I told my little nephew that I'd wave at his airplane when it flew over my house today, and he very calmly and politely explained that it wouldn't be possible to see me due to the limitations of human vision. I said he just had to squint real hard, and he took a deep breath and went into the toddler version of "see, what you're not understanding–"
ohhh my god I just fact-checked, Nolan actually DID cut the "Nobody" scene from his Odyssey movie. Mfer that is like cutting the Father reveal from Star Wars. Let me speak in a language you understand this is like not dressing Batman up in his suit. "It was not possible to work it in" the TikTok musical with a budget of $4 and a scratched Hamilton CD managed to work it in in SONG form, step up your FUCKING GAME
if i made a video game where you get to pick the gender of the player character i'd make both the options be nonbinary and you can either have they/them or it/its pronouns. those are your only options
in the dungeon you will have to face a monster with the nose of a tiger, the teeth of a tiger, the ears of a tiger the eyes of a tiger , the cheeks of a tiger , the neck of a tiger, the torso of a tiger, the arms of a tiger, the paws of a tiger, the belly of a tiger the back of a tiger, the the legs of a tiger, the claws of a tiger, the ankles of a tiger, the tail of the tiger, the mind of a tiger, and the power of a tiger
"we cut the nobody scene from the odyssey" "we cut the religious trauma and parental abuse from carrie" i'm starting to think that studios barely funding original films is starting to have an effect where directors make up a story and then slap an IP on it in order to sell. or maybe some bitches just can't read anymore idk it's one or the other
listen to me, this is so so important: you've gotta get used to really giving it your 60% as a default. like don't half-ass it necessarily but try not to go over 70% or so of an ass. you'll feel better and live a happier more fulfilled life, and on the rare occasions where you do need to lock the fuck in you'll be able to pull off bullshit that the sad miserable wretches giving it their 100% can never dream off, because they're busy draining themselves dry and you have energy reserves to spare.
It is. There is nothing wrong with watching people have sex. The morality of it depends on the context (buying porn from sex workers to watch is good, revenge porn is bad, for example), but watching people fuck? That's morally neutral. It's just watching some activities.
Almost all porn is abuse, you know that right? Most women in porn are drugged and then raped.
Even if she were paid, it would still be coercive, similarly to prostitution. You cannot buy women, or their consent. That immediately creates a coercive force that makes the consent invalid.
Ok so first of all you're lying. That is not how most porn works at all.
Regarding economic coercion, that's called having a job. But also I promise you there is a world of difference between trying to buy a person (for the love of fuck will you people ever aknowledge its not only women in porn and work conditions are a concern for EVERYONE involved) and someone making a career in porn.
Also re read what I said because you have said nothing that argues against what im saying AT ALL.
The way these people talk about sex workers genuinely makes me sick. Sex workers are not being bought, they are not owned by people paying them. They are compensated for their services or performance, like every other worker. They own themselves no matter what. They deserve dignity and respect and their work not being described in such horrible fucking ways.
And it's genuinely fucked up to tell people what they can and cannot consent to tbh? You don't get to choose that for others and then try to say you genuinely care about consent. You just want to control people.
Absolutely right. We are people, we own ourselves, we decide what we do and don't want to do. Honestly if I attach the criteria of pay and a camera to my consent, denying me that is no less fucked up than forcing that on me.
Puritanical christians/radfems and rapists/traffickers are two sides of the same coin and all ultimately working towards the goal of ruining people's lives for their own benefit.
Also, it needs to be repeated again that stigmatization of sex work leaves trafficking victims trapped. They are now in an even more socioeconomically disadvantaged position than before because no one will want to help an "icky porn star" who is being exploited.
To help trafficked and coerced sex workers we necessarily must end the demonization of sex work or else you are giving traffickers the literal tools to force unwilling people into it!
One of my family members was sex trafficked. Her case became a part of state legal precedent because her trafficker's conviction resulted in an expanded definition of one of the terms used to define trafficking (kept vague for the sake of my family's anonymity.) You know what one of the biggest barriers was to her getting help?
The fact that everyone she reached out to saw her as a stupid meth head "whore" and not a person who was fucking afraid for her life.
If society had shown sex workers some basic amount of decency, she might have had the social standing to get help sooner.
I got to see a change in the criminal law, in real time, that shifted the window on how sex workers are treated in my state. Agencies that tended to treat them as perpetrators, even when they were victims, had their behavior changed the most. But even the more progressive police departments, and of course any number of labor- and benefit-related agencies, also got a few notches more understanding and accepting.
TL;DR: sex workers are people, sex work is work, and the road to utopia is paved with extremely boring legislation and administrative decisions.
1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.
2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.
3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."
4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.
how eerie to hear they're going to remake carrie. how eerie to hear they have made the mother into some kind of gentle well-meaning figure.
carrie is almost explicitly about the cycles of abuse. it is almost explicitly about how women and girls are taught to reproduce the patriarchy. it cannot be isolated from either message.
it shows cruel teenagers not as a random whacky plot point but instead to highlight that we are taught to mock other girls for not being fuckable; lest we ourselves be considered not-fuckable. we will eat our own kind to survive. nobody helps her because to help carrie would be to turn against the patriarchy.
carrie's mother has experienced abuse at the hands of her husband and religion not as a "sad backstory" but instead because it lampshades her behavior when she then turns and abuses her daughter while citing that same religion. we are forced to ask the question: what is the difference between the patriarchy and religion? aren't they both systems of control? we often see mothers as being the "ultimate" in innocence and kindness - but this book challenges that narrative. abusive mothers exist, and and always have. abusive women exist and always have. white women, after all, love voting for donald trump.
