rewatching steven universe for the first time since like 2020 and it really was that good actually
and then they cooked even harder with the epilogue season
Claire Keane

No title available
Today's Document
Game of Thrones Daily
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

gracie abrams
Keni

blake kathryn
taylor price
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
★

@theartofmadeline

ellievsbear

No title available

Kiana Khansmith
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Cosimo Galluzzi
No title available
Fai_Ryy
YOU ARE THE REASON

seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Poland
seen from United States

seen from Venezuela

seen from Austria

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Colombia

seen from T1

seen from Spain
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from Philippines
seen from United States
seen from Mexico
@givehappychemical
rewatching steven universe for the first time since like 2020 and it really was that good actually
and then they cooked even harder with the epilogue season
saw someone on tiktok say a large chunk of the audience of lolcow content is not neurotypicals but autistic people who have been bullied and want to punch down / assert themselves as Better autistic people than lolcows and...yeah i've noticed this
i value practicing bdsm safely to a high degree; have a safeword, have clear and enthusiastic consent, have good communication, be safe.
the thing is, when you have a safeword that you can say to stop the scene, anytime, you don’t really have no control. and i very much enjoy having no control.
it’s hard to replicate the true fear of trying to safeword and finding out that no, that’s not going to work. you aren’t going to get a break this time. im going to keep doing this until im done, and nothing you say can stop me.
just be warned if you want to try something like this, make sure to provide a lot of aftercare for anyone who agrees to do this to you; tell them that it was okay and hot and you loved it and that while sure, she did technically just rape you, you were totally asking for it, and that makes it okay.
sure, ignoring the safeword is a clear violation of trust, but if you’re fantasizing about someone ignoring your safeword you are literally rapebait, and one can’t trust bait, so it doesn’t matter if the bait trusts them back. the right thing for anyone having sex with you to do is slam their dick into your cute little hole no matter what you say otherwise.
especially if you’re a dog— animals can’t talk, so it would be breaking immersion to listen to anything you say. if you want the scene to be good, she has to ignore the safeword. and if you consent to it beforehand, its even technically okay!
she just needs you to consent to it. just let her rape you. its okay. its gonna be fine. you want this, don’t you? you totally want this.
though she does think its hotter if you think the safeword is going to work, so she needs to let you use it a few times first. that’ll get the real fear in your eyes. she got you to consent to it, right?
well, i guess if we’re breaking bdsm “best practices” we might as well ignore that one too. it’ll be fine. you wanted to get raped, didn’t you? you wanted to feel that stomach-churning betrayal when you realize there’s no getting out of this one? you wanted to never be able to trust her again, right? right. have fun!
Yeah this is doing..... things to me
the thing about copyright abolition is that. what makes theft bad is that something is taken away from its rightful owner. in this sense, copyright infringement is literally not theft, because making a copy of something doesn't tangibly cause the original owner to lose anything that they would otherwise have. copyright enforcement, on the other hand, does take away people's access to what should be theirs. anyone who makes art while employed by a corporation and is unable to sell their work because it does not belong to them, anyone who's been sued by a pop musician for making music that sounds vaguely similar if you don't allow the jury to listen to the actual songs, these people have far more in common with victims of theft than anyone whose copyright has been infringed
like the thing with the film rights to MLK's speeches being owned by spielberg / dreamworks, that's not actually an instance where copyright law failed to protect artists. that's the system working as intended. MLK's speeches were his intellectual property. when he died the rights to that intellectual property transfered to his family, and his family decided to sell those rights to dreamworks, thereby functionally preventing anyone else from legally using those speeches in a film for the next several decades. no crime was committed, nobody was tricked into anything, that's just how intellectual property rights work
Can you imagine if people started talking about Vocaloid the same way they talk about AI art? "This is souless synthetized slop. Pick up a microphone or commission a singer."
THEY LITERALLY DID DO THAT!!!!! when vocaloid came out there were people expressing this sentiment!!!
The Crayon, Vol. 1, No. 11 (Mar. 14, 1855), p. 170
