★
todays bird
Love Begins
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
Claire Keane
PR's Tumblrdome
No title available
Kiana Khansmith
d e v o n
@theartofmadeline
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
RMH
YOU ARE THE REASON
NASA
The Stonewall Inn
tannertan36
shark vs the universe
oozey mess
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Noah Kahan
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Kyrgyzstan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@grimfellow
Average comment thread on a tadc/gooseworx criticism post
"You're a transphobe for saying this actually"
"Uh but what about all the problematic things she said?
"What the fuck are you talking about"
"Yeah no idgaf 😂😂😂😂 you're still a transphobe!!!!!"
The Last “Unbitten” Humans Look Awfully Rabid
Being “anti‑AI” these days apparently feels like being one of the last unbitten humans in a zombie apocalypse. Which is a poetic way of saying: “I have built my entire identity on the idea that I am still normal and everyone else is contaminated.”
The funny part is that these supposedly “unbitten” humans behave less like noble survivors and more like a dog with rabies that’s hacked its way into the comments section.
They don’t come to argue. They come to bite.
They arrive in your blog not with questions, not with positions, but with a pre‑printed set of insults. They don’t actually have a stance on the technology; they have a diagnosis for you.
Ask them for a coherent argument and they immediately default to biography fanfic: you’re a fraud, you’re a fake artist, you’re a narcissist, you’re “addicted” to AI. They’re not reading the text, they’re rewriting the author into a caricature they can safely hate.
This is status panic wearing a virtue mask.
If your sense of worth is “I am one of the few Real Humans who still create the hard way”, then generative tools are not a technical problem, they’re an existential one. The moment some “zombie” with a laptop produces something interesting, your exclusive priesthood stops being exclusive.
Admitting that AI is just another layer of infrastructure would mean admitting that your superiority was circumstantial, not metaphysical. So you can’t admit that. You have to declare the tool itself inhuman, and everyone who uses it—less human than you.
And that’s where the zombie metaphor becomes useful—not for describing “AI people”, but for dissecting them.
The logic goes like this:
There are “clean” humans and “bitten” ones.
The bitten are no longer fully human.
Therefore, normal rules don’t apply to them.
Once you’ve framed someone as infected, you can justify anything: harassment, pile‑ons, doxxing, coordinated smear campaigns, endless ad hominem attacks. It’s not abuse, it’s “containment”. It’s not bullying, it’s “defending humanity”.
They are terrified of dehumanisation, so they pre‑emptively dehumanise everyone else.
The irony: people who supposedly “refuse to become zombies” have already adopted zombie rules of engagement.
They move in packs. They hunt by smell: any hint of AI in a workflow is enough to trigger a moral feeding frenzy. They don’t distinguish between “I disagree with this tool” and “this person no longer deserves basic respect”.
If you truly believed you were uninfected, you wouldn’t spend your evenings foaming in strangers’ comment sections. You’d be building alternative models, supporting non‑AI spaces, or at least articulating a coherent ethic. Instead, you bite the nearest throat and call it a stance.
There is a difference between criticism and rabies.
Criticism says: “Here is what these tools do to labour, to ownership, to aesthetics, and here is why I’m against that.” Rabies says: “I don’t care what you’re actually doing. You used a forbidden tool. You’re contaminated. I am now licensed to attack you.”
The first requires thought, nuance, and a willingness to stay human in a complicated world. The second requires nothing but fear, a moral slogan, and Wi‑Fi.
Funny how the people who chant “use your brain instead of AI” are the ones least interested in thinking past the slogan. If you want to know who’s really “unbitten”, don’t look at who refuses to touch AI. Look at who still treats other people as human beings while navigating a future they didn’t personally sign off on. The rest are just calling themselves survivors while snapping at every ankle that dares to walk past their cage.
