Neologismology

[strictlyquadrilateral]

the more i talk to extended family the more i learn that it was EXTREMELY obvious to all the adults around me as a child that something had gone horribly wrong and i needed professional help, but i guess there's some sort of prime directive thing where you can suggest to the kid's parents that the kid might need help but you can never ever ever let on to the kid that you can tell something is wrong. you just have to hold on to that until the kid becomes an adult who's able to say "so i think i experienced a lot of trauma when i was very little" and then you can say "yes, i know. i didn't know what happened but it was completely unmissable that something had." okay. thank you. that's very validating. but why did you leave me to suffer and keep feeling like there was no other explanation than that i was broken and going insane. would it really have been so bad to sit me down and go "i see you. i can't help much, but i can tell something happened and you're in a lot of pain. you deserve help and support. you're not going insane." or something. i don't know. my internal experience was mostly that i had suddenly become a bad child who couldn't seem to get anything right and was always being yelled at. maybe it would have helped if someone had said something.

[strictlyquadrilateral]

i don't have any kids in my life but if there was a kid i was familiar with who suddenly started randomly shutting down and/or lashing out after never meaningfully exhibiting that behavior before, i would without question try to find a way to let them know that i could see their pain. that they aren't imagining it. that even if there's no way to get them help, they still deserve it.

[philippesaner]

For better or for worse, when it comes to children, most people are more concerned with not doing harm than with helping.

[raihantex-blog]

Exploring the Export Potential of Snapback Caps in Bangladesh’s Garment Industry

Introduction to Bangladesh’s Garment Industry Bangladesh has firmly established itself as one of the leading players in the global garment industry. Over the last few decades, the country has seen a phenomenal growth rate in its textile and apparel exports, making it a go-to source for major brands worldwide. This article aims to explore the burgeoning export potential of snapback caps, a…

[philippesaner]

If there is a human being monitoring this blog, and they explain what they hope to accomplish by posting things like this, I'll buy a hat.

Seriously, what is the plan here?

[mademesmilezem]

This is the cutest.

[proheromidoriyashouto]

The original artist is Sandara. Here’s the art without the signature crop.

Her deviantart is here.

[philippesaner]

Her?

I thought Sandara was a guy named Thomas.

(Googles)

Ah, it seems I mixed her up with the former revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso.

[self-loving-vampire]

Someone who's good at moral philosophy please help me. Is financially exploiting someone when she was a teenager okay if I claim she likes problematic drawings? Can my behavior be ignored if I do that?

[philippesaner]

That's not actually what happened, though.

Hbomberguy's post came before she said anything about being underpaid for her music. She was annoyed about being "ghosted", and he claimed that she drove people away by posting radioactively controversial stuff. Using the lolicon thing as an example.

Then she pointed out that he paid her poorly for a video soundtrack, though she qualified it by saying "it was my first job and probably the first time he made a big commission for creative work, so we both thought it was ok at the time".

This looks like pretty ordinary online messiness to me. Nobody involved looks especially good, but nobody looks evil either.

[self-loving-vampire]

I think trying to pedojacket someone you have personally wronged and who is already being stalked and harassed based on drawings still comes out looking much worse though? Even if they were only vaguely complaining about maybe-you previously.

I don't even like the person in question but I don't think this is a "both sides are at fault" situation at all when one of them is a microcelebrity jumping at the opportunity to contribute to a harassment campaign. That just seems completely unjustified.

[philippesaner]

I don't think mentioning a relevant statement from someone is pedojacketing them. The fact that she keeps jumping head first into the discourse flames is a perfectly sensible reason to disassociate socially, isn't it?

I wouldn't say she was pedojacketing herself when she, perhaps unwisely, decided to start defending lolicon while being stalked and harassed by a mob of puritans. But that also means I can't say Hbomberguy was pedojacketing her by saying that he didn't want that stuff in his life.

[self-loving-vampire]

If he had good intentions and was just trying to answer her question he probably would have had a private conversation about it. If he was neutral or apathetic he could do like I did this whole time and just ignored her.

