Untitled @peyeter-thinking-out-loud - Tumblr Blog

Maya Boyd joins as Storm, Inde Navarrette is Rogue and Christopher Abbott will portray Professor X in the May 2027 "X-Men" film

Not really a fan of Marvel or the X-Men these days, but I approve of Scott being the only guy on his team.

thefingerfuckingfemalefury

I'm already dread whatever sexless fucking smock they're going to stick Emma in because these gutless sexless braindead dogshit movies are never going to have her in any of her actually hot outfits

And then no doubt they'll probably inflict the same garbage on her in the comics because "synergy" and she'll be stuck in some ugly ass look with all the sex appeal of a fucking bin bag

And then a bunch of insufferable little cunts will crawl out from their basements to call it "feminism" or some fucking thing

queermystic

To be honest I'm mostly relieved that the Adam Driver as Magneto rumor has been proven untrue because that was giving me nightmares. Then again, the fear of Sinister getting the "Ben Solo" treatment from his fans also scares me.

espanolbot2

I'm just amused that they seem to be telegraphing how they're going to kill Patrick Stewart's Xavier for a... fourth time I think it is?

thefingerfuckingfemalefury

Oh god it's going to be worse than Reylo O_O;

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

Scott as the only guy - I would not be bothered (or excited) if he were but I do not think he will be. Emma Frost is not usually an X-man of the bat and her powerset overlaps quite a lot with Chalres and Jean Grey. Plus she is a fun villainous character so I do hope she starts as an antagonist. That to say, I think the team will be more than just Cyclops, Storm, Rogue and Jean Grey in the field. Maybe 1 or 2 more X-men.

I too am worried that they will remove the femme fatale sex appeal of Emma Frost, and that is a fairly big part of her character. Let guys and girls be sexy.

I would not have hated Adam Driver as Magneto, except itdoes represent a kind of major problem to the MCU unless he comes from another world. Magneto as a Holocaust survivor is kind of a big part of his story. His fall from victim to villain, becoming what he hated, matters a lot. No other X-Men character is a tied to world history as Magneto is so you either need an age appropriate actor, build in a clunky workaround or set the film in an era when a younger actor works. That is more of a problem than any Adam Driver fans when he is absolutely a good enough actor to play the role well.

Him as Sinister sounds really fun though. He should kill it.

I am confused where you are getting "Charles will die" vibes though?

srsfunny

Finally, a win

saintofpride201

This dumbass stigma that "hick" states are somehow dumber than the more urban ones because they're from poorer areas has to cease...

animenutcase

Hicks are the ones who put us in space.

delicatefury

You know what they changed? What Alabama is doing so different from California and New York?

They’re teaching the kids phonics.

It is legally required.

Turns out, actually learning to read improves students’ skills across the board. Who woulda guessed?

yourtoradorasextendedwarranty

The funny thing about that is the fact that the entirety of the schooling system in the United States shifted away from phonics after 2010. Which is weird because every source I could find kept coming out saying that phonics didn't work and was actually a subpar learning technique.

Turns out, making a child learn how to sound a word out actually works. Who'd have thought. I've even heard cases of times when teachers have not just shamed students for trying to sound a word out but have punished them for it since the shift. We literally dumped a superior system for whatever bullshit we're using now. And then when you stack No Child Left behind on top of that you get an entire structure of incentive to just not require kids to learn at all. And people wonder why we have so many first order thinkers in the United States over the past 15 years.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

I don't remember learning to read (I could read fairly well by the time I was 3, and read complex stuff by the time I was 4 - benefits of reading scriptures with family as a kid)

But I have seen my Mum teach her grandkids reading. And it always worked best going in order from "the letter makes this sound" to "these letters together make this sound" to "break the word into syllables and sound it out" and finally "the word means this".

I tried learning Korean on Duolingo and it dumped me into words. What actually helped was going into learning the real sounds for each letter, each syllable, and sounding stuff out. I cannot read Korean WELL, but I can a bit because I learned the sounds of the letters using essentially phonics.

Reading is a skill, and like all skills it is best learned from the basics up. If you are learning to play a piano you do not just memorise certain melodies and look for context clues. You learn the notes, then the chords, then phrases, then notation (punctuation) - and then you can play any sheet music put in front of you.