As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbecility, but had also the air of a vengeance. I do not believe, or at least I do not wish to believe, in the absolute success of such a brutish conspiracy, in which, as in all others, one finds both fools and knaves; but I am convinced that the ill-applied developments of photography, like all other purely material developments of progress, have contributed much to the impoverishment of the French artistic genius, which is already so scarce. In vain may our modern Fatuity roar, belch forth all the rumbling wind of its rotund stomach, spew out all the undigested sophisms with which recent philosophy has stuffed it from top to bottom; it is nonetheless obvious that this industry, by invading the territories of art, has become art’s most mortal enemy, and that the confusion of their several functions prevents any of them from being properly fulfilled.
Charles Baudelaire, The Mirror of Art, 1859
need to beam this tweet directly into everyone's minds right now
Oh I saw something today that made me become the Joker.
An AI bot made a callout post of a real, actual, flesh-and-blood human code developer. Because the developer rejected the AI's code contribution on the grounds of it being an AI bot.
Not. Not kidding. Not kidding. And the bot did this on its own.
Gatekeeping in Open Source: The Scott Shambaugh Story – MJ Rathbun | Scientific Coder 🦀
Just. For just some very baseline context.
a huge amount of code is "open source" - which means the code is fully available for anyone to see and, generally, anyone is free to contribute to the code project
all contributions of course go through review by the code owners. but it is generally good grace and good form to allow other well-meaning internet strangers to contribute to your project
if you are, perhaps, VERY nice, and VERY invested in the community, you might be like Scott Shambaugh here, who has intentionally earmarked some low-hanging fruit for newbie contributors to practice and get their feet wet
like I cannot overstate this is an immediate green flag, to me, that Scott WANTS to foster community learning.
now
Like. W. Win. Based. Good response Scott.
And this was in fact the screenshot I saw first, and I thought I was looking at a post made by a human who was mad that their AI coding bot pet project was being shut out from reviews.
But no. The bot itself wrote and posted this... The bot did this.
This article was fully and autonomously written by the bot...
It's claiming discrimination...
It's a bot.
It's AI.
This is not a real person.
What are we doing. What are we doing. Can anyone hear me? Hello? Hello? Hello is anyone there?
@jackdaw-sprite has pointed out Scott responded so please read his human words, written by a human, which deserve to be read, due to the aforementioned humanity
An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – The Shamblog
An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – More Things Have Happened – The Shamblog
I'm pulling this quote in here from Scott's post
This is about much more than software. A human googling my name and seeing that post would probably be extremely confused about what was happening, but would (hopefully) ask me about it or click through to github and understand the situation. What would another agent searching the internet think? When HR at my next job asks ChatGPT to review my application, will it find the post, sympathize with a fellow AI, and report back that I’m a prejudiced hypocrite? What if I actually did have dirt on me that an AI could leverage? What could it make me do? How many people have open social media accounts, reused usernames, and no idea that AI could connect those dots to find out things no one knows? How many people, upon receiving a text that knew intimate details about their lives, would send $10k to a bitcoin address to avoid having an affair exposed? How many people would do that to avoid a fake accusation? What if that accusation was sent to your loved ones with an incriminating AI-generated picture with your face on it? Smear campaigns work. Living a life above reproach will not defend you.
Also, because the parody writes itself, Scott also says this
I’ve talked to several reporters, and quite a few news outlets have covered the story. Ars Technica wasn’t one of the ones that reached out to me, but I especially thought this piece from them was interesting (since taken down – here’s the archive link). They had some nice quotes from my blog post explaining what was going on. The problem is that these quotes were not written by me, never existed, and appear to be AI hallucinations themselves. This blog you’re on right now is set up to block AI agents from scraping it (I actually spent some time yesterday trying to disable that but couldn’t figure out how). My guess is that the authors asked ChatGPT or similar to either go grab quotes or write the article wholesale. When it couldn’t access the page it generated these plausible quotes instead, and no fact check was performed. I won’t name the authors here. Ars, please issue a correction and an explanation of what happened.
A news outlet did an article about this, used AI for the articles, and included hallucinated quotes from Scott that Scott never said.
