The world is an absolute cesspool of shit. If the idea of two fictional characters smooching makes you happy, you should absolutely write, draw, and consume all of it, proudly.
One thing I’ve become a real extremist about is little girl’s clothing and hair styles because if your kid can’t get her hair wet, hang upside down, climb over a fence or run full out in the outfit/hair she is currently wearing then why not? And the answer better be both extremely fucking good and describe something temporary.
Hope you don't mind a story that also made me extremist about this issue.
Took my friends daughter (2.5yrs) to the park. Dressed her in practical clothing that's ok to get stained, brought an extra change of clothing. She sat in the mud at the water bank and played with rocks and mud. A little girl came over, couldn't be more than 3yrs. She was looking longingly at my friend's daughter. She has her hair in a perfect style and she's wearing a pretty dress with white socks and dressy shoes. The parents say "Sweetie don't go into the mud, you'll get your dress dirty" and pull her away, while giving me a judgmental look as they see the kid in my charge covered in mud and throwing rocks into the water. It felt really weird, like we saw eachother as aliens with completely different ideas on how to raise children. When my friends daughter was done playing, changed her into clean clothing and went back home. She had a lot of fun at the park and a day full of nature and play. The other little girl kept her dress clean.
There's a Tumblr post about someone finding out that "girls" toddler clothes are more restrictive than "boys" toddler clothes to the point that it made it harder for them to crawl, at a stage where they were learning to crawl.
I made one about how my toddler child couldn't climb in girl's TODDLER PANTS.
We are not a house who cares much about gendering a baby's clothes. It's a BABY. It doesn't care. So we'd take the kid to yard sales and let them pick out whatever baby clothes caught their fancy and would fit. Some were 'boy' and some were 'girl'. Kiddo loved floral prints because they're a baby (yeah my kid has always picked their own clothes).
Anyway, my kid LOVED TO CLIMB. Sometimes.
It was weird. Sometimes they were all over the sofa and the playground equipment and MY LEGS and sometimes they just. Weren't. Couldn't figure out what was going on.
Until I caught them trying to climb on rhe sofa in one of their pretty flowered pants.
They COULDN'T LIFT THEIR LEGS PROPERLY. And gave up, and did something else.
So I tested this out and... Yeah. The kid COULDN'T climb in ANY of their girl pants. Any. Put them in boy clothes and suddenly the kid is on everything again.
We stopped buying girl pants completely until they were old enough to test them and my kid is a TEENAGER now and i still make them lift their legs individually and jump if it's a girl fit.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO MEAN TO DO IT.
Whoever designed these clothes literally did not care if the baby could MOVE. But only if girl.
A new analysis commissioned by The New York Times suggests that Google's AI Overviews are wrong an astonishing percentage of the time.
A recent analysis conducted by the AI startup Oumi at the behest of The New York Times found that the AI-generated summaries, which appear above Google search results, are accurate around 91 percent of the time.
In a sense, that may sound like an impressive figure. But here’s an even more impressive one: five trillion. That’s roughly the number of search queries that Google processes every year, translating to tens of millions of wrong answers that the AI Overviews are providing every hour — and hundreds of thousands every minute, the analysis calculated.
In other words, Google has created a misinformation crisis. Studies have shown that people tend to trust what an AI tells them without question, with one report finding that only 8 percent of users actually double checked an AI’s answer. Another experiment found that users still listened to AI when it gave them the wrong answer nearly 80 percent of the time — a grim trend the researchers dubbed “cognitive surrender.”
Large language models adopt an authoritative tone and can confidently present fabricated information as fact when it can’t immediately glean a straight answer. Add the convenience that Google’s AI Overviews offer, and it’s easy to imagine untold numbers of users taking its summaries at their word.
I ran the program for our library sponsored book club for the first time earlier this week and a woman commented that when she googled "name of book ending" to refresh herself on the details before the club meeting, the ai overview told her the wrong character was the murderer. We consistently have to turn people away at the front desk who come in thinking that we have a notary at our branch when we Do Not becasue the google ai overview is pulling from a library in another state with the same name. I have seen it misdefine words, give incorrect cooking times or temperatures, and fully hallucinate books or movies that do not exist goncharov style when trying to find things for patrons.
DO NOT TRUST THE GOOGLE AI OVERVIEW! It's wrong so often, it's crazy to me that Google just lets it sit there and mislead people.
Y'all if you're American please email your politicians and senators against the parents decide act. I'm fucking begging because we're reaching a tipping point.