Publicly mocking her and tying her to lolicon art* seems pretty straightforwardly malicious given all the other options that were available to him and I am very suspicious of it.

*Which she personally doesn't even like, she just doesn't morally condemn it based on disgust like most people do, which seems reasonable? I'm not out there harassing people who like anal sex hentai just because I find it gross. I also don't assume that people who play violent video games are violent in real life, or that romantasy readers are rapists/want to be raped for real.

[philippesaner]

She tied herself to lolicon art! Despite not liking it!

This sort of thing is, apparently, the main reason he didn't really want to tie himself to her. Despite being a fan of her work.

As for his intentions...I can't read his mind, but I'm guessing he was annoyed and got snippy about it. Would explain the mean joke, and the quick deletion of that joke. Hardly admirable, but who among us has never been mean?

[self-loving-vampire]

"I find it abhorrent but don't think that's sufficient for moral condemnation" doesn't read to me as particularly aligning yourself with any kink, though?

By that metric I'm tied to every single kink I have given a low or neutral rating to but don't want to punish (and I don't think punishing anyone over things like roleplay or drawings is ever a good idea).

[philippesaner]

If you were even a little bit famous, I promise that would be enough. There'd be a callout for every one of those posts.

Of course, it's not right. But by the same logic, I don't think a comment like this one ought to be considered pedojacketing. If I don't think she ought to be punished for saying it, how can I think he ought to be punished for saying that she said it?

[self-loving-vampire]

Let's follow this hypothetical for a moment. You just said it's not right to do a callout over drawings. If there was a kiwifarms mob trying to drive you to suicide for saying that then wouldn't it be harming you if I then went on to mockingly blame your own comments for the situation in front of all my followers?

Doesn't that seem like victim blaming to you in the context of the whole ongoing harassment campaign?

[philippesaner]

Victim blaming, sure. Like I said, it was rather mean.

He deleted the post after ten minutes, I'm told, presumably for that very reason. Unfortunately he had already been screenshotted and shared. The real villain here is online fame in general, I think.

I've made some unkind comments and regretted them ten minutes later. I think most people have. Fortunately I'm not famous, and none of the people I made them to were currently being Kiwifarmed.

And even more fortunately, I'm not getting Kiwifarmed. Everything I'm saying about cutting people some slack goes double or triple for Patricia.

[self-loving-vampire]

Someone who's good at moral philosophy please help me. Is financially exploiting someone when she was a teenager okay if I claim she likes problematic drawings? Can my behavior be ignored if I do that?

[philippesaner]

That's not actually what happened, though.

Hbomberguy's post came before she said anything about being underpaid for her music. She was annoyed about being "ghosted", and he claimed that she drove people away by posting radioactively controversial stuff. Using the lolicon thing as an example.

Then she pointed out that he paid her poorly for a video soundtrack, though she qualified it by saying "it was my first job and probably the first time he made a big commission for creative work, so we both thought it was ok at the time".

This looks like pretty ordinary online messiness to me. Nobody involved looks especially good, but nobody looks evil either.

[self-loving-vampire]

I think trying to pedojacket someone you have personally wronged and who is already being stalked and harassed based on drawings still comes out looking much worse though? Even if they were only vaguely complaining about maybe-you previously.

I don't even like the person in question but I don't think this is a "both sides are at fault" situation at all when one of them is a microcelebrity jumping at the opportunity to contribute to a harassment campaign. That just seems completely unjustified.

[philippesaner]

I don't think mentioning a relevant statement from someone is pedojacketing them. The fact that she keeps jumping head first into the discourse flames is a perfectly sensible reason to disassociate socially, isn't it?

I wouldn't say she was pedojacketing herself when she, perhaps unwisely, decided to start defending lolicon while being stalked and harassed by a mob of puritans. But that also means I can't say Hbomberguy was pedojacketing her by saying that he didn't want that stuff in his life.

[self-loving-vampire]

If he had good intentions and was just trying to answer her question he probably would have had a private conversation about it. If he was neutral or apathetic he could do like I did this whole time and just ignored her.

Publicly mocking her and tying her to lolicon art* seems pretty straightforwardly malicious given all the other options that were available to him and I am very suspicious of it.