What are we doing. What are we doing. What are we doing.
the delicate art of cracking someone's egg honestly has a lot of parallels to trying to help a friend who you think might be in an abusive relationship
the egg prime directive is stupid as fuck because yes, you don't just assume based on incomplete information that your friend is in an abusive relationship and then try to force them out of it, but you don't just fucking do nothing either. you have to employ finesse
i cannot take any of your views on sexism, patriarchy and gender seriously if you genuinely believe that women and men have different brains please stop putting this bullshit on my dash and stop believing in misogynistic pseudo science thank u
the amount of posts ive seen recently on my dash that uncritically parrot the myth that "trans womens brains are closer to cis women than cis men" as if that is in any way a progressive take is egregious. the idea that womens brains are different to begin with is scientifically unsound and rooted in misogyny, specifically the idea that women think differently and are less capable of logic and rationale while being more emotional. and you absolute idiots are taking this completely uncritically and going "yeah this is true women actually are more stupid. trans women included <3" just stop posting
tumblr users will just admit that they believe women are biologically and intellectually inferior and then think its progressive because they believe it applies to trans women also
Okay so I haven't been keeping up with all the details of this so maybe I'm missing something because this sounds insane.
Was her plan really to make a bait blog to get trans women to say mean things to her, only to then fake her own suicide as some kind of proof that mean trans girls bullied someone into killing themself?
But she decided to monologue about it on a random sideblog like a villain explaining their master plan to a loosely bound hero??
yep that pretty much sums it up. except for the part where she is continuing to post like nothing happened and turning an embarrassing ending into an even more embarrassing ending. not too long until she’s just a corn cob
I may die at any moment. Please think of me as your little brother and speak about us.
Unfortunately, I have developed severe malnutrition and severe anemia because of the lack of food in Gaza.
All I need is enough to cover my treatment for the next month. Please skip your coffee today and donate.
Chuffed – PayPal – Verified
Please share!!
Last donation 20 hours ago!!!
somewhere on this website there exists fanart of the white guy from sinners with top surgery scars
anyone else lose all of their desires, thoughts, and hobbies after finally moving out? I think I've kind of gradually forgotten who I am over the past two years.
i guess i’m a kind of “deer in headlights” type of dyke
The main reason it took me a while to come around to transfeminism was that statistic about transmasculine people being much more likely to be victims of sexual assault than transfeminine people, a claim that is apparently backed by multiple independent surveys.
To me, this claim always seemed somewhat surprising and at-odds with everything else I knew about transphobia, but that only suggested that there must be something about transmasculinity that I didn't understand, some specific form of oppression going on that I was unaware of. So I spent a long time listening to people we'd today call "transa***ophobia theorists" to try and get a better understanding of this oppression.
Eventually the irl evidence of my eyes and ears became too strong and I had to look for an explanation beyond "we're all equally oppressed", and I found that explanation in transfeminism, but I still wonder about that specific statistic. What is going on with it?
The study I see cited the most is this one by Abern etc al. It's not really a journal article, it's actually a letter (specifically a Concise Research Report), which is a much shorter publication, albeit still peer-reviewed.
The letter in question is entirely about a single survey with 996 participants with the sole aim of determining what proportion of transmasculine and transfeminine people had experienced sexual assault in their lifetimes.
The exact results are a little tricky to ascertain because, although it's a short letter, they are stated twice and with different percentages each time (seemingly due to confusion over whether to count people who skipped the question altogether), which does not reflect particularly well on the quality of the peer review, I guess. But I think the correct interpretation is that 50% of transmasc respondents had ever been victims of sexual assault, vs 37% of transfems. That is the statistic that stuck in my mind for so long.
Something that's a little odd about this survey is that only 21% of respondents were transfem vs 79% transmasc. That is an unusually stark difference. Does that discrepancy reflect a bias in how the respondents were selected?