Quick and easy link to both find your congressmen/women and giving you a quick and easy way to copy / paste the message into it. You want to oppose. It's an act that will demand that all major OS makers integrate a direct forced age verification control into all OS.
I received a comment on this that I figured would be very helpful- it's a template for communicating with your representatives. Be sure to use it for reference
Dear Representative [Name],
I am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 8250 (The "Parents Decide Act"). As your constituent and a concerned citizen, I believe this bill introduces unprecedented risks to digital privacy and security.
Specifically, I am alarmed by:
SEC. 2(a)(1)(B): Requiring age verification to even use an operating system creates a mandatory "hardware lockout" that ends anonymous computing and forces users to hand over sensitive identification data to major corporations just to power on their devices.
SEC. 2(a)(3): Mandating that OS providers create a system for all app developers to access verification data is a massive security vulnerability. This effectively creates a centralized API of user identities accessible to thousands of third-party developers, many of whom may lack adequate data protection.
This bill does not protect children; it creates a centralized surveillance infrastructure at the OS level. I urge you to protect the privacy of your constituents and vote NO on H.R. 8250.
This is a hell that us down under in Australia are already living in, and it’s not even effective at what it claims to do in protecting children.
Given that, in the wake of this mandatory identification policy, my country seems to be moving to hand over its citizens biometric data, like fingerprints, Face ID files, and identification documents, over to the USA and to ICE to maintain the visa free travel (ESTA) we have, I strongly urge any US resident to send these emails, or make calls.
But if you can’t do that, the most powerful thing you can do is spread the word. Tell your friends, family, coworkers, anyone who can help.
My reach will likely be small, and so I don’t know if this will mean very much in the grand scheme of things, but I cannot stand to see this tracking happen to another population as it did to mine.
And if you think it won’t affect you, it will. All anonymity goes out the window when your accounts can be linked via your personal ID
I wish you all luck in preventing this act from going through.
There will be millions of actions like this over the coming years. An important thing to remember is that for them to work (anywhere, not just libraries) is people absolutely can’t announce that this is what they are doing.
Not seeing constant acts of resistance doesn’t mean it isn’t happening all around you all the time. Some very effective methods require silence and secrecy.
I am so pleased at how many notes are some version of “I don’t fear the science, I fear the corporations who control it” because that is EXACTLY the attitude you should have. GMOs can save us. Monsanto will kill us.
what people fear about GMO- ‘theyre gonna make frankencarrots that crave human flesh and cause diarrhea ’
what GMO actually is- ‘we made rice crop that is both drought resistant and flood resistant which will prevent about 20% of major famine disasters, also it now makes vitamin A because vitamin A deficiency in poverty stricken areas is a major killer of kids as most vitamin A rich foods dont grow there’
what people SHOULD be upset about- ‘i made all crops sterile so all farmers have to buy the seed from me in perpetuity and i will sue anyone who tries to go back to crops that produce their own seed’
Bro, blocking someone and then using their tag like this is, all offence, weak as fuck. Like all you had to say was, na bro I don't promote pedo protags on this here blog, because I wholly agree with the premise of your argument given contexts (i.e., writing abusive relationships to show the evils, great; writing abusive relationships to show the romance, yikes).
This response is so, so comically shitty within the context of that tag, oh my god.
Something being nasty is not a good reason to ban fiction about it.
If we accept that "something being nasty is a good reason to bad fiction about it" then we give a foot in the door for all the people who truly, genuinely believe that queer people are nasty to ban all queer literature.
This is not about defending bad people this is about defending the freedom of good people from tyranny, you moron.
I think if you take it to its logical extreme. Say, banning people from writing stories of sexual abuse. That could then be said "well ANY talk about sexual abuse is bad."
And from that, you could ban books that talk about it irl. Or books like how to recover after being abuse. If its not something to be discussed AT ALL.
The fact that I’ve seen this post in some form on my dash like 100x and each time there’s new idiots who do not get that you can’t have *some* censorship.
Either you’re for it or you aren’t.
The moment you agree that something should never, ever exist in fiction is the moment that anything can be banned.
Remember a while back how Tumblr banned a bunch of tags, including many popular innocuous ones that even people who are for censorship used and were upset about?
When censorship happens, stuff YOU like can and will be banned. That’s how it works.
Remember how a bunch of people had their accounts terminated here only last year for writing about their own sexual abuse?
