#the discourse

[sokkastyles]

I’ll never understand people who trash Zuko in the finale for using firebending to try and push Aang to train more. They treat Aang like he’s some poor little meow-meow or like an actual 12 year old when he’s quite literally the mf powerful Avatar who can defeat Zuko with EASE. Like he ain’t in danger and is fine lol. It’s just Zuko pushing him, or at least that’s how I saw it-

Look, if Aang can be a pacifist while doing back-breaking moves on his opponents, Aang can take a little tough love from Zuko. Aang actually is the one who ends the fight by blasting Zuko through the roof.

Also, Zuko didn't know that the gaang decided to wait to fight Ozai because nobody told him, and once the gaang do talk to Zuko they understand his actions and agree with him.

It's just people trying to cancel Zuko for something that's resolved within less than half an episode in canon. And mostly, it comes from people who have no defense against some of the things Aang does that are never resolved in canon *cough cough the EIP kiss* or when Azula does...literally everything she did in canon that she was never sorry for.

#zuko #antikataang #the discourse #sozin's comet

[tyetknot]

*carefully tosses a golden apple labelled 'TO THE LEAST PROBLEMATIC' into the middle of witchblr discourse*

#Witchblr #Drama #The discourse #KALLISTI #Wicca #Witchcraft #Pagan

[frenzyarts]

Terf should stand for Trans Exclusionary Radical Failure because I have seen the most misogynistic shit come from them

Feminist card revoked

#bigots don’t touch this post challenge (impossible) #the discourse #shitpost #frenzy post

[reachartwork]

I'd love to know how you can advance AI art ethically. I'll be perfectly honest and say I'm of the opinion that there's no way to make AI art ethical but I genuinely would like to hear your thoughts on this since it's something you clearly have put a lot of thought in to. Not trying to hate just curious about your opinion.

i reject the premise that it is inherently unethical to perform any of the operations required to do image synthesis. almost every single assumption required to start from the baseline of "it's unethical" (it's plagiarism, it requires no creativity, it smashes two images together, etc.) are all just straight up incorrect.

unless you can explain to me how to fit two (or more) billion images into 2 gigabytes (i'll let you do the math) in a way that preserves their features for later "stealing" (you can't) then i am rejecting the premise. because even if it were some sort of database that smashed pieces of images together (it's not), if your argument is that it's unethical to do that then you have a whole lot of collage and blackout artists that you need to contend with too. (if you think collage is also unethical then you are internally consistent, good for you, and then we just have a garden variety disagreement). generally speaking there is no argument one can take that can meaningfully separate ai art from other forms of transformative artwork except via special pleading, which doesn't convince me.

so yeah, basically, you (the general case you, not You Specifically, Fish Of The Woods) have to do the work to convince me that it's unethical because i am not starting from the premise of "it's inherently evil, except my one exception", i am starting from "it is neutral and you have to convince me that it's bad". and so far nobody who is anti-ai has managed to do so, primarily because (this is not a dig at you) nobody who is anti-ai actually bothers to understand how it works, and thus all their criticisms don't sync up with actual reality. while i'm sympathetic to labor arguments i.e ai art will put people out of jobs (definitely much more salient than the other ones), that is regular old capitalism abusing automation, and not an inherent flaw in the technology itself that renders it Ontologically Evil From Birth.

i get like five of these asks a day so i politely request you send future inquiries to the AWAY Discord, which is full of people who have significantly more patience than i do.