TL:DR - I agree phonics is good and we should teach reading as it's own skill set which includes learning what sounds the letters make.

feminismisstillahatemovement

There ought to be a pamphlet they give out to girls at the age of 12 explaining that certain games they know would work on themselves will just irredeemably nuke their relationships to scorched earth and ashes that are radioactive for a thousand years when they try them on boys.

sunder-the-gold

Adults should stop convincing girls that all boys are just malfunctioning girls with different genitals. Boys do not think like girls, men do not think like women.

the-davest-of-uncles

Now, now, Miabelle, you're not a whore if you didn't trade money for sex.

If you did it for free, you're a slut.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

This is much more for reblogging Sunder's comment, but still.

Girls, if you learn nothing learn that Boys are not Girls.

Sure, insert the caveat heavy "there are variations and overlapping bell curves" things here, but at root boys are not girls.

On some basic levels we have different primary sexual characteristics. Different genitals and a lack of breasts. That is immediately going to make some differences even if they were minor - to suggest a minor one but trousers will need to be designed differently for dudes.

There are also other phsycial features which tend to be different, such as height, facial hair, broad shoulders, physical strength etc. This means an "average" man will look distinctly different from an "average" woman, even if there is overlap. Normal will be different.

And then our hormones are different. For just one, a man would be assessed as having low enough testosterone to need medical intervention at a level that is 8 times higher than is normal for a woman to ever have. Basically a man with low enough testosterone in his blood that doctors are worried will STILL have more than a woman whose testosterone was high enough for it to intefere with her health.

And hormones, they affect personality. At one very simple example, high test is associated with more reckless behaviour. Men's brains are primed for more risk taking than Women due to the natural biological facts of being male. Combine that with being bigger, physically stronger and more durable, and a seeming natural instinct to create a competence based heirarchy in men...... well it changes how Men tend to think. Not enough to be alien, but enough to be different.

So even BEFORE we start talking about socialisation Men are not Women.

All this to say - ladies do not ask each other what Men want or what works on us. We may be idiots as teens (see that recklessness testosterone induces) but in general if you ask we will tell you. We want the ladies in our lives to understand us.

Do not assume Men will respond as a Woman does. Our lives, our experiences and yes our cultures are different.

thehungrycity

optimisticbananaharmony-deactiv

what made them think it was always right?

smoqueen-deactivated20251108

they are stupid

atalana

orrrrr they just grew up in this tech focused privacy lacking world

current university students, assuming they went to university at 18 (which would be most of the first years) were maybe 4 when smartphones got popular? the world they have grown up with is one where apps are the only way one interacts with technology, where social media increasingly demands personal information, where someone who refuses to go along with those norms automatically has something to hide, which means everyone polices themselves as if their every fashion choice or sentence structure is subject to judge and jury, because it is

we live in an age which discourages asking questions, where every question is met with offense and "just google it", while google itself fills its entire first page with ads and misinformation

and tumblr is the only place i've seen critique chatgpt. i've had windows 11 (which every laptop comes with these days) advertise chatgpt to me as a search engine

it's not a search engine. frankly, google hardly counts as one either these days. but if you're not surrounded by people telling you chatgpt is bad and fake, how are you supposed to know? when your computer and your phone and your relatives who don't know much more about technology than you all think it's a search engine with a voice, it wouldn't occur to you that all of them are wrong

and they're clearly not stupid! that's the point of this as an exercise - their teacher is telling them for the first time that chatgpt might be wrong. your job is to find out if chatgpt is wrong. and they did the assignment! they had a reason for the first time to question chatgpt, and all of them came to the conclusion that yeah, it is lying to us, and so is everyone else who said it was always right

and they'll go forward now not only knowing they can't blindly trust what computers tell them, but they'll spread that message around, which will decrease misinformation on a bunch of levels

this was a win for the students and a win for the teacher, i think an exercise like this should be mandatory in all schools if we ever hope to combat where technology's going these days

aniseandspearmint

How is TUMBLR the only place that seems to be critical of the PLAGIARISM AND MISINFORMATION MACHINE?!?!

teaboot

Machines taking our job

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

Real understanding about how tech works, especially when that tech is code, is incredibly lacking in the world. Not that I blame people. There is a lot of stuff in this world and understanding more than a fraction of it beyong surface level is hard.