When you ban “pedo” topics, say, any talk of child sexual abuse in any form, that means people can no longer write about their own experiences. It means people cannot educate others so they can learn how to protect themselves or get help from these situations.
Censorship is authoritarian. Full stop.
Even if “everyone” agrees something is “gross” and “shouldn’t exist,” that does not fucking matter.
Do you know who generally believes queer people are gross and shouldn’t exist??
The same people who are banning books left and right solely because they have queer characters or relationships.
The same people who attack and kill queer folk for simply exisiting.
This is not just some fandom matter or a case of being chronically online.
Protecting freedom of expression is essential, and if you do not get that, I don’t know what to say to you.
And the people who keep bringing up child sex abuse as a reason for censorship are doing it very specifically because everyone feels like then they HAVE to agree with the person in favor of censorship.
It’s not that there isn’t widespread societal agreement on this. It’s that they want you backed into a rhetorical corner where you feel compelled to agree with them.
Also, like, we KNOW how this shit shakes out in fandom because it's happened before.
In 2007, Livejournal capitulated to the "pedophilia and sex crimes!" cries of (hate group) Warriors 4 Innocence, and you know what communities got shut down? Slashfic communities. Sexual assault survivor support communities. Authors who'd written non-smut m/m fic even got caught up in it. It was DEVASTATING to fandom spaces. I think pretty much everyone knew at least one person whose account was literally DELETED, or were a member of a community that was wiped off the map because they were considerate enough to include topics like "sexual assault" or "BDSM" in the profiles under the badly-named category of "interests" to indicate that posts on said blogs or communities may include discussion of things like that. Even if it was for a SUPPORT group. And it was because a group of religious bigots came to LJ and said essentially "EVERYONE thinks it's gross and that it's promoting CSA, we should ban it."
Like, strikethrough and boldthrough were a large part of what propelled AO3 out of a more unfocused conversation on one person's blog about hosting a site INTENDED for fandom content, into being an actual archive and nonprofit. And it's a large part of why you won't find AO3 banning topics that you find "gross".
Censorship is authoritarian and it will ALWAYS have more collateral damage than you can imagine.
Going to add that fiction which had sexual abuse and communities which played around with it as a writing topic are the very things that protected me from irl sexual abuse when I was a teenager.
I was in a dicey situation, and realized that while my situation did not match up to any of the superficial or textbook cases mentioned in passing (if at all) through school, it matched up a LOT to what I'd learned about irl sexual abuse through works of fiction and the rhetoric of my communities. I got out of that situation and dodged what was, in retrospect, one hell of a nasty bullet.
If it hadn't been for that "nasty" fiction and those "nasty" communities, I would very likely have been abused, and subject to further violence spiraling out from that abuse.
I really think everyone needs to truly internalize this:
Fictional characters are objects.
They are not people. You cannot "objectify" them, because they have no personhood to be deprived of. They have no humanity to be erased. You cannot "disrespect" them, because they are not real.
I know this has good intentions, so I will just add the "how you treat them, even as objects of fiction, can speak about your own character, be careful out there"
Your addition is actually completely antithetical to my message. It is literally the opposite of what I am conveying.
Stop telling people to encourage the cop inside their head.
How you treat fictional characters, given they are entirely objects of fiction, does NOT necessarily speak to your own character, and you do not need to be "careful".
It is not dangerous to imagine dark things happening to fictional characters. It does not mean you are secretly a bad person. It does not mean you unconsciously want to hurt people in real life. It is not a "slippery slope" to doing bad things to people in real life. You cannot damage your brain or turn yourself into a bad person by consuming "dark" fanfic.
I can write tentacle noncon of my favorite character all day long and be a fierce anti-sexual assault advocate in real life because what I do in my head is not the same thing as what I do in real life.
Etiquette experts explain why this habit is so grating — and what to do if you encounter bare beaters in the wild.
"Have you ever been trapped on a train car with someone watching TikToks from their phone without headphones? Or seated on a plane by a passenger blasting music? Or even stuck in a doctor’s office waiting room as a fellow patient broadcasts radio commentary on a sports stream?
If so, you’ve experienced what some call “bare beating.” This term refers to the act of playing music, videos, podcasts or other audio out loud in public without headphones ― essentially treating shared space like a personal living room.
“This. Is. Rude. There just is no other way to slice it,” said Nick Leighton, an etiquette expert and host of the “Were You Raised by Wolves?” podcast. “You’re imposing your choices on a captive audience. Nobody decided they wanted to listen to that YouTube video, and yet here we are all having to endure it without our consent.”