If you’re so obsessed with people “using their brains”, here’s a wild experiment: try using yours to think past the outrage prompt, resist the dogpile, and act like a human being instead of a pack trigger.
rant
If you think that complaining about AI and wanting it to get banned on stuff and harassing people that use AI and ect is ACTUALLY going to get the owners of the AI company’s attention and make them go
“OH NO RANDOMPERSON_11 ON REDDIT/TUMBLR/TWITTER DOESNT LIKE AI!!!! WE WILL HAVE TO SHUT DOWN ALL THE DATA CENTERS AND AI!!!!!!” then you are severely mistaken.
how about we actually do something instead of ranting on Reddit/twitter/tumblr? That would actually work.
If you actually read the AI tags instead of screaming in them, a pattern pops up fast: most of what people pin on “AI” is projection. Projection meaning: the parts of yourself you refuse to own, you paste onto someone else and then feel very brave condemning them for it. 🙄
They call it “AI slop” like they’ve discovered a new category of trash, but be honest: humanity has been pumping out slop manually for centuries. Same templates, same safe tropes, same boring flyers, same doodles where you can’t even tell what’s drawn unless you bring your own imagination to fill the gaps.
Before generative tools, all of that was just “normal”. Beginner art. Cheap design. Tired artist. “Raw creativity”. Nobody rushed to invent a special insult for it — they didn’t need one, they felt safely protected inside the category “real artists”.
Then AI drops the entry barrier, and suddenly the exact same level of creative poverty gets a label: “AI generations”, “AI slop”. As if the problem appeared with the model, not with the lack of taste and imagination. The tool just made the baseline visible. You can now see, in bulk, how primitive average human output is, regardless of medium or effort: most of what we call “creativity” at scale is painfully simple and forgettable.
And the most entertaining part? The same people who draw chaotic little doodles and call themselves “artists” are the ones yelling “AI artist isn’t a real artist” and “don’t you dare critique beginner artists”. They don’t notice they’re the ones starting this war. They’re the ones forcing thinking people to ask:
if “I can hold a pencil” is enough to claim the word artist, why exactly is “I can drive a model and make something that moves you" automatically outside that category?
and
if “the internet is flooded with AI slop”, what was it before — wall‑to‑wall Louvre?
Every time they invent a new insult for AI and its users, they just accidentally invite anyone with a functioning brain to look harder at what they’ve been happily tolerating from human hands all along.
"Some of you guys make too many excuses for his behavior" wow I wonder where they get that from
She literally did everything to make the audience "excuses for his behavior."
Ppl saying “oh the critics only hate Jax bcuz she’s a trans woman1!1!1!!!!” make no sense to me cuz I’ve hated her since like episode 4. I was an og hater.
"you can't accuse me of writing with AI because i post WIPs and take forever to finish a project" okay so you just know nothing about this whole process huh
Propaganda I will not fall for
It’s time to activate it…
Bites The Dust! now this entire post will be reversed!
Am I having a fucking stroke
what the fuck was that
World heritage post.
You never know what color pallette someone's Tumblr is till ppl are screenshotting posts and tags
do u like mine
Oh wow.
Some people on tumblr are reading ancient scrolls and you'd never know
There’s a new kind of anti-AI voice emerging, and it’s much more interesting than the usual “this is evil” chorus.
It sounds like this: “I hate it. I don’t believe in it. I think it’s harmful. It also helped me in a way nothing else could.”
That’s not hypocrisy. That’s something worse: cognitive disobedience.
Because the script was supposed to be simple. Bad things are not supposed to work well. Certainly not better than the “legitimate” systems we were told to trust.
And yet.
An AI catches what nine doctors missed. An AI fixes in minutes what would have taken hours. An AI shows up not as ideology, but as function.
Now the position starts to crack.
Because if the thing you’ve already morally rejected turns out to be useful—viscerally, personally useful—you don’t just update your opinion. You experience a loss of control over your worldview.
So people try to hold both:
“This is wrong.” “This helped me.” “These are unrelated.”
They’re not.
What’s actually breaking here is a very old, very comforting assumption: that the world is aligned with our moral intuitions.