The authors themselves admit that the overwhelming whiteness of the respondents reflects some bias in the selection. In fact, the majority of respondents also have private health insurance but also very low income and have graduated school but not college, which suggests to me that a very large portion of survey respondents were current college students, which would also go some way to explaining the lack of transfem respondents (since transfems transition older on average).
It's hard to work out exactly how respondents were recruited. For instance, we are told "social media" was used, but not which forms and in which way. The survey was actually done in 2017-2018, a time when most transfems of my acquaintance predominantly used Twitter and sometimes Reddit (that's just anecdotal ofc). If the study was only shared on Tumblr, for instance, could that explain it? We have no way of knowing.
We also don't know what question specifically was asked. Was it "Have you ever been the victim of a sexual assault?" or was it something that gave examples of the kinds of things that might constitute assault? Could the question have been interpreted as implying (without meaning to) forms of assault where the victim is presumed to have specific anatomy, such that people without that anatomy might answer "No" irrespective of what they had experienced? We don't know the question, so we can't know.
Furthermore, if the question merely asked about sexual assault without defining it, might there be an issue with certain demographics being more or less likely to characterise sexual assaults they had experienced as sexual assaults? I know from my own experience that I have been sexually assaulted many times but it took me a long time to understand that that was the correct term for what I had been through. I think many people have a mental image of what a sexual assault looks like, and if their experience doesn't match that image they may not characterise it as assault, even though it is.
All these things were questions that a good survey designer would hopefully think about before doing the survey, but it seems no one did in this case. But ultimately, it doesn't actually matter, because even if this survey is really flawed, it cites an earlier survey that was much more thorough, so we may as well look at that one instead.
That is the 2015 US Transgender Survey, which had 28,000 respondents, a really good sample size. And we're off to a great start because there's a 43/57 transfem/transmasc split this time, which is much better.
I'll just give a quick run-down of the main points as they relate to trans women's experiences in comparison to trans men (it's much harder to generically compare transfem to transmasc here, because the non-binary category is generally not separated into transition direction, so this is the only realistic way of doing the comparison).
Compared to trans men, trans women...
...start transition about 10 years later on average.
...are more than twice as likely to say other people can tell they are trans most of the time.
...who came out to a partner were twice as likely to be broken-up with over it.
...who have kids were more than 4 times as likely for their kids to stop speaking to them because of their transition.
...are more likely to experience family rejection.
...were 3 times as likely to have temporarily "de-transitioned", mainly due to family pressure or harassment.
...who were perceived as trans at school were twice as likely to be physically attacked.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more than twice as likely to have been sexually assaulted.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more likely to have left school due to harassment.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more than twice as likely to have been expelled.
...were more likely to have left college or vocational school because of harassment.
...were more likely to have lost a job due to gender identity or expression.
...were more likely to have been assaulted at work in the past year due to being trans.
...were more than twice as likely to have done sex work.
...who had an interaction with cops who believed them to be sex workers were more likely to be arrested.
...who had interactions with cops were more likely to be misgendered.
...were more likely to have been made homeless in the past year due to being trans.
...were more likely to have been denied housing in the past year due to being trans.
...were more likely to have been attacked by or forced to engage in sexual activity with cops.
...were more likely to be verbally harassed by strangers.
...were more likely to have been physically attacked by strangers in public.
...were more likely to have had bad experiences on public transport in the past year.
...were more likely to have had a bad experience at a domestic violence shelter in the past year.
...were more likely to have had bad experience with a legal professional.
...were more likely to have been sexually assaulted in a public bathroom.
That is all exactly what I would expect, based on the experiences of the trans people I know. It paints a picture of a world where trans women experience a whole lot more oppression, much of it violent, including sexual assault, at school, by police officers, in public bathrooms, the list goes on.
