‘inclusive membership’. Membership has to be conscious and voluntary. Children cannot be born into sects.

Sects tend to possess a monopoly on truth.

Sects have a charismatic leader, who is generally perceived to be special. They do not have an hierarchy of paid officials.

Source: ReviseSociology

What is the difference between cults and sects?

Sects are divisions formed in a major religion, whereas cults are groups that follow religious, philosophical, and spiritual beliefs that are niche and unorthodox.

Source: Unacademy

What's a belief?

"The feeling of being certain that something exists or is true" or "something that you believe."

Source: Cambridge Dictionary

"Any proposition that is accepted as true on the basis of inconclusive evidence. A belief is stronger than a baseless opinion but not as strong as an item of knowledge. More generally, belief is conviction, faith, or confidence in something or someone"

Source: Oxford Dictionary

What's a hypothesis?

"An idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven" or "an idea or explanation for something that may be true but has not yet been completely proved"

Source: Cambridge Dictionary

"A statement of the expected relationship between things being studied, which is intended to explain certain facts or observations. An idea to be tested."

Source: Oxford Dictionary

What's a theory?

"A formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation" or "something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation" or "a formal statement of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event, or how something works."

Source: Cambridge Dictionary

"A formal set of ideas that is intended to explain why something happens or exists" or "an opinion or idea that somebody believes is true but that is not proved."

Source: Oxford Dictionary

What's a conspiracy theory?

"A belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people."

Source: Cambridge Dictionary

"The belief that a secret but powerful organization is responsible for an event."

Source: Oxford Dictionary

Which of these definitions applies to Larry?

Let's take this seriously for a second. I know there's constant discord in the fandom between larries and antis, but let's all be objective for a second. Let us focus on definitions:

Is it a cult?

No, cults are religious in nature and Larry doesn't meet the basic characteristics of a cult. If the basic characteristics of a cult are believed to be met, then any fandom would be a cult. Moreover, in cults, the leaders encourage their followers to continue to participate actively and directly in the cult, which is not the case here.

Is it a sect?

No, sects are religious in nature and Larry doesn't meet the basic characteristics of sects. As in cults, the leaders actively and directly participate in it and we have already said that this is not the case.

Is it a belief?

Here we come a little closer, but beliefs are often more related to faith than to facts. Larry is what it is because there are facts and situations that are used to prove their veracity. Beliefs tend to be more tied to what there is no chance of proving, since it is part of faith to believe even though you know you will never know the exact answer. In this case, Larry is not simple faith, maybe it is for some people, but it is not for most. So the answer is no.

Is it a hypothesis?

This one can be a bit confusing. In science, when you are going to carry out an investigation, you make a first hypothesis of what is going to happen and, in the course of the investigation, you are going to test or disprove the hypothesis(es). The hypothesis is more like an idea of what's going to happen. Larry is not an idea of something that is going to happen in the future. Can hypotheses related to Larry be made? Of course. Speculation about their coming out of the closet could be considered a hypothesis, for example. So, although it's close, the answer is no.

Is it a theory?

Yes, like it or not, Larry is a theory. Theories are the answer to the question: Why did this particular thing happen? Larry is the answer given by a group of people (larries) to questions related to inconsistencies in the information and narratives given.

Is it a conspiracy theory?

No, conspiracy theories are based on secrecy. For conspiracy theorists, there are extremely powerful secret organisations or even secret governments that aim to control economically, politically and socially a population or the whole world if you will. If the organisation is public and does not aim to economically, politically and/or socially control a given population, it is not a conspiracy theory. In Larry's case, it is not believed that there is a secret organisation, nor is there any question of economic, political or social control of a group.

Why is it wrong to label Larry as something it is not?

Let's start because it's wrong to misinform and encourage misinformation. Not only that, but to label larry as religious (belief, cult, sect) or conspiratorial is to devalue the terms. Beliefs, cults, sects and conspiracy theories are not just a term you can use whenever you feel like it. People die and suffer all their lives because of the brainwashing these organisations can produce and to compare something that literally kills every year, with a simple fandom that has a theory that doesn't hurt anyone is being insensitive. Vocabulary exists for a reason, to define specific things, which is why there are so many words. If it really didn't matter and all these situations are the same, there would be just one term and that's it. Have empathy for a second and take the situation seriously. You can't compare people who are literally subjugated to people who have a twitter fandom account where they like to analyse songs from a gay perspective, be serious.

How to tell the difference between a larrie and a person who uses Larry as an excuse to have something to obsess and theorise about.

The first thing to understand is that a person who has cultist or conspiracy thoughts or actions doesn't do so with bad intentions, but most of the time without being aware of them. Do not attack the person or tell them directly that they are part of a cult because they will not recognise it and will react negatively. By reacting negatively, they reinforces their beliefs and clings even more to their cult, so it is counterproductive.

How to tell if you are having cultist or conspiracy thoughts and/or actions:

Since you became a larrie, you want to change the way you dress to look more "larrie" or more like louis and/or harry.

You prioritise spending more time in the fandom (in whatever form) over studying, sleeping, eating, cleaning yourself, etc.

When you are asked about Larry, you prefer not to explain it because according to you "it is a feeling that you cannot explain and you simply have to live it individually."

You theorise about minute details (such as adding up numbers of dates to give you another date and theorising about what will happen on that day).