#the discourse

[marzipanandminutiae]

still not over the absolutely braindead take that "if you say brutalism looks dystopian, you care more about your aesthetic than people having homes!!!!"

like

can't criticize Shein or you must want their workers to be unemployed

oh you don't like that restaurant? guess you want the people eating there to STARVE

fuck both roses AND bread; nutrient-dense gray EnergyCubes would keep you alive so wishing for a better sensory experience is basically capitalist bootlicking

(I agree that considering Soviet-era brutalist apartment buildings in the context of "shit we need housing; put something up quick" is important for those specific structures- though I think that can coexist with "wow that's ugly" -but. this person did not stop there)

#hot takes #the discourse #the main brutalist structure in my area resulted from tearing down an entire neighborhood of working-class homes and businesses #and it's a government building- not residential or commercial #so I guess now YOU ~care more about your aesthetic than people having homes~ #like dude you can enjoy a style of architecture without it being That Deep #I don't think everyone who dislikes High Victorian Addams Family Nonsense (my favorite) is a shill for big developers #(except the developers and house-flippers; fuck them)

[mikkeneko]

It came towards the end of a very long acrimonious thread about conflicts between TERF and non-TERF feminism, which I don’t especially want to reblog, but I’m still stuck on the observation from that thread that “TERFs see trans issues like gender affirming surgery as being a distraction or taking resources away from issues like abortion or FGM, but it’s not. It’s all the same fight.”

There’s no contradiction between opposing FGM and supporting gender affirming surgery. There’s no contradiction between supporting the right of women to get abortions or hysterectomies, and protecting women (and men!) from being sterilized against their will by eugenics policy. There’s no contradiction between supporting the right of women in France to wear a hijab, and the right of women in Iraq not to. There’s no hypocrisy. There’s no gotcha. These are all the same right. The right to control one’s own body, life, and lifestyle.

It’s not about loving or hating a headscarf, or prizing a dick over a lack of a dick. These are details. The fundamental principle is always about autonomy. It’s all the same fight.

Or, to pull another quote that has stuck with me, “If you don’t own your own body absolutely, then you don’t own anything at all.”

#the discourse #probably going to turn off notifs on this one in short order

[therobotmonster]

You can complain about the crassness of 80s advert-toons, but what came before wasn't good just because it didn't have a toy company paying the bills.

In fact, that was part of the problem.

(splitting this into its own post)

Pre-80s, your biggest player in TV animation was Hanna Barbera. Post-Cartoon Network kids won't remember, but before they had a network to fill, HB made low-cost dreck exclusively. Race-to-the-bottom, cheap-as-possible, formula driven dreck.

Some of it was dreck with potential and staying power, because you had guys like Alex Toth trying their best to make good stuff despite being given the budget of a Viewmaster disk.

Kidvid in the 80s was the first time, en-masse, someone cared about the quality of kids' entertainment on TV. Not kids' edutainment, PBS existed for awhile, but actual get down and have fun kidvid. Prior to that you had the distressing puppet shows from Sid and Marty Kroft and everything else was 'what will the kids care?' low-end channel filler.

(Channel filler that was, by the way, still selling toys and candy. Just not themed after what the kids were watching)

Then in the 80s, suddenly a lot of people care about the quality of the show. They care because the show is a very expensive ad campaign, but suddenly the avenue to maximized profits drove through a show that was actually engaging and entertaining to kids.

At the same time, your animation industry was flush with new money and a desire to not see that snatched away by another 1960s parent panic that killed the Sugar Bear cartoon. So the studios did everything they could to not make the shows the advertisements they were assumed to be. The goal of elevating the project to avoid feeling like an ad-writer also slipped in. You get stuff like Real Ghostbusters, Spiral Zone, Bravestarr, some very impressively animated and written shows...

And before that, remember, was Jabberjaw, Huckleberry Hound, and fucking Clutch Cargo.

Yes, that is a pair of human lips projected onto a blank face because they couldn't afford animation.

And everything that wasn't a toy-toon had to have a bigger budget to compete. You don't get Thundarr the Barbarian until HB has He-Man breathing down its neck. There is no Le Mondes Engloitis if they don't have the merch wave washing over France. The Disney Afternoon was only what it was because it was trying to contrast itself from the figure aisle.

There is no BTAS or Gargoyles without the action figures.

New Google makes searching for the quote basically impossible, but one of the leads on G.I.Joe has a quote along the lines of: the fantasy of G.I.Joe was not a war fantasy. The fantasy of G.I.Joe was the idea that when you get in trouble, you have a large group of friends who will be there to help you through it.