*Which she personally doesn't even like, she just doesn't morally condemn it based on disgust like most people do, which seems reasonable? I'm not out there harassing people who like anal sex hentai just because I find it gross. I also don't assume that people who play violent video games are violent in real life, or that romantasy readers are rapists/want to be raped for real.

[philippesaner]

She tied herself to lolicon art! Despite not liking it!

This sort of thing is, apparently, the main reason he didn't really want to tie himself to her. Despite being a fan of her work.

As for his intentions...I can't read his mind, but I'm guessing he was annoyed and got snippy about it. Would explain the mean joke, and the quick deletion of that joke. Hardly admirable, but who among us has never been mean?

[self-loving-vampire]

"I find it abhorrent but don't think that's sufficient for moral condemnation" doesn't read to me as particularly aligning yourself with any kink, though?

By that metric I'm tied to every single kink I have given a low or neutral rating to but don't want to punish (and I don't think punishing anyone over things like roleplay or drawings is ever a good idea).

[philippesaner]

If you were even a little bit famous, I promise that would be enough. There'd be a callout for every one of those posts.

Of course, it's not right. But by the same logic, I don't think a comment like this one ought to be considered pedojacketing. If I don't think she ought to be punished for saying it, how can I think he ought to be punished for saying that she said it?

[self-loving-vampire]

Someone who's good at moral philosophy please help me. Is financially exploiting someone when she was a teenager okay if I claim she likes problematic drawings? Can my behavior be ignored if I do that?

[philippesaner]

That's not actually what happened, though.

Hbomberguy's post came before she said anything about being underpaid for her music. She was annoyed about being "ghosted", and he claimed that she drove people away by posting radioactively controversial stuff. Using the lolicon thing as an example.

Then she pointed out that he paid her poorly for a video soundtrack, though she qualified it by saying "it was my first job and probably the first time he made a big commission for creative work, so we both thought it was ok at the time".

This looks like pretty ordinary online messiness to me. Nobody involved looks especially good, but nobody looks evil either.

[self-loving-vampire]

I think trying to pedojacket someone you have personally wronged and who is already being stalked and harassed based on drawings still comes out looking much worse though? Even if they were only vaguely complaining about maybe-you previously.

I don't even like the person in question but I don't think this is a "both sides are at fault" situation at all when one of them is a microcelebrity jumping at the opportunity to contribute to a harassment campaign. That just seems completely unjustified.

[philippesaner]

I don't think mentioning a relevant statement from someone is pedojacketing them. The fact that she keeps jumping head first into the discourse flames is a perfectly sensible reason to disassociate socially, isn't it?

I wouldn't say she was pedojacketing herself when she, perhaps unwisely, decided to start defending lolicon while being stalked and harassed by a mob of puritans. But that also means I can't say Hbomberguy was pedojacketing her by saying that he didn't want that stuff in his life.

[self-loving-vampire]

If he had good intentions and was just trying to answer her question he probably would have had a private conversation about it. If he was neutral or apathetic he could do like I did this whole time and just ignored her.

Publicly mocking her and tying her to lolicon art* seems pretty straightforwardly malicious given all the other options that were available to him and I am very suspicious of it.

*Which she personally doesn't even like, she just doesn't morally condemn it based on disgust like most people do, which seems reasonable? I'm not out there harassing people who like anal sex hentai just because I find it gross. I also don't assume that people who play violent video games are violent in real life, or that romantasy readers are rapists/want to be raped for real.

[philippesaner]

She tied herself to lolicon art! Despite not liking it!

This sort of thing is, apparently, the main reason he didn't really want to tie himself to her. Despite being a fan of her work.

As for his intentions...I can't read his mind, but I'm guessing he was annoyed and got snippy about it. Would explain the mean joke, and the quick deletion of that joke. Hardly admirable, but who among us has never been mean?

[self-loving-vampire]

Someone who's good at moral philosophy please help me. Is financially exploiting someone when she was a teenager okay if I claim she likes problematic drawings? Can my behavior be ignored if I do that?