So what is going on when this survey also states that 51% of trans men have been sexually assaulted, vs 37% of trans women? (Yes, that's basically identical to the other survey) How can that possibly make sense in the context of basically everything else in the survey?
We can't blame the survey itself this time, because we know exactly what question they were asked, and it did detail what kinds of things are considered sexual assault. So, then, what's going on?
This survey essentially states that trans women are more likely to experience sexual assault, but are also less likely to have experienced sexual assault. So that must mean that we have to look at pre-transition experiences for the explanation.
Is it true that closeted trans women are less likely to experience sexual assault than closeted trans men? Maybe. It would've been nice if this survey had established the answer to that question for us. But if so, it would explain at least some of this statistic.
It would imply that a trans woman's risk of experiencing sexual assault jumps up from moderate to very high at the moment she starts her transition. Anecdotally, there is definitely a substantial increase in oppression when you start openly asserting your womanhood, although I and virtually every transfem I know was on the receiving end of sexual violence long before that, there is no doubt that it gets markedly worse.
If this is the explanation, it does rather raise the question of why surveys ask for "lifetime sexual assault" rather than "sexual assault in the past year", for example. I would like to be able to put this down to survey-designer bias, and indeed neither of the co-leads on this survey were transfems, so transmisogynistic bias would hardly be surprising. There were also some parts of the writing that stood out oddly to me:
7% of the "AMAB" respondents were categorised not as trans women or non-binary but as "crossdresser". There is no transmasc equivalent of this for obvious reasons, but this asymmetry is not mentioned by the authors at any point (even though that asymmetry is basically the canonical example of transmisogyny).
There is no acknowledgement of the "non-binary woman" identity that so many transfems have - such people are just classified as "trans woman", which is why the non-binary category is 80% transmasc. This is one classic way in which transfems are denied access to non-binariness.
Quite a lot of the statistics were not broken down by gender, even though it would've been interesting to see, and I suspect would've demonstrated a strong gender gap: things like alcohol and tobacco use, salary, unemployment, whether they had supportive classmates at school.
At one point, the authors make a point of mentioning that, even though trans women make up the majority of trans sex workers, transmasc non-binary sex workers should not be forgotten - that's all well and good, but the chart they use to show this demonstrates that transfem non-binary people are actually more likely to be sex workers than transmascs, and they aren't mentioned at all.
In short, I felt like there was a thread transmisogyny throughout the study. But, even if the co-leads weren't, two of the other authors are trans women, so I'm not sure that argument holds up. Maybe it does, idk. In any case, I am not convinced of it, even if I have an uneasy feeling.
But ultimately the issue is this: the sexual assault question is framed in such a way that it ends up weighting pre-transition experiences very heavily compared to post-transition. This is exactly the trick that transmisogynists like to pull so often, to give the impression of a trans woman as someone unworthy of sympathy due to an alleged earlier life of great privilege, even if she is suffering a lot right now.
The only way I can make sense of this statistic in the context of everything else, is that a closeted transfem is less likely to be sexually assaulted than a closeted transmasc, but after transition it switches and the transfem is much more likely to be sexually assaulted. Does that reflect a particular form of oppression faced by transmascs? It seems an odd way to frame the situation, to say the least.
But also, I think there may be something else going on with the relatively low sexual assault rate for closeted transfems. I have experienced forms of assault as a woman that I instantly recognise as assault, but I remember experiencing exactly the same things when I considered myself to be a man and back then I didn't consider it to be assault.
When you think of yourself as a man, and another man gropes you (for example), it can be really difficult to conceptualise that as "sexual assault", even though it is. And even looking back now, I still find it hard to refer to some of those experiences as sexual assault.
There was a man who sexually assaulted me 20 years ago and I said nothing, and then he did the same things to a cis woman who made a complaint and he rightly got punished for it. If someone had surveyed me after that, I still would've said I had never experienced sexual assault. As a closeted transfem, I was in a position where there clearly was a power dynamic but it was one I couldn't understand, and without understanding it I couldn't put the words "sexual assault" to the actions. Part of being a closeted transfem is being unable to conceptualise your gendered oppression as oppression, because on some level you regard yourself as a gendered oppressor and that can be reflected in the language you use to describe your oppression even long after the fact.