And one last dirty little secret. Before they could make cartoons based on toys the toy market was still driven by licensed stuff, it was just stuff based on live action properties:

The 80s are seen as this time in which kids were deeply exploited, and all the money made in the kidvid and toy industries is seen as the evidence of that. The idea that the boom happened, even in part, because kids were actually getting media and toys they wanted never occurs to them.

And what did youtube make into the face of kid's entertainment?

If the YT kidverse had to deal with the regulations and rules of 1980s advertising cartoons none of that would have happened.

No one wants what these guys are selling.

#toyetic #80s nostalgia #toys #cartoons #advertoons #advertising #hanna barbera #retro cartoons #the discourse

[prokopetz]

It’s actually very simple: it’s always immoral to spend money on frivolities while suffering exists in the world, unless it’s something that I personally enjoy, in which case it’s exempt for Reasons.

#tumblr #blogging #social media #politics #the discourse

[sokkastyles]

“

zuko stans (especially the z*tara shipper ones) are such cum-guzzling cocksuckers.

if you even slightly criticize his character and suggest he isn't as pure as the fandom makes him out to be, these hoars will have a full-blown meltdown. their male obsession is embarrassing.

the z*tara shippers literally don't give a flying fuck about katara. they just wanna use her as a self-insert for their psychosexual fantasies of choking on zuko's sour, putrid, stinking semen.

that's why their layouts are always zuko and never katara.

what's even more pathetic is when they act like zuko is some feminist icon. like, no, that ugly moid literally had his little sister locked up in a mental hospital, instead of helping her deal with her problems. fuck him.

if he was alive today, zuko would probably be one of those incels/andrew tate stans who schizopost on twt, obsessively browse misogynistic gimmick accounts and complain about women all day.

fuck that ugly, deformed moid.”

I think this confession from the Atla Confessions blog represents you perfect

Do you know what really says feminist icon? Misogynistic slurs.

You are a misogynist and so is the coward running that "confession" blog, but that drama and that blog has been dead for a while. We all know who it is trying to dredge it back up with multiple fake accounts after literally faking their own suicide, though. Good try.

#the discourse #misogyny cw #jeez someone has a filthy mouth

[chainmail-butch]

Okay, this is my last post about the Present Discourse but defining Lesbianism in relation to men really seems to run entirely against the grain of being a lesbian. If someone is a bisexual lesbian then that means they're a bisexual lesbian. And, not to put words in other peoples mouths, they're not concerned with men.

They're Lesbians. That's why they're using the word lesbian, why is that a problem.

Two dykes can fuck each other and simultaneously admire a man's ass.

If your beef is 'we need our own special word' then grow the fuck up. Your special word is lesbian. Its right there. No one is adulterating it. It means women that fuck women. There are Dykes, there are Bulldaggers, there are Butches, there are Studs, there are Femmes, there are He/Him Lesbians. Not all lesbians have vaginas. Not all lesbians are women. And in that same vein not all gay men have cocks and not all gay men are men. We (Dykes) aren't special and we aren't excluded from fluidity.

And also sexuality and queerness don't need to be firmly defined. I was ace for a while, now I might not be ace. Shit changes. Hell, I was a guy for 23 years. Shit can and does change over the course of someone's life.

If you're main beef with bisexual lesbianism is the fact that these women have the capacity to be attracted to men then maybe chill. They're lesbians. That's why they're using the word lesbian. If you're worried that Bisexual Lesbians will somehow compromise "The Sexuality" in the face of the straights then I don't know what to tell you.

Respectability politics never win. Exclusion is never the right choice. There are Bisexual Lesbians in this world, no amount of whining is going to change this fact.