[philippesaner]

That's not actually what happened, though.

Hbomberguy's post came before she said anything about being underpaid for her music. She was annoyed about being "ghosted", and he claimed that she drove people away by posting radioactively controversial stuff. Using the lolicon thing as an example.

Then she pointed out that he paid her poorly for a video soundtrack, though she qualified it by saying "it was my first job and probably the first time he made a big commission for creative work, so we both thought it was ok at the time".

This looks like pretty ordinary online messiness to me. Nobody involved looks especially good, but nobody looks evil either.

[self-loving-vampire]

I think trying to pedojacket someone you have personally wronged and who is already being stalked and harassed based on drawings still comes out looking much worse though? Even if they were only vaguely complaining about maybe-you previously.

I don't even like the person in question but I don't think this is a "both sides are at fault" situation at all when one of them is a microcelebrity jumping at the opportunity to contribute to a harassment campaign. That just seems completely unjustified.

[philippesaner]

I don't think mentioning a relevant statement from someone is pedojacketing them. The fact that she keeps jumping head first into the discourse flames is a perfectly sensible reason to disassociate socially, isn't it?

I wouldn't say she was pedojacketing herself when she, perhaps unwisely, decided to start defending lolicon while being stalked and harassed by a mob of puritans. But that also means I can't say Hbomberguy was pedojacketing her by saying that he didn't want that stuff in his life.

[self-loving-vampire]

Someone who's good at moral philosophy please help me. Is financially exploiting someone when she was a teenager okay if I claim she likes problematic drawings? Can my behavior be ignored if I do that?

[philippesaner]

That's not actually what happened, though.

Hbomberguy's post came before she said anything about being underpaid for her music. She was annoyed about being "ghosted", and he claimed that she drove people away by posting radioactively controversial stuff. Using the lolicon thing as an example.

Then she pointed out that he paid her poorly for a video soundtrack, though she qualified it by saying "it was my first job and probably the first time he made a big commission for creative work, so we both thought it was ok at the time".

This looks like pretty ordinary online messiness to me. Nobody involved looks especially good, but nobody looks evil either.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Like a snowball: the growth and impact of the gender critical movement in the UK

Explores the rise of the gender critical movement in the UK, its media influence and impact on trans rights. Read the full report and techni

Between January 2020 and April 2025, media coverage of issues about trans people has been excessively high compared to the size of the trans population, their role in society, and public interest in these topics. Across the four outlets, a total of 17,000 articles were published between January 2020 and April 2025, an average of 264 articles per month, or 9 per day. Most media reports about trans people have a negative sentiment, while trans people are hardly seen in stories. When they do appear, it is as criminals or murder victims. Since 2017, a diverse and coordinated GC movement has appeared in the UK. Of the 51 organisations Amnesty International UK mapped, only 3 were established before 2017.

21 May 2026

[philippesaner]

I wonder how much of this is literally just Rowling's money in action.

Because when I've encountered random people from the UK online, they haven't seemed any different from the rest of the Anglosphere WRT trans stuff.

[thesparrow1996]

it’s funny how quickly you get desensitized to comic book nonsense like mister sinister is an insane name for a fictional character it’s so goofy but when i read his name i’m like this is not a laughing matter. we’re talking about cyclops’ traumatic secret laser beam eyeball orphanage surgery backstory. stop laughing.

[philippesaner]

I wonder what it is about comics that lets them do that so effectively.

In a novel or a live-action film, the impression of silliness stays with you. But in a comic, you find yourself taking it seriously after a few pages.

[postsforposting]

The Marvel world doesn't work on the same rules as IRL, and I don't just mean "people have powers". The basic world doesn't have the same logic. Pretty sure the DC world doesn't either.

I've read a lot of other comics that don't come off "silly" at all. As for why Marvel/DC don't come off campy, you're not imagining all of it in your own head like you do with books. Not requiring that kind of effort to keep up with the weirdness makes it a lot easier to accept. Also, comics don't move, so it doesn't ping the uncanny radar as badly as the exact same thing happening in a movie.

[philippesaner]

It's not just Marvel and DC. I'm a huge One Piece fan, and it's astonishing what that comic can make you take seriously.