Jodi R.R. Smith, the president of Mannersmith Etiquette Consulting, agreed, emphasizing that bare beating is “unequivocally rude.”
“The presumption that everyone wants to listen to what you are listening to is simply unacceptable,” she said. “This is doubly so if others are unable to move away from you ― at work, in an elevator, on public transportation, etc.”
In those tight quarters, what might even seem like low or moderate volume to you can feel disruptive to someone sitting inches away.
“Whether the distraction is visual, or noise related, when someone is intruding on another person’s public space, it’s not easy to look away and ignore,” said Diane Gottsman, the author of “Modern Etiquette for a Better Life” and founder of The Protocol School of Texas. “Think of it this way: If a child was doing it in a public space, tight quarters or a restaurant, others would be annoyed and blame the parents for not adjusting the behavior. When an adult does the same thing, it’s important for them to self adjust and be respectful of others in close proximity.”
Children might get grace for this behavior because they aren’t as aware of social norms, but for adults who should know better, it’s simply rude. And depending on where you are, it might even be subject to legal penalties.
“Some people just aren’t mindful of how their behavior affects others and simply have no idea how far phone speakers can carry sound,” Leighton said. “Spoiler alert: It’s way farther than you think.”
Indeed, “bare beaters” don’t necessarily have negative intent and are sometimes blissfully unaware.
“The reason people are doing this is because they are trying to pass the time or may not even realize their volume is offensive,” Gottsman said. “But when you’re sitting inches away from another person, even lower noises are amplified.”
There may even sometimes be understandable reasons for the behavior. Someone with hearing difficulties may not realize how loud their device is, or they may be experiencing technical issues. Still, Gottsman said, unless it’s an emergency, the courteous move is to wait to listen to the audio when you’re in private.
“Of course, using earbuds and utilizing captions is a reasonable option,” she added.
And while bare beating feels like a modern behavior, it’s not entirely new.
“Forcing strangers to become your unwilling audience has been an issue that’s plagued humanity since the dawn of time,” Leighton said.
Smith pointed out that methods and norms have shifted over the decades.
“Back in the ’80s, being a DJ to those in your surrounding area was actually considered the norm,” she said. “The person with the giant boombox would play it so that everyone nearby could enjoy the sound,” she said. “But times change and nearly everyone has the ability to listen to what they like almost anywhere ― so long as they are wearing headphones or earbuds.”
For those who flout modern etiquette rules by bare beating, sometimes all it takes is a gentle nudge. Smith recalled a recent experience at an airport gate where a man was loudly streaming a soccer game on his phone as it was time to board.
“After a few minutes, I turned and asked him what he was watching,” she said. “He excitedly told me his favorite team was playing. I told him that I was having a hard time hearing the boarding announcements and asked if he could use earbuds. He gave his head a quick shake and looked around sheepishly. He had not realized how loud his phone was or how many people were giving him ‘the look.’ He apologized to me and the others around him as he put in his earbuds.”
Still, Gottsman emphasized that deciding whether to speak up is a judgment call.
“Is it rude to intrude on other people‘s personal space? The answer is yes,” she said. “But understand that we cannot determine another person‘s reaction, and if you can ignore it for a very short subway ride, it’s probably best to do so.”
Regardless of whether you choose to confront someone over this behavior, the important thing is to avoid bare beating yourself. Remember: Just because you can press play doesn’t mean everyone else signed up to listen."
“The old magic persists thanks to it’s unfathomable power.”
No, the old magic persists because the new magic can’t run the legacy spells I need to do my job, and keeps trying to install spirits I don’t want or need onto my orb.
Look, if the new magic didn't have a personality construct that kept trying to tell me which spells to use, maybe I wouldn't still be using the old magic.
You try to get guidance for the new magic and the king's sorcerers maybe will answer you in a few days with an unhelpful suggestion to buy the newest orb.
You need guidance for the old magic and a dozen retired middle-aged wizards will pop up to explain it to you rune by rune if necessary.
So we're all gonna let the new Harry Potter show die on the vine, right? No hatewatching. No thinkpieces. No videos about how bad it is. Deprive it of oxygen and let it wither away unremarked-upon and unprofitable; make HBO lose their entire investment and prove to the corporate entertainment sphere that the entire IP is poison. And spend that time doing something that brings you joy instead.
andulkaphoto
turnnoffyourmind
origamiaround
janainaart
areudirty
prguitarman