#lesbian #gay #bisexual #transgender #queer #I promise this is the last time I engage with this. #The Discourse

[fandomsandfeminism]

Paxton’s office petitioned the high court just before midnight Thursday, after a Travis County district judge granted a temporary restraining order allowing Kate Cox, 31, to terminate her nonviable pregnancy. Paxton also sent a letter to three hospitals, threatening legal action if they allowed the abortion to be performed at their facility.

Ken Paxton is a fucking ghoul.

This has 0 to do with "saving a life"- the pregnancy is unviable. It's all about ensuring that pregnancy is a weapon, a threat, a way to keep anyone who can become pregnant at a permanent disadvantage socially and financially.

#feminism #abortion #the discourse #pro life is a dangerous reaction against women's lib

[juana-the-iguana]

Sometimes I just think of fan interpretations of the cut-away between Zuko telling Katara that he knows where the man who killed her mother is and her packing things and getting ready to leave, and Aang and Katara having their last in-person interactions on screen (when they are lone together in EIP and when they are in a group in the finale) be fights to them kissing at the end.

People who support Kat-aang and do not like Zutara (and specifically comment in the Zutara tag about this) often say that Zuko had to convince Katara to go after her mother's killer. A lot of those people also assume that Aang must have apologized to Katara off-screen for the EIP kiss.

I have had a lot of people who share these interpretations accuse me and other people of not having "media literacy" because we can't clearly understand he must have apologized off screen. The irony is that is the exact opposite of the truth.

The cut away between Zuko telling Katara he knew how to find her mother's killer and her getting ready to leave signifies swiftness. Her response to this knowledge is so clear that showing her reaction would actually take away from conveying it. Things are moving fast, her mind was made up right away and she kept moving so the scene did too. And because she is moving so quickly, the audience can fill in the fact that any conversation she may have had with Zuko about this (How do you know this? When did you find out? etc.) did not play a role in her decision to find her mother's killer.

We know from both her past actions (being haunted by her mother's death, her righteous fury) and her future ones (trying to take Appa without talking to Aang or anyone else, telling Sokka that he didn't love their mother like she did, bloodbending) there is nothing Zuko could have said in a period of time that would have been a few hours, tops, that could have made her that angry or driven if those emotions were not already there. Zuko telling Katara he knows where her mother is isn't actually the completion of that narrative moment: her affirming that she needs to confront said killer when her actions are questions is. (I should note that part of the cut away could have been to leave room for a commercial break - I can't remember if that was the case when this aired on television - which would break up the viewing, but does not take away from the fact that Katara's shown response to this knowledge is to leave as quickly as possible).

Now compare that with the EIP kiss. We see the full moment play out, from Aang meeting Katara on the balcony to pressuring her to commit to him to kissing her when her eyes are close to her getting upset to her running away to him reflecting on what happened... Set up, action, response, reflection. This is an emotional scene, Katara is clearly distressed and this is one of the few times we actually see her mad at Aang. Their kiss at the end is another emotional moment, as it marks the culmination of Aang's journey as an Avatar. There needs to be a bridge between these intense scenes for them to make sense. Kat-aangers will argue that the EIP kiss is A and the ending kiss is C, so B must be the implied apology. But if A and C both matter a lot, and there needs to be a connection between the two things, then B should matter a lot too. C is the last scene in the show! This bridge should be shown, or at the very least referenced!

Unlike the TSR scenes, there is so much time between EIP and the finale that there is no clear flow between these moments. To the contrary, there are moments that break up this romantic sub-subplot, from them playing at the beach together again to them fighting again over how to deal with the Fire Lord and Aang running away (something worth noting is that Katara is the last person who is talking when he runs away - he literally left her - and she lets him go after a light touch on the shoulder from Zuko). Fight, friends, fight, love.

Since that B scene, the thing that bridges together Katara and Aang's relationship, is not there, then it either isn't important or did not happen.