But, for example, I have spoken to many people who did not know that information in "the cloud" was saved on a physical hard drive somewhere that you then link to with your device.

The slow transformation of all programs on computes into "Apps" has locked the nuts and bolts of how they operate behind an impenetrable wall where even trying to adjust basic settings outside the ones the apps UI like you to mess with is hard to do.

And so when people hear "AI" they do not appreciate what is happening. I do not blame them. They often hear about what it is third hand from experts and only run into it with the advertisments, the product placements and the google AI summary.

Because at root AI like Chat GPT is notsomething that runs through, analyses information and produces a summary. It, like most LLMs, is an incredibly fancy type of predictive text. That is it. It figures out based on your prompt what word mathematically is most likely to go next until the sentence is over.

Now by weighting the maths, selecting which sources for words matter more and so on, you can get something that approximates reality. Fancier AI models will create a kind of "source pool" for the predictive text that prioritises what it considers to be good information. But it is just predictive text. Unless we know that AI can seem magic. "AI says X" is...... it should be held in lower esteem than when people used to claim to know something because they read it on wikipedia.

If I search something and AI says "X is true" I will follow the links to the source data. I'll also do that for wiki articles as well. I do not trust Wikipedia or AI. I will listen to the source data.

But I grew up in an internet before the shiny apps locked everything away and you could still get into the nuts and bolts of it. Before it was monetised the way it is now. I remember having a computer that still ran on DOS, and having to write in command prompts. I grew up in a generation young enough to have this at school, but old enough that we could peek behind the curtain and see what was going on.

You don't have to be much younger than me to have never had to interface with the internet that way.

arizonaconservativegal

When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with it becomes a lot easier to commit violence.

This is why I am so adamant about going outside and befriending people who don't vote like you. It is the only way to stop political violence. It is the only way to heal the country.

It is easy for some on the left to think of us all as extremist bigots who deserve to be treated with violence. It's easy because they don't know any of us. They live in bubbles where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to 1. They don't see us on tv except for politicians and carefully selected clips that make the person in them look as bad as possible. They never see anything of us outside of political contexts It's easy to think that's all we are when they never see anything else.

And when you genuinely don't know otherwise, it becomes very easy for someone to convince you that these 'others' are so evil, they cannot be reasoned with, that they must be met with violence.

It's a lot harder when you know the person they're talking about, when you know that they're maybe not always right but they mean well and they treat others with kindness. Why would you want to hurt someone you know? You'd never laugh if someone else hurt them.

That's what's missing from all this. And when we retreat further into our own bubbles and prepare for some kind of war, we only make it worse.

You really want to fight back? Make it impossible for them to deny your humanity. Put a human face on the word 'conservative.' Make that connection.

You don't want do it on my say-so? Fine. Then do it because those are Charlie Kirk's words at the top of this post.

rosiewitchescottage

It's the same here in the UK.

There's no one, not even those closest to me with whom I agree 100%

And that's not a problem.

I can do my best to show people that if we disagree, I'm going to respect their right to a different viewpoint.

I'm merely going to ask for the same consideration in return.

There will be some things on which we're not going to reach any agreement. You think your way, I think my way.

But surely if we can at least show one another that our beliefs come with good intentions, then we can respect that, if nothing else.

Professor Arday and Losing Hope in Humanity

There was a scandal brewing in the UK recently where a professor at Cambridge, Jason Arday, was accused of palagarism and falsifying some of his biography to look better. And honestly, I could go either way on the accusations. He lost his job and was reamed in the press for it. So far so "standard academia cancellation" and losing your job for palagarism seems pretty much fair.

About an hour ago the police reported that he was found dead at his home. And that it was not expected, but not thought to be suspicious.

Reading between the lines - he committed suicide.

This is a sad tragedy to be sure. The man was 41, barely older than me. He was married with 2 children. That is now a widow and 2 fatherless kids. And if someone is disturbed enough to commit suicide I cannot put blame on them for that choice. If you kill yourself it is almost proof enough to me that you no longer can think clearly enough to be culpable.

