Misplaced Lens Cap
@theartofmadeline
Sweet Seals For You, Always
★
NASA
Jules of Nature
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
No title available
Stranger Things
Show & Tell
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Keni
will byers stan first human second
taylor price
art blog(derogatory)
trying on a metaphor
pixel skylines
Cosmic Funnies
No title available
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Argentina
seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine
seen from Iraq
@deviantartdramahub
"Those with no content more than a week old will not be able to contribute here."
With all due respect to more important things to say upfront, it's vital to bring up that if you've heard anyone say that, it's not wrong. It's a month-old thing and now no exceptions will be applied.
Gryuy Post Doc out of me and Mecharobo1000 Made Post out of me! Gryuy https://www.deviantart.com/comments/4/113171622/5287737085 Mecharobo1000 https://www.deviantart.com/mecharobo1000/journal/How-i-am-not-surprised-by-this-1336818483
That stinks.
LizzyChrome from DA is doing a lot of questionable things in the Reddit crowd. It would be a shame if something were to happen to her there... again
*cough cough https://ghostarchive.org/archive/fkaP3 cough cough*
What does this even serve anyways?
Now we can confirm the YT channel of T's slanderer either had bots, alts, or close friends as subscribers/followers (as opposed to people who were ever genuinely interested in their preaching) because the number of them stabilized at 24 for a year before recently going down to 22 which is the opposite of what something would look like if it was engaging, especially considering a decrease like that indicates the followers involved are facing dismantlings or bans. Which means that, true to its nature as nothing more than a part of a slander campaign, the numbers were inflated to make it look more righteous, as is how peer pressure works. If so many people off-site genuinely believed its content as the content claimed, that would be reflected in the form of a follower count that doesn't look like co-hecklers standing and watching, concluding that a combination of peer pressure and blackmail was used when using the content to try to preach to others.
Typical.
Forgive me for asking a rhetorical question in the form of an ELI5 question, but doesn't it speak volumes about the drama in the S7 community is how incompetent the people in charge there. Like... let me explain where I'm getting at.
It's well known you'll see a lot of conversations where people talk about having been given the boot from the S7 community. A lot of these are two-sided and involve one person (either lamenting they were banned from the S7 community while accepting it, or they're openly questioning it) while another one who is happy they're getting that "consequence" is (while saying deceptive things about them) holding it above their head, often implying that the authority of the community's founder is sound. There has been a lot of discussion about this, and often the founder's absent-mindedness is at least brought up. A level of absent-mindedness that doesn't invalidate their boundaries but still undermines their ethical authority.
The most famous drama around this surrounds two people, one of which was accused of drama-milling while the other was given the ability to drama-mill as a result of that perceived drama-milling. In a way that at least reminds me of that principal who'd yell "fair is not equal" in your face.
So with that said, here you have this community that has existed for thirty years (which also means anyone could've double-checked their rules a few times a year, be it people who are joining or people who run the community). Thirty years. A community that's presented as a popular community despite only three humans joining a week (even if that's still a lot) and presented as a community where the people in charge (again, for thirty years) are presented as being good at what they're doing. A community that also happened to implement updates the other day. Updates that... included options for an age demographic that doesn't exist on the site... all before one of the mods mentioned they haven't checked the TOS in thirty years and discovered they were marking themselves as an adult community in the TOS... and allowing in children (in an era where age restriction is the huge deal it's made out to be).
Inb4 anyone asks why someone was banned despite following the rules while other people aren't despite breaking the rules, all while the community breaks the law and while those demonstrating their capacity to be deceptive harassers have been openly using the age of one of the other harassers as a crutch in order to harass a certain abyss watcher some more, as if the goal in life is not to follow rules but to make sure you don't get banned.
Thus I have a question I'd like to ask that you're urged to answer in a strict yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often are. Doesn't it undermine (along with the people in charge themselves) the act of holding it against someone when someone is so unreliable when it comes to enforcement of their rules that they can't be counted on to spot such an error after three decades (and would the people harassing the abyss watcher answer for what is now a gaping hole in their ethics)?
Yes.
Triagonal has got to be the most over-hated member of the art community at this point, considering I waited a year to see if I can go a single week without being dragged into it since I'm often mistaken as her. Turns out she's such a go-to that people attack her out of boredom and it's not genuine after all, despite her approach otherwise being different (singling out people much?)