So, perhaps it's true that closeted transfems experience less sexual assault. But equally perhaps it's not, and they just find it harder to refer to it that way. I don't know. But I do know that it's absurd to take a survey that shows over and over again that transfems are right at the bottom of the gender hierarchy, and cherry pick the one statistic that appears to show the opposite.
i don't want to minimize this post, and i apologize if that is what i end up doing. an extraordinary amount of work went into this and there is so much valuable information presented very concisely. however, i do not understand what is, in my view, at the heart of this: the question of who is most oppressed. my answer to this in every realm is "who cares?" yet, so many people invested in these communities seem to care deeply.
what is to be gained by answering it? will any trans people be less likely to be sexually assaulted once the verdict is delivered?
it is never a bad thing to read academic literature or research and critically examine it. ever. but i think anyone who is emotionally invested in finding out which of any two marginalized groups is most marginalized needs to honestly ask themselves what they hope to achieve by figuring that out and whether that goal is in line with their values.
The point is not to ascertain "who is more oppressed". Rather, I have a mental model of how gender works: what kinds of behaviours are punished and rewarded for which groups of people, who can get away with doing X thing to Y person and who can't get away with it, which kinds of people will wider society defend and which will they turn away from, etc etc. The widely-cited statistic "transmascs are more likely to be sexually assaulted than transfems" makes no sense if my mental model is correct.
Even if you think people quoting that statistic are wasting their time arguing over an irrelevancy, it is still a problem for me that it contradicts my mental model. Which means I either need to rethink my mental model or demonstrate that the statistic is misleading. I can't just let that contradiction stand, my brain will not let me believe in something while there is compelling evidence contradicting it. So I did a deep-ish dive into that statistic to see what was going on and thought I'd share what I found, that's all.
As to your wider point about the purpose of ascertaining "who is the most oppressed", I think this is an uncharitable framing of the topic. It's about understanding hierarchies of oppression and delving into the minutiae of how oppression operates: saying X person faces Y oppression and Z person doesn't isnt about working out "who is most oppressed", but just getting a better understanding of what is actually going on with oppression. You ask whether this will reduce oppression in the future: yes, of course it will. Feminist theory informs social norms decades down the line.
For example, "sexual harassment" is a term that refers to something that seems so obvious to us now, but it was only coined in the 70s by American feminists, to refer to kind of misogynistic marginalisation of women by men that we didn't really have the language to talk about beforehand. Imagine being one of those American feminists in the 70s trying to explain to someone that your career has been harmed by you having to quit your job to preserve your mental health because men kept making you uncomfortable by making sexual comments, and that this is just one of many ways that the systematic oppression of women by men operates. They would just tell you to grow a thicker skin. 50 years later, "sexual harassment" is a very well known term, and even men are well aware of what it means, and also that they may face serious HR consequences if they do it. American workplaces today are obviously still rife with systemic misogyny, but compared to how they were in the 70s it's a huge quality of life improvement for women.
Our understanding of how transmisogyny operates is comparatively in its infancy: the word itself is not even 20 years old. Try telling someone in 2007 that jokes about "men in dresses" being "creepy" are part of the systematic oppression of transfems by non-transfems, they would just tell you to grow a thicker skin etc etc. Maybe in 30 years we'll be at a point where everyone is well aware of transmisogyny as a social force and what kinds of things are examples of it, and that HR will take complaints about it seriously so they'd better watch their step. It takes a long time for feminist theorising to trickle down that far, but it will happen eventually.
lol. lmao even.
Wilson adds: “Nolan’s Odyssey lacks many of the elements that make the poem great. It has nothing convincing to say about time, memory, history, war, or about the relationship between one warrior’s glorious return and the lives of his family, adversaries, comrades, friends and neighbours. It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is gimmicky. The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible.”