But then I went on Facebook, and I got very angry.

On the main LBC post, a major news network here, the majority of the comments were jokes about this man. About his history (things like "I bet he ran 100 marathons today") or mocking the situation. Just making fun of him.

And I am angry about that.

A man is dead. It appears he killed himself. And a whole lot of people's first instinct is to make fun of him, regardless that he had kids, a wife and friends among other family.

It ain't like he is the sort of bad man like Osama Bin Laden. He never killed anyone or tried to cause harm. He essentially lied on his CV, even assuming the palagrism accusations were true. To be clear I am DEEPLY uncomfortable when people celebrate the deaths of even evil men, but then I can understand the instinct. Someone who did a vile thing being dead..... I do not approve but I understand.

However this was a man whose worst crime was stealing someone else's stuff for his PHD, and bigging up his charity work beyond what he did in reality even IF what he was accused of is true. Losing your job for that is fair play.

But mocking the man before the body is even cold is just the kind of vileness that makes me wonder if people are worth it sometimes. It is the kind of attitude that shows you have stopped thinking about them as a human being and you should never do that.

Not even for THOSE people. Not even the worst people, who do the worst things.... no. If some evil man is dead then ok, be glad that the harm they were doing is stopped. I don't like when people hurt by the evil man celebrate the death, but I understand it.

How much less should we mock the death of a man whose worse crime was.... embellishing his CV.

People man. As a Christian I NEED to believe that God at least thinks we are worth saving. But stuff like this makes me want to say God is wrong.

#long post #cancel culture #uk #cambridge

godlessondheimite

In 2026, the chicest thing a gay actor can do is never explicitly come out as gay but also make it abundantly clear that he is. Coming out is too modern. Staying closeted is too old fashioned. But this method merges contemporary freedom with Old Hollywood glamour and allure, and it weeds out the dumbest people who truly don’t get it. I call it the Pascal Method.

nobodys-odyssey

Taylor Swift does this

godlessondheimite

no she doesn’t

nobodys-odyssey

You clearly don't go here or to queer history and signaling, or both, enough to have this conversation and I'm not going to explain it to you. You could have asked questions, you could have done even a modicum of research. You didn't and you made yourself look ignorant. Goodbye.

generallemarc

Me when I call someone else an idiot for not believing that my favorite singer is secretly gay based on my made-up reasoning. And also she's dating a man.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

Literally got married the other week.

To a man.

An American Football player man.

A very manly man.

riverlarking

the "biblically accurate angel" trend is such a perfect encapsulation of a pet peeve i have which is everybody wants to criticize the bible but nobody wants to read the bible. like when people were drawing crazy amalgamations of eyes and wheels talking to mary and saying "be not afraid" and everybody was like omfggg OF COURSE she was scared. like no actually the angel looked like a guy can you read 3 lines of text... they were saying be not afraid because it's scary when a random man suddenly shows up in your house and starts talking to you

luprand

And quite often, that random man is radiating divine glory when he suddenly shows up in your house.

You know that subtle feeling of intimidation or awe you get when someone who is just Genuinely Good At Something shows up and you're not ready for it? (... oh, that's just me who feels that way? Awkward ...) Anyway, multiply that by infinity and that's probably how most people react when a heavenly messenger appears to them. They're probably suddenly aware of everything they've ever screwed up in their lives and deeply terrified that they'll be vaporized by the utter perfection standing/hovering before them.

But these angels are sent by a God who loves these little mortals and wants to tell them something important. So of course the first thing an angel is going to do when they appear to a mortal and see that mortal curling up in fear and insecurity is to comfort and reassure them. "Hey. It's okay. Don't be scared. I've got some good news for you."

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

I'll add that the times we get Angels described in incredibly strange ways (wheels on wheels, 4 faces and all that) are in visionary experiences. Often symbolic. The times we meet Angels in the waking world they are often mistaken for normal people, though with something different at times.

Perhaps my favourite example was from a BBC retelling of the story of Noah. The Angel simply walks up and sits down next to Noah. He is handsome, wearing clean white robes and after speaking who hs is becomes very clear. But he looks like a person. Like you or me.