Since it's relevant to this, just a reminder you don't owe anyone proof of your innocence, no matter how adamantly people in a community claim it's necessary to defend yourself or that your argument falls apart by not giving a counter to it. It is completely valid to simply say something is wrong with the "evidence", and this should be taken as meaning the person providing the so-called "evidence" needs backing for their so-called backing, for if someone is making a claim of guilt, it's their duty (assuming they want their claims to be treated as more than hearsay) to provide proof or evidence, with proof or evidence being defined as anything that cannot possibly have any other possible explanations to it. Screenshots don't necessarily count, and a link to something that's even slightly vaguely worded doesn't either. It, in the most absolute sense, can only point to one possibility. Otherwise, by definition, it leaves the door open to it not being what people claim it is. If people look at "quasi-evidence" (if we would call it that, if it's not absolute) and say "this might not be absolute proof, but it's good enough for me", even then, they have sent a signal to people telling them how to fool them in our day and age where it's easy (which in turn, by definition, undermines it as a form of conclusion-making). This is what we often call "Lewis Carroll logic" since this was often used to say author Lewis Carroll of Alice in Wonderland fame was a deviant (look up that 200-year-old drama if you want). And you will be fooled by those who can masquerade anything as "good enough for me" quasi-evidence, and chances are each hater has already have been in some form. Lying is arguably immoral. But using deceptive forms of gotcha question tactics at least would count as defense against hysteria aimed directly at you.
You will know people make people prove their innocence out of bad faith because they do the same with media too. Suppose someone says "we think you're a guy, send us a picture proving you're a woman", often with a picture they claim is you. You will be led to think this is natural, until you realize it's like saying your steak or soup you ordered at a restaurant tastes wrong or looks funny (according to your standards) and the waiter must send another free one. It's a way to make you think their boundaries are being disrespected, not yours (in the act of mining you for something they can drool over).
So thus I'd like to ask you a question where you're urged to answer in a yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often are. Does this logic come off as sound?
Yes?
Would you say there's ever a reason to block evade or get upset about blocking? Because now I'm noticing seasoned artists (https://archive.ph/ztZen) remark about it now.
I mean, boundaries are at stake when you block evade; are they as a result of the block?
As if the Mental Health awareness month couldn't be complete without them topping how unprovoked their last instance of having Tri on their attack list. Does anyone know what it's about this time?
The usual.
Karen's tips for transformation stories are very much 1. Remember how to do correct anatomy (even though she admits to have used Animorphs as a guide for writing and a lot of transformations she favorites have the knees bend), 2. Be as graphic and disturbing as possible. 3. Be descriptive in how disturbing you are.
Why is everyone saying a certain troll caused the complaints forum on DA to be overwritten when KF is claiming/implying the opposite? Or were they trying to play by the @EverythingButOpposite rules due to her being a contrarian?
You say that like it could be due to anything else.
The ultimate kicker with Fluffy is that he is Darkskylandergrave on DA, yes the very same person who told NightmareMP to block me because he believes 1trukaren hasn't done anything and also the dude is 18 years old and 1TK is an adult, yeah, is anyone going to be asking why such a person is roleplaying werecreature transformations with an adult?
Yet another thing I didn't think I'd have to say, but just a word of advice here. Suppose you've been in a conflict with someone for a really long time (and there are a few examples of this I can think of), and after what seems like eons, you finally reflect on the fact innocent people are caught in the crossfire. Just a little bit of wisdom for you; along with whatever other hostilities you're keeping up (because apparently even psych ward shaming, friendship-shaming, speech style shaming, employment-shaming, and stalker-shaming-shaming are no longer taboo), you don't have to pull a Netanyahu and shoot anyways, particularly with your lumping of people together who "disagree" with you and all.
Amen.
So this (http://www.deviantart.com/forum/devart/general/2801626) is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.
There's much I'm not getting.
Quick question. One of the major criticisms of Triagonal is the fact she associates with some questionable people, correct? How is that currently being squared with Lovelesslass being allowed to both sponsor and support someone who recently got banned for being a literal pedo (on top of the usual red flags people question from her)? Is there some kind of complexity here worth sharing like there is for Triagonal? This does seem to be the case considering she has restored her agape to everyone again.
I'd be willing to let her explain.
Anyone out there?
Anyone out where?
The funniest part of that is that Kuma literally does werewolf transformation content that features a lot of blood and gore yet is worried about her little brothet getting into tame mascot horror like Dandy's World/Sprunki? Obviously someone should tell her that horror being marketted to kids thing has been around since the 80s.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260505234942/https://www.furaffinity.net/user/fluffy-fox-15/, the user on Furaffinity known as Fluffyfox15 commented on my apology journal telling me i act like a bitch and then posted on his profile with my icon telling me to 'kindly fuck off'.