I Know Discourse Is The Word Of Choice In Fandom Nowadays But I Kind Of Wish We Would Have Stuck With

if you find yourself at the point of saying “they are not humans” about a group of people, any people, including ones who have done Very Bad Things, then you my friend have lost the plot.

real and true

“This representation was groundbreaking for the time and a lot of people liked it” and “This may have aged poorly and many modern audiences from the group don’t feel represented by it and are bothered by aspects of it” are not mutually exclusive

reblog if your url represents who you really are 

If I'm not too lazy, I'll finish it..

As AI art gets harder to clock, I feel like we are going to need to have a discussion about attribution and it's probably going to bum some people out.

Because the surest way to avoid platforming, reblogging, or encouraging AI art posting is to know where every image you share originated and that's 1) boring, tedious research and 2) extremely limiting in what you feel you can reblog. But if unattributed images never gets traction, people will start attributing their images.

I've been guilty of this in the past, but for a while now it's been my policy that if I can't verify the origin, I don't share the image. That goes for stuff like screen grabs of headlines too -- more than once I've avoided spreading misinformation by saving a post to research before I reblog, then seeing the post refuted before I've been able to verify it.

And I usually try to attribute photos I take -- case in point, the "woman with shrimp" post gets a lot of attention but not one comment about it being AI, despite it being pretty similar to something you'd get from an AI. That's because I clearly state it's in a museum and link to its catalogue page.

I'm not saying this to scold anyone -- I think yelling at the Internet to cite its sources is very much a losing game -- but because I don't see this discussed much. We're such fertile ground to be fooled by AI art because we've grown accustomed to not questioning the origins of any given image. And of course I also want to encourage both OPs to attribute their images and rebloggers to verify unattributed ones.

i don't respect DNIs not in the sense i go out of my way to break them but in the sense that i don't respect DNIs as a concept and consider them to be something of a red flag in general.

i'm not sure how to explain it but it's the combination of usually putting very serious issues on the same level as fandom stuff, the fact that half the time people don't even know what they're against beyond 'the bad stuff' therefore even further watering these issues down, and the idea that other people are expected to manage your online existence for you.

there's a passiveness to it that i think is actually a problem and it does not surprise me in the slightest that people with DNIs tend to view what media they consume as activism. do you get what i'm saying.

I see the original post going around every so often and it saddens me a little that it's never accompanied by this thread explaining why it's completely understandable how a child would arrive at these spellings in accordance with english phonetics

I don’t know how to explain to some discourse damaged people on the unholy trinity of social-media-websites-whose-names-start-with-a-T that romantic subplots in non romance media are not put there with the sole purpose of giving the audience the warm fuzzies; that, like any other element in a story, a romantic subplot should serve the themes and central thesis statement of its larger narrative; and that sometimes the most adequate choice of a pairing or approach to romance for a given story is not necessarily the one you personally think would be the cutest / healthiest / most progressive      

weird anti ideology finally leaking out into the mainstream