As for fear, I would be scared if I saw an Angel. This would mean I have a job in front of me important enough to warrant sending an Angel to tell me about it. That God trusts me with the task would be humbling and terrifying, and also the most reassuring thought on earth.

But the Angel then gently saying "don't be scared. I've got you" would absolutely help me through.

beardedmrbean

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

If someone did this to me it would be the most exquisite torture known to man.

I approve

tokkibean

i love fanfiction because unlike original work the plot and characters are all plotted and characterised for you to use so its a really good solution for those “i want to write but i dont know what to write” moods it lets you focus soley on the craft and its wonderful

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

Fanfic is one of the better ways to practise the art of storytelling. It really is.

Not only that, but it also allows you to play in a fun world of imagination with characters you already like or a setting you are already engaged in. It is more content for a world you like.

victusinveritas

dovewithscales

The problem is that the one and only factually correct answer to that question (in the US) is to provide a plentiful source of effectively free slave labor to corporate interests. The 13th Amendment to the US constitution explicitly says slavery is legal as punishment for a crime, and that is the basis of the entire US prison industrial complex.

witch-hattery

The most important and valid purpose prisons serve is to separate dangerous people from the general public so that the general public isn't in danger.

I don't get how people forget or never learned that.

If a person was proven to stab someone else to death, they're contained in a place that minimizes their opportunities to stab people. And even before it's proven, they tend to be detained just in case so nobody else gets stabbed.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

When I think about crime and punishment, I find that punishment in general, and prison in particular, can have 4 valid purposes. And each of these is a compelling reason to punish crime.

To express clearly in law what we do and do not approve of in society.

To ensure that dangerous people are segregated from society so they stop criming.

To provide a space for people to be rehabilitated and become productive people (the ideal result)

To act as a deterrent.

Each of these is a good reason to lock criminals up. And to be clear, I do not put "to provide justice" on the list here. I see it as more of a limiting factor than a positive one. That is, justice compels us to only punish the guilty and not that punishing the guilty is a goal in and of itself.

But back on point, Prison is able to accomplish all of those gials admirably. We can segregate criminals. The restrictions on freedom are unpleasant enough to act as a deterrent. By locking people up/exiling them to the prison we show we do not accept their behaviour. And they are in a controlled environment where rehabilitation can be done.

Now I do not think the prisons we have are GOOD at doing the latter task. Not remotely. And the idea of a "for profit" prison (especially that only makes profit if at a certain level of capacity) seems manifestly absurd to me. If the prison makes more money the more people are in jail they are incentivized not for the public good but just to put people in prison.

But needing something like prison is a I think also clear.

Before prisons all we had were corporal punishments (floggings, maybe even execution), fines, some form of slave labour or exile. Prison gives us more options than anything else we had before.

horbyy

Is Enemies to Lovers actually bad?

One of the most despised and perhaps beloved tropes in all of fan and original fiction must be Enemies to Lovers. There is something quite compelling about the idea of those who are seen as the enemy to one another becoming more than enemies. I would think, this perhaps comes from the general perception of enemies to friends. Who doesn't love seeing the villain of a story come back later as a good guy. This also makes sense as enemies to lovers tends to be more of a pipeline from Enemies -> Friends -> Lovers. The question of course remains of if the first half of the pipeline is so beloved, why is the entire pipeline so disliked.

Relating back to my general post on Romantasy, it is important to note that a lot of the dislike stems from the usual boundary and power dynamic issues, but is more nuanced than just that. Enemies to Lovers often has an issue of power dynamics as enemies, who are usually trying to severely harm one another or hurt each other, being flipped around usually creates a vacuum of ulterior motives. But along with that, there is the expectation of Shoehorning. A lot of Enemies to lovers feels forced, which does make people generally dislike the trope for feeling inorganic or unrealistic.

So this of course begs the question, is enemies to lovers destined to be bad? No, to keep it short. In longer terms, no because the general idea of enemies to lovers fits a very human niche of redemption and change, something many people like and honor. Of course, this is something which is only turned around when the trope feels romantic and realistic, which it can often fall short on.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

Like all tropes, it is a story that can be told well or poorly.