That “good” systems will be effective. That “bad” systems will fail or at least underperform. That ethical discomfort is a reliable signal of practical uselessness.
It isn’t.
Reality has always been much less cooperative. The most transformative tools tend to arrive entangled with things we’d rather not endorse—messy incentives, gray legality, unresolved ethics.
The difference now is scale and intimacy. AI doesn’t just disrupt industries. It intrudes into personal experience. It solves something for you. Specifically you.
And once that happens, you can’t keep the conversation abstract.
You can say “this shouldn’t exist.” But your own life is already evidence that it does—and that it works.
That’s the fracture.
Not technological. Psychological.
And most people aren’t reacting to AI itself. They’re reacting to the discomfort of realizing that their moral map doesn’t predict reality nearly as well as they thought.
Which would be fine—if we were better at updating maps.
But we’re not.
So instead, we get this strange, tense state: reject the system, rely on the system, refuse to reconcile the two.
Not because the contradiction is subtle. But because resolving it would require admitting that “wrong” things can still be profoundly, unavoidably useful.
And once you admit that, you don’t just have to rethink AI.
You have to rethink how you decide what the world is allowed to be.
HE KNOWS OH MY GODS
I SCREAMED ALOUD
This is why Mark will always be my favorite.
(I stole this off Pinterest idk the og creator)
Jax fans will do anything, but have sympathy for Ragatha.
Nigga i don't owe miss cloudy with a chance of calling me a slur none of my empathy💀💀💀
the tadc, hh, and hb fandoms made me realize how much I’ve grown to hate white queers
AND I’M A TRANSMASC WHITE QUEER LMAO
"we need more complicated characters!" you're settling for mediocre writing because they caught your attention with pretty buzzwords and mildly complex ideas
”everyone apologize to goose now” no actually i will not being apologizing to someone who’s racist but thanks for your white concern!
you seem very afab so it makes sense you wouldnt pick up on a character being transfem you probably hc them all as femboys anyways
!!! Anon you're making me blush!! I'm Tumblr Important enough for hate comments??? D'aww!!!
In all seriousness, I am afab, and I did not headcanon anyone as transmasc, which is what I think you're saying- could be wrong. Zooble is just the only character who went out and said they were non-binary, and so I took everyone else's genders at face-value. When I saw the transfem Jax theory start circulating, I really didn't understand it, because the only information we had about Jax was that he was a horrible person who was an asshole to people to cope... Which, if people see "this guy's being an ass, he must be actually a transfem egg" as their theories, forgive me for not vibing with that.
Feel free to look over my other posts on TADC-- bottom line is just, I think it could'a been more explicit. I would've PREFERRED if it was more explicit. People make up their own headcanons and interpretations, and coming out of the woodwork on social media to go "JAX IS A WOMAN" immediately sets off the fandom to attack one another. Especially when, thereafter, Goose said "but all interpretations are valid though, it was meant to be vague"-- that's just putting fuel on the fire.
I know I've made a couple of comments on posts regarding the entire racism thing that went down. My opinions have changed since my earlier comments, but the biggest takeaway I want to say is that
Goose is shit at controlling her audience, because:
It doesn't matter what Goose does or tries. This fandom is shit. This fandom is going to harass and attack and doxx people over a spilled cookie crumb.
I can say with full confidence that in my opinion I think Goose successfully told her story the way she wanted. I can say that I enjoyed her vision and version of the story. I can also say I think she was capable of writing something better. I think it could've been better, and no one can really tell me it was "perfect in its own way".
But the fact of the matter is when you go on social media, especially with a crazy-ass fandom like this, you start to unintentionally create internet soldiers who see your word as the word of God on your story. People are allowed to take away their own interpretations and thoughts on your story-- which, again, Goose actively encourages people to make their own interpretations --and when you say "this is what I meant" and you put that against "this is what one random viewer interpreted", now you've set up a "right" vs "wrong". And that is where audience members and fans like you start to attack and accuse people who disagree.