men are almost absent from the book, but their presence lingers. it feels almost like the red mark made after a slap - the men do not have to be there; the women will continue to abide by the rules without question. it is a devastating, haunting condemnation of the notion of feminine fragility. it accurately asserts that women are cruel, are capable, are power-hungry - and often are hiding behind perceived innocence to mask that cruelty. the abuse carrie experiences rests in a doubled betrayal: it is because of another woman. the supposed "sisterhood" is revealed to be thin, a guise of equanimity that is only offered to the "right" type of girl/woman.
many of us were not the right type of girl.
to go back on these main and obvious themes of the book - to rewrite the mother as some caring and sad creature is... a curious choice. i can't explain it, but it feels almost like censorship to me. it refuses a deeper meaning of the book (and one that questions the patriarchy) in favor of the incredibly thin plot of "what if scary girl had scary powers." i literally don't even know what level of misogyny it is that we have to defang everyone around her in order to tell her story. i'm baffled by it.
in the era of trad wives endlessly posting abusive content of their children online - the adaptation had plenty of meat to modernize her mother. in the era of AI and revenge porn and social media - there's a huge amount of space for a competent writer to play around in. after all, if the abuse is recorded and posted to media - and as the audience we're watching it without interfering - the story is now about us. it asks us who we are comfortable bullying.
it's okay if you feel like you don't have the writing chops to talk about how many religions are abusive and tacitly enable domestic violence. it's okay if you feel like you couldn't write a believable teenage bully. it's okay if you're just interested in "scary girl has scary powers."
but maybe, i don't know, choose a different fucking story?
Well, prepare for a somewhat lengthy post deatilling my headcanons for what the Fred's artstyles are
Before we start, just know I hc that the Freds 's ability to give life to their art only applies to oil painting, so they can still do other stuff without any risk of creating new life.
I picked out some artwork to give you an idea of what I imagine their artsyles to be, check out the alt text for artist credit!
Now, without further ado, let's go!
Og Frederic is more of a realistic landscape artist, with a heavy focus on lightning and colors.
He is kind of a jack of all trades though, and has dabbled in all sorts of art throughout the years, he just ended up choosing to specialize in oil painting landscapes. He'd switch to acrylic paint after the Visitor stuff, or even just draw stuff on paper. It's somewhat frustrating, because the technique with acrylic paint is different than the one with oil paint, but he's getting used to it.
Weirdly enough, he'd end up creating quite a fair bit of portraits post-vistor, despite...everything.
Facetaker, at first, has a very similar painting style to Frederic. The main difference being that Facetaker uses brighter colors, and tends to prefer painting still life instead of landscapes (especially the sky. He won't ever paint the sky again).
As it gets more comfortable living as himself, it'd experiment a bit more. Try some more abstract stuff, and slowly but surely leave the restrain of realism to try out more things.
Bright would use pastels, and does pieces with lots of light
Most of the time, he'd stick to drawing soft scenes of everyday life, with long strokes of color.
But sometimes, he lets his "selfish" emotions out. (His vent art is some of the most gut wrenching thing you'll ever see.)
Shadow Fred does charcoal painting, making great uses of shadows in his art
He has two main types of piece, semi-realistic portraits of cursed individuals, which he makes in hope to help them accept their new form and more abstract, symbolic pieces, sometimes with a focus on eyes.
Bitey would paint using ink, whether black or colored.
He wouldn't be aiming for realism but still manages to have a great grasp on anatomy (the best at it out of all of them). He'd paint using bold lines, and paints for himself, using a lot of his art of a way to express whatever he's feeling, through artistic gore, or letting his maws even bite what he's making.
Godhead uses watercolors, and primarily does landscapes.
His use of colors and lighting is always excellent, and all his pieces are pleasing to the eye. His pieces are all really big too, some taking up a whole wall He does try out surrealism sometimes. He draws the sky a lot.
Scared draws in a comic book style, one especially inspired by French-Belgian comics (and also...Fabrice. In my hc, he was a comic book artist).
He has a strong use of shadows, and would have tons of sketchbooks filled to the brim with unfinished sketches. He does write a bit too, to vent his feelings, whether it's story ideas for characters or poems.
Toxic struggled a lot with finding his style. He quickly found out that most of the painting skills he had honed as Frederic seemed to have vanished, which frustrated him immensly.
After a while though, he found his path. Now, he does sketches clothing design, and he's really good at it. Though it's the only thing he can draw (imagine the following illustrations but the people drawn are just stick figures while the clothes remain the same).
Wriggly started to draw digitally (he stole Frederic's phone and installed a free drawing program), and found his own style, cartoony, simple, but charming all the same.
He draw mostly light-hearted stuff, though he does delves into different things from time to time...He ended up posting his art on social media and ended up with quite the following !
Tumor is a bit different compared to the other Freds, because instead of painting or drawing, he sculpts !
Most often using clay, he'll create abstract, rough structures, vases, or small objects. He may not create big things, but he creates a LOT. He doesn't usually paint, but sometimes, when he gets the urge to do so, he'll use paint to color one of his creations.
And...here ! I've had this post in the works for a while now, so hope you appreciate it ! If any of the art there seems interesting to you, don't hesitate to check who the artist is and check some of their work, because spending some time browsing through an artist's gallery can be plenty fun ! (and hey, with the Freds, art appreciation is all on the table)
maybe I’m greedy but I don’t want the tumblr sexyman poll to kill mitch mcconnell he’s already on the way out. I think we can dream bigger. what if it kills him
jacobvanloon
amandla
gummygunk
snowghoul
ellievsbear