In Pride and Prejudice we have an "enemies to lovers" story told with clarity and wit as our leads realise both their own foibles and their misunderstandings of the other.

In the Black Magician Trilogy we have another "enemies to lovers" where the lead realises the scary person they though was an enemy was in fact something closer to a hero, and with that they eventually become lovers.

In Beauty and the Beast we have the Beast as something like an enemy, but over the course of the story he changes (as does Belle, though to a smaller degree by far) until he stops being an enemy at all.

These are 3 examples of an enemy to lover that are told well. In each case the enemy part is due to a misunderstanding about the enemy and a realisation of their good qualities, along with them improving.

What truly helps each work though is that in these cases the "enemy" is given chance to show or develop the qualities that make them a more worthy match to the heroic character. But the key is that those qualities were always there, just unseen. When the character is revisited we can see more clearly how those better qualities could be found within them.

A more poorly told story however will often leave out the reason for the characters to develop a romantic interest. In fact this is the common issue in all poorly told romance. Beyond maybe physical attraction there is no substance to the relationship. There is no..... no feeling there. There might be drama and passion, but nothing holding the whole thing together.

In early Pride and Prejudice the strong personalities of Darcy and Elizabeth are enough to cause friction and passion. But ROMANCE does not happen until that passion is tempered by a growing awareness of the quality of the other person, though much of it second hand in this case. A subtantive connection built over time. So that whilst Mr Darcy's first proposal is rejected by an impassioned awareness of the friction, the second is accepted sweetly and quietly as the inevitable conclusion to their growing connection.

Bad romance stories (and especially bad Enemies to Lovers) are big on passion and drama. But there is little to no romance. And NO by romance I do not mean sex. Or kissing. I mean the sense of connection I can only describe by saying.... picture them just sitting together in a living room, not doing anything with each other just both in the same space. If you can see them enjoying the other person being there more than anyone else then congratulations you have Romance. If you can only imagine them making out like bunnies then all you have is passion.

allthingswhumpyandangsty

people are confused “unsolicited criticism in fanfics is rude” with “fanfics are above criticism.” no one says fanfics are above criticism. what we’re saying is that, unless an author specifically asks for feedback and criticism, unsolicited criticism is rude, because unlike anything else that you pay to consume and therefore can rightfully be criticized, fanfics are free and they are someone’s hobby. authors are kind enough to share what they write as their hobbies with you for free. you don’t have to like these fics. you can click away from a fic you don’t like at any point you want. but—again, unless specifically and directly asked by an author—it’s rude to tell someone, who is kind enough to allow you free access to their house, their art, that their fics should have been xyz.

so no, fanfics are not above criticism. just like how a gift someone gives you is not above criticism.

but giving fanfics unsolicited criticism is rude. just like how it’s rude to tell someone that you don’t like the gift they gives you for free, out of kindness.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

I feel compelled to disagree with this.

Harassing a person, and just going in to insult a person, is mean.

However by publishing a fanfic to the public you are agreeing to the possibility of a person reading it, thinking it is a poor piece of media, and telling you that in no uncertain terms. It being free is no magic pill to say "criticism only when asked for". The story is in the social sphere. By doing it you agreed to risking criticism from all and sundry whether you want it or not.

That is the nature of publishing.

A person can give criticism in a rude way (saying to someone "you suck, die" is incredibly horrible to say) but they are as justified in giving it as anyone else.

gemstone9-ao3

I mean, by nature of the internet, posting stuff online does open yourself up to criticism, and you shouldn't be surprised when it happens. But that doesn't make doing it any less rude.

Like the OP said with gift giving. You're ALLOWED to not like a gift someone gives you. And you can even tell them, "this gift is kind of lackluster, but I appreciate the effort." Those are things you as a person receiving gifts are allowed to do -- but it's also rude. It's social custom. There are certain things you should not say in certain situations because it is polite. And there is no reason not to be polite in a situation where there is nothing good to gain from being rude.

What does critiquing fanfic in the comments of that fanfiction actually do? If you critique a book that is published through actual publishing, critiquing the book serves the purpose of showing how monetarily valuable the experience was. You spent money on this book, and now there is a certain amount of enjoyability you must receive in order to make that purchase worth it. You are informing other people who may buy the book whether it will be something worth spending money on.