As for the explanation, it sounds plausible enough. Maybe adding a few illustrations to a novel would immediately make anything implausible about it seem less so.

[thesparrow1996]

it’s funny how quickly you get desensitized to comic book nonsense like mister sinister is an insane name for a fictional character it’s so goofy but when i read his name i’m like this is not a laughing matter. we’re talking about cyclops’ traumatic secret laser beam eyeball orphanage surgery backstory. stop laughing.

[philippesaner]

I wonder what it is about comics that lets them do that so effectively.

In a novel or a live-action film, the impression of silliness stays with you. But in a comic, you find yourself taking it seriously after a few pages.

[tgirldeng-deactivated20250331]

Does anything mean anything any more

[tittyinfinity]

[gryficowa]

My brain hurts …biden is too white for this role

[gryficowa]

In the sense, there is a white tiger (as I embrace Marvel as someone who is not his fan), and in nature there is a white leopard (snow leopard), but well, we are talking about Marvel

[pitbolshevik]

do..do you think we're talking about the marvel movie from 2018? is that what you think the youtube commenter means by "black panther"? the superhero movie?

[3liza]

[toesucker416]

I feel like you have to get the other half of the equation in there too, since if you can't assume people know when Black Panther debuted I don't think you can assume they know when the Black Panther party ways founded either.

[philippesaner]

Those dastardly comic book artists, using their time machines for evil.

[princesspineberry]

To be clear: This is Hbomberguy, a very well known content creator with a very large fanbase turning to the camera and saying "Kiwifarms is right" with regards to a disabled, traumatized trans woman he personally underpaid for her work in the past. He didn't actually quote anything she actually said, he quoted the regurgitated and vague idea of what Kiwifarms says she might have said.

[philippesaner]

That isn't remotely true. To start with, she actually did say what he said she said.

Patricia Taxxon (@patriciataxxon.bsky.social)

I guess I can share the bleet now

Patricia Taxxon (@patriciataxxon.bsky.social)

ive been waiting to find or come up with a good argument against lolicon since i was like 19 and i havent really yet. "people might use it t

And he didn't call for her to be harassed, or declare that her stalkers are right. He just vagueposted a joke about why he distanced himself from her.

If you think that's bad, you can criticize him for it. But you should criticize him for what he actually did, not for something made-up.

[evilsoup]

bruh

[evilsoup]

there needs to be a name for the feeling when someone you know accurately guesses your tumblr url

[deadgenerations]

suicidal

[philippesaner]

I think most people in my life could guess mine.

[evilsoup]

always funny when i find i can't reblog a post because the op, who i've never interacted with, has me blocked. i guess they were just too weak to handle obnoxious & pedantic opinions delivered in a mean & needlessly aggressive posting style huh. oh well, haters gonna hate,

[lumsel]

I think this idea of transfems can only be safe around transfems is... I mean it's a problem because it's false, right, someone being the same demographic as you is no guarantee that they won't be toxic or abusive. And if you're restricting your social groups based on criteria like that, you'll have less options, you'll be more isolated, you'll be more reliant on fewer people and thus more vulnerable to abuse. The safety is an illusion.

[philippesaner]

Every time I see someone preaching that crap, I think of monetizeyourcat.

[brazenautomaton]

have you seen the "you're evil unless you press the blue button" discourse on reddit. (two buttons, red and blue, everyone who presses the blue button dies unless more than 50% of people pressed it) I'm guessing you'd be a red button presser like myself but I'm curious if you have opinions on why reddit is pushing this really hard right now. so many subreddits are pushing "you're evil if you press red" and even "liberal" boards are calling red button pressers "retarded" for not risking themselves to save the blue button pressers. it feels like an op or an astroturf to me but not sure why.

Yes I have

It's an ethical optical illusion. The correct choice is red. Everyone would press red and has pressed red. But you know thst "risk yourself to save others" is the kind of answer you are supposed to give as a good and moral person, so people will bend over backwards and invent new elements to make it into the right answer. The social desirability bias will twist their brains up so that picking blue is a heroic moral stand expressing their faith in humanity. They'll say that since losing even 1% of the world would be so disruptive, we have an obligation to press blue to prevent it.