You build a theory in a single day on the basis of a single fact or a single detail.

If someone insinuates that being a larrie "changed" you, you get irritated, you run away, change the subject or just don't respond. You think the negative comments are because they are envious of you.

You spend your time fantasising about an idea or goal, like louis or harry coming out of the closet.

You feel guilty if the thought of leaving the fandom crosses your mind.

It bothers you that more people are becoming larries.

You think that people who don't think like you in everything are inferior or are "blinded by the system/goverment".

You exaggerate information as you say it , you rely on debunked information, you like to consider yourself a "narcissist", you like the admiration of others for your "superior intelligence" because of your "brilliant theories", you believe that everyone is looking out for you and that everyone who doesn't love you hates you, etc.

You like to use codes, metaphors or terms so that "only those who are like you" understand you.

Shortly before you became larrie, you went through a long period of uncertainty and helplessness and, according to you, louis and harry saved your life.

If you fit any of these characteristics, don't panic. Stay calm, don't put yourself down, try to question and critically analyse yourself and don't expect immediate results.

There are psychological reasons why you thought or are thinking the way you are thinking, such as a past trauma or problem, you were very uncertain about an issue and so you clung to another issue in order to feel that you had control over your thoughts, etc.

I don't know much about the psychological side, so I recommend doing more research.

Why is it important to put aside cultist and conspiracy thinking?

First, they point to an enemy and a plot that threatens people we admire and trigger a defence mechanism, which can aggravate discrimination, justify hate crimes and be exploited by violent extremist groups.

It is important to understand that anything that starts out "mild" can get worse, so it is important to stop in time.

Conspiracism promotes hatred towards a group, how many times have you seen larries and antis fighting with racist, misogynist, ableist, classist and all kinds of insults in order to defend their "side"?

Secondly, they make all of us larries look crazy. If one person engages in these behaviours, the antis will generalise, but only in reference to that person. If these thoughts are corrected, the level of hatred in the fandom could go down.

What to do if I come across one of these "larries"?

It's recommended, especially if it's a personal meeting, to remain calm. If you are calm, the other person will be calm too. If you panic, you may unintentionally offend or belittle the person, and this will reinforce their thinking that everyone who doesn't conform to their way of thinking is an idiot.

Never belittle, treat the person as inferior or as a fool. As I said, this is counterproductive. Never lose the basic respect that should be given to a person.

If you know the person very well, do not refer to past experiences or situations in order to explain why the person thinks that way. Never say things like, for example, "You probably think that way because you didn't go tu university." Nor do you resort to insults, especially if those insults discriminate against a minority to which they belong.

If you are going to discuss the topic, use proven sources and logical questions to try to induce critical thinking in the other person. Don't use personal opinions.

Make the person question their thinking. Ask "why?" about even the smallest details.

Don't expect the person to change their mind in 15 minutes of chatting. Falling into cultist and/or conspiratorial thinking is a process and so is coming out of it.

Don't stop being friends with the other person just because of their thinking, that way you isolate them even more and reinforce that the only ones who will accept them are their fellow thinkers.

People with cultist or conspiratorial thoughts often seek approval and admiration from others, so the best thing to do, if you don't want to get involved in helping the other person, is to ignore them. If you meet someone like that on social media, unfollow or block them. If you don't want to do that, don't interact with their thought-provoking posts ever again. And when I say ignore, I mean really pretend they doesn't exist. Posting hints, slagging them off or quoting their posts to make fun of them doesn't help.

Don't tell the person "hey, you're a conspiracy theorist/cultist" because they won't accept it and will go into a state of defending their thinking. Never tell the person that they are one (or at least not until the other person asks you for help because they recognised their situation).

"Defenders of reality" can also engage in these behaviours.

People who believe everything the media says can also engage in cultist or conspiracy behaviour as their criteria for determining what is real news and what is clickbait is practically nil. Furthermore, people who deny social issues such as homophobia perpetuate its continuation.

They would therefore be promoting hatred not only towards direct lgbt people but also towards those who speak out against homophobia. This poses an enemy and activates a defence mechanism, as in the previous case, so they would be equal.

Final clarifications.

People with cultist or conspiracy thoughts exist everywhere. It's not something that only larries experience. I hope you understand that this post does not promote the discussion about "who is a larrie and who is a conspiracist", the idea is to raise awareness about a real social problem applied to our environment.

This post does not invite any anti larry/larries to promote hatred towards a particular person or group, if it is used for that purpose, it means that they did not read the post as it was repeatedly made clear that hatred is counterproductive.

Conclusion.

Even if Larry is not a conspiracy theory, it is important to recognise the problem in order to solve it. There are many adults who, for various reasons, fall into these thoughts and thus induce young people and children to act and think like them. For no reason whatsoever should a group of people who are not cults or sects be allowed to be labelled as cults or sects, as this is strongly disrespectful. With this post I have no intention to stop you from being a larrie, to make you go crazy thinking if you comply with any of the items or not, etc. I simply made the post in order to make this a healthier fandom since I've seen a lot of people fall into these behaviours lately.

If you want to know more about Larry, click here.

Survey.

This is a topic of my interest and I would really like to know what you think about it. I invite you to fill out this survey on the topic explained in the post. The survey is anonymous and I will update the results as people take it.

Fill the survey here.

Thank you very much for your time, I hope you liked my post. Have a nice day!