That transaction does not exist for fanfiction. This is someone who did something entirely because of their own enjoyment and is giving it to you because you might also have fun with it. To take that experience and then tell them "I did not enjoy this", even if you say it in a polite way, serves no purpose except the possibility of hurting someone's feelings.

Now, you can go to a friend and tell them about the specific fanfic you did not like. That's perfectly fine. Everything is open to criticism. But to go up to the stranger who is having fun on the internet, completely unsolicited, and tell them that they didn't do something well enough is rude! And again, there's just no reason to be rude.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

The reason is honesty. If you tell a person that you did not enjoy their media, and tell them why, then you are providing them with honest feedback about their work. It is a data point for them to know how people recieve their work and whether it is considered of decent quality.

And I would say by virtue of it being on the internet such criticism is not unsolicited. It is inherently solicited by being shared online for all to see.

Criticisms can be fair or unfair, delivered meanly or calmly, but if I publish online I am quite literally asking for people to share their thoughts on my work (or if I do not want such criticism I can disable comments or the like).

Also a fanfic is not a gift given to one specific person. It is a piece of media that is shared with all. So comparing the 2 I do not see as correct. It is not a 1 to 1 analogy.

gemstone9-ao3

But what is the point of you giving "honest feedback" when it is not explicitly requested? Clearly, the person was happy enough with their work that they posted it to a public platform. By that point, people aren't normally looking for ways to improve it unless it's explicitly stated. By the time people are posting it, they aren't looking for editors. This means your critique serves no purpose except being rude.

"Honesty" is not something that is always needed. You don't have to share every thought that enters your head. You're not gonna walk up to every smoker and say, "That's bad for your health. You might get lung cancer" because no one asked you! Even though it's true, they might get lung cancer.

The gift giving isn't a 1 to 1 analogy because there is no 1 to 1 analogy for this type of social situation. The internet is a different place than in person interaction. But that doesn't mean you should just do whatever you want either. Social custom still exists in certain situations. The social custom of gift giving is that you accept the gift graciously, even if you don't like it. The social custom of fanfic posting is that if you don't enjoy it, you don't interact with it. Every other option is explicitly rude.

And no, posting on the internet is not asking for feedback inherently. That is an assumption you made, that clearly a lot of people disagree with, so there is no precedent for it being the case. Again, one should not be surprised if someone gives unsolicited feedback on the internet. Because people do things on the internet that are unkind all the time. And if one can not handle the possibility of that happening, they should turn off comments. But that being true about the internet does not make the unsolicited feedback less rude.

Posting about politics on the internet is controversial. If one posts about politics on the internet, someone is inevitably going to send that person death threats. If that person can't handle the possibility of that happening, they should not post about politics on the internet. But that does not make the death threats less bad. Just because something exists on the internet, it does not mean you can do whatever you want. That's social custom. Critiquing fanfic unsolicited, while certainly less serious than death threats, is not something that is productive for anyone involved in the interaction. So you shouldn't do it.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

I already said the point - it gives information to the author about how their work is recieved. That is always useful for the writer as they learn how to get better. If considered and engaged with, even if the author disagrees with the critique, then it has added value and proven productive.

But more than that it shows engagement. It shows I was willing, and able, to read and respond. I cared about their work. I may not have had a positive opinion but I had an opinion. I would actually, in general, consider it a mark of respect that someone cared enough to offer a thought out criticism of my work.

"Dont like, dont read" is advice I would give to a reader to say "do not waste time on things you dont enjoy"

Also for my part, critiquing another person's media is something I personally find engaging both intellectually and when I consider anything else I choose to write.

This seems to me a difference in social circles (and possibly generations) though. I do not know about you but I am a Millenial born in the 80s so bring that experience (and expectations) into the internet. Because in my view by posting online I am engaging in a conversation - the opening lines being "here is my thing, want to read it?" with the built in presumption of "what did you think?".

That is the inherent conversation I see happening when you post fanfic. That is what I mean when I say that it inherently invites criticism.

It is a similar thing if I post a political opinion online. I am inviting people to engage with, and give feedback on, the material.