They say everyone has an obligation to press blue in order to save everyone, because some people will press blue recklessly. But they don't believe that logic holds. Nobody actually believes in endangering half of society in order to save the most reckless people in it. If they did, all of them would be as reckless as the most reckless people in society, because they'd be following them around everywhere! They'd hear the national weather service announce a tornado warning that said to stay inside, and would immediately drive outside to try and rescue the people who were too reckless to stay inside.

IIRC, the thought experiment was designed specifically so that the proper-sounding pro-social answer was the incorrect one, in order to illustrate exactly what it illustrated.

[cookingwithroxy]

It's even more obvious if you reverse the order of presentation. Because described from Red first, it's 'you push this button, you live. You push this other button and you will die, UNLESS over half the population also decides to push this button. Then nobody dies.'

By putting the blue button first, it makes it sound like the default and that choosing red is the choice of death. But blue is the choice of death, in all situations.

[monochromaticchime]

I learned about this problem from this Dev video:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HDUak4vAczk which also includes two details that you didn’t consider. 1: Polls, including a poll where the penalty was actually enforced (as a server ban not as literal death) reliably found that about 60% of people choose blue so voting red is effectively risking those people’s lives when blue was probably going to win anyways, and 2: There will always be some people who choose blue, children who didn’t understand the rules and chose a button at random, people who slipped and pressed the wrong button, or who wanted to save everyone and don’t know game theiry or who are blind or whatever. Those people will

From a game theory perspective there is no reason not to choose red. From an ethics perspective it’s much more complicated.

[brazenautomaton]

see, you have to add elements to it to turn it into a heroic moral stand. the question specifies that it is only presented to people who understand it. but people have to add in "what about all the people who don't understand it?" so you can include children and the blind.

there is absolutely nothing that is ethically complicated about not endangering yourself to save the most reckless people in the world. period. no ambiguity. if the most reckless people in the world pushed the Commit Suicide Button the proper response is "wow, they really should not have done that" the way you react to literally every other instance of suicidal recklessness.

in fact, you can remove the red button and literally nothing changes! the red button does nothing in the scenario. so the scenario actually is "a man walks up to you and, after determining you can understand the offer, presents a blue button that, if pushed, will kill you unless more than 50% of people total pushed the button. you can also just, like, leave." this scenario is identical in every way and yet the answer is even more screamingly obvious.

this is not an ethical or moral question. this is a question of if you can see the obvious when social desirability demands you do otherwise.

[shieldfoss]

The scenario: "If you press the red button you'll be fine. If you press the blue button, you will die, unless you can convince a majority to follow you into your folly."

Some people: "It is a moral requirement you press the blue button and try to convince other people to join you in your folly."

[philippesaner]

You're starting from the assumption that most people will pick red. If that assumption was correct, then yes, it would be stupid to ever pick blue.

But in the real world, where polls suggest that at least a third of people will choose each, it's a rather different story.

Of course, all that accepts the premise. Which is probably a mistake; in the real world, anyone posing such a question "for real" is probably doing some secret-test-of-character bullshit. I think they're more likely to kill everyone who pushed red, regardless of the percentages.

[brazenautomaton]

Those polls are not accurately answered. Those people are subject to the social desirability bias demanding they find a reason for blue to be the correct choice because it is socially desirable. They would vote red. "You have to endanger your lives in order to save the people who endangered their lives in order to save [...] the most reckless people in the world" is a bad argument and you are not convinced by it in reality.

[philippesaner]

Polls are generally anonymous. Whatever bias exists on an anonymous poll would also exist in a real question.

And I'd say the bravest people in the world, or perhaps even the noblest. But the truth is that I'm not that concerned with the moral logic here. In practice, my reaction to any such question would be driven by a bone-deep suspicion of and hostility towards the kind of person who goes around threatening to murder innocent people.

Which is, I think, actually a better moral guide than trying to logic out the numbers. "You are evil, fuck you" will take you pretty far.