A death threat is different in Kind as those are unacceptable under all circumstances, and can even be illegal in some countries. A direct threat of violence is difference in kind from a person saying "that sucked" or anything resembling it.

gemstone9-ao3

Of course, they do want people's thoughts if they have thoughts. Everyone likes to hear what people have to say about stuff they worked hard on. The difference here is that they were not asking you to improve their work. And regardless of whether you think your thoughts are helpful, telling them they did a bad job when they did not want to hear that is RUDE.

Receiving critique on your art, including fair and measured critique, is difficult. Every amateur writer will tell you this. You have to be in the right mindset for it. Go to any college writing class, and you will see that even people who want and expect critique are scared of it. It can be really emotionally taxing. Sometimes, you just want to show off something you worked really hard on and not worry about what's wrong with it for a minute. That's usually what's happening with fanfic because it's hobby writing rather than an attempt at professional writing. Even taking it outside of fanfic, sometimes I will show a first draft of a short story that I wrote to my husband because I'm proud of the hard work I did and I want his thoughts and attention on it. But unless I explicitly ask for it, he will not critique the work. And I do the same with his writing. Because sometimes you just want to feel good about something before you go into a second, third, fourth, whatever draft.

Because receiving critique is difficult, receiving UNSOLICITED critique is the worst possible situation to receive critique. You are not in the mindset to get negative feedback. Usually, the unsolicited critique will just be ignored, which means it's helpful to no one. And you shouldn't do it. Worst case scenario, you've really hurt someone's feelings because they weren't prepared for critique. Which means it's helpful for no one and you shouldn't do it.

Take it from a fanfic writer who speaks frequently with other fanfic writers -- unsolicited critique from a random comment on the internet is never helpful or good. By the time we post it to ao3 or Tumblr or any other platform, we just want to share. You going out of your way to say "this is not good despite your effort" is not helpful for anyone.

Not to mention, fanfic writers are often young people putting their work out there for the first time. Their work is the most often in the position of receiving unsolicited critique because they are just starting to develop their writing skills. And sometimes, it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between an adult writer who can handle unsolicited critique and a teenager who is too emotionally attached to their work to take critique well. Your negative feedback could be the difference between someone continuing to write and giving up on it forever.

If a 12 year old showed you a drawing they worked really hard on, but wasn't very good, would you start critiquing it if they didn't explicitly ask? No! Because in that moment, the only feedback they need is encouragement to keep going. Is for someone to be proud of them. On the internet, you have no way of telling the difference between a 30 year old amateur writer who will benefit from negative critique and a 16 year old amateur writer who will never write again if they're told they didn't do well enough. And because you can't tell the difference, you shouldn't comment. Nothing is lost by not commenting. A lot could be potentially lost by giving negative critique.

YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE PEOPLE, what skill level or emotional state they are in. You are not in the social position to provide them with anything helpful. There is no reason to share your negative thoughts for the maybe chance that someone finds it helpful. Especially when it is far more likely that it will be hurtful and/or discouraging.

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

This is a very fundamental difference in opinion on what should be done/acceptable behaviour. Very different world views.

But to clarify a small point, for the sake of not being misunderstood, I am not going out of my way to critique. I would be commenting on a piece of work I had already read. I am already here.

Put simply though, I don't think negative critique is rude. I write myself, I sing and I do a whole bunch of other stuff. I do not ENJOY being told that I need to improve, or did something wrong. But I appreciate getting it and am glad to recieve it. Unsolicited or not. It does me good in the long run.

Moreover, I honestly hold that a refusal to give negative feedback to someone whose work I see as sub-par does not help them at all. Nor does saying "well done" or "great job" when they produce bad work. I cannot predict if refusing negative feedback to a writer will leave them unable to push themselves to do better, or if giving bad feedback will turn them off writing forever.

I will also add that I typically would try to present any criticism in a fair way. Priase what I like, criticise what I don't, and congratulate them on the effort.

edgar-allan-possum

gunsul

That is one of the most asinine arguments I have ever heard. Ok, so you don’t have AI. You do what you did before AI. Duh.

Better question: If you rely exclusively on AI and the power goes out, what do you do? Can you do your job?

peyeter-thinking-out-loud

Willing?

I only ever use it because my Boss insists I try.