Now let's get into media literacy. Media literacy isn't filling in gaps to make things make sense. Media literacy is understanding the messages that a piece of media is sending, intentionally or unintentionally. Even, in theory, if Zuko did have some conversation with Katara convincing her to seek out Yon Ra, it isn't shown and it isn't alluded to, so it doesn't matter. What we are supposed to take away from that episode is that Katara was ready to hunt down Yon Ra, she needed closure and got it, and that Zuko helped her. The same can be said for an apology after EIP. It doesn't matter if one happened off-screen, if it wasn't shown or referenced to, so it isn't important to the narrative. And if Aang making amends for hurting Katara isn't important to the narrative, but her kissing him after he fulfills his duty as the Avatar is, that is a huge statement about their relationship. Katara only rejected Aang because he wasn't an Avatar yet, so the only thing that matters in their relationship is him being the Avatar.

But the thing about media literacy is it isn't just about what is shown on the screen itself. It is about the bigger picture, what this is trying to convey as a message to the viewers.

So what does the gap in time in TSR tell us? Katara is this caring, nurturing friend who, in her brother's words, doesn't hate anyone except the people who took her mother. If she doesn't hate anyone except for the people who took her mother away from her, and she was immediately able to act on that hate when she got the chance to seek closure, then that hurt must have been closer to the surface than anyone thought. She acted fine, but her trauma was still there.

So what does this mean? She was able to address the anger conveyed in the scene in the episode and by the end of it, even though she was still conflicted about Yon Ra, she made peace with Zuko. Zuko whose mere presence caused her distress for weeks, not only because of his betrayal, but because he reminded her of her mother's death. Zuko who became her good friend and saved her life later on. Confronting her demons not only brought her peace, it improved her life tremendously.

So what is the "media literate" message from the lack of apology? The absence conveys is that the most important thing needed for Katara to like Aang was for him to fulfill his role as the Avatar, because that is the only thing that changed in between those two scenes. He didn't treat her any differently, he didn't apologize for hurting her, in fact its vague that he even acknowledged that what he did was wrong because it hurt her (the "I'm so stupid!" could easily mean he blew his chance, not that he cared). And Katara never went through the process of forgiving him or making peace with him wronging her. She never even acknowledged that he underwent a significant change as a person in the last episode either (Aang, who ran away from his duties at the start of the series, faces them head on in the last episode. YMMV on how good that was developed) - if it's not shown, it doesn't matter.

So what does this mean? It doesn't matter when Katara is hurt, conflict resolution doesn't matter, and apparently Aang's personality doesn't matter either. Their interpersonal relationship and emotional connection mean very little. Men do great things and women love them for it, how they act or are treated does not matter.

And before anyone comments "they're kids, it's not a big deal," this is a direct response to accusations about media literacy which, by definition, is a big deal - it's about the messages being made to viewers and its commentary on how society works and how things should be.

#zutara #anti kataang #the discourse

[sarasa-cat]

#more on this absolutely misuse of #hope #and #punk #in the current #set of #gentrification #and sanitation of genres #hopepunk #fiction #the discourse

[frenzyarts]

How come any time someone says a feminist or lesbian talking point, people are like “that’s a terf dog whistle.” Stop it!!! I literally saw someone saying that pointing out that “bitch is a slur” is a terf dog whistle… okay so? Is no one allowed to discuss gendered slurs besides terfs????

Also whenever lesbians try to say they don’t like men people accuse them of being terfs….??? Obviously there’s a lot of nuance to the lesbian label and a lot of queer identities that blur the lines between genders, believe me I know, I’m non-binary. And I think people should be able to label themselves in a way that they think suits them, even if it’s different than what people think a lesbian “should be.”

But unfortunately We Live In A Society and that society is largely patriarchal and straight and cis and if people see you and think you’re a woman they’re going to automatically assume you like men. It’s natural that some people (like me) want to defy that and say no you’re wrong, just because you perceive me as A Woman doesn’t mean I have to like men. Outside the queer community, people don’t understand the nuance, which sucks, but it’s the world we live in. But I don’t think proclaiming “I don’t like men” in a patriarchal society should be seen as a terf thing. Especially because when you ask someone why it’s a terf thing, they tell you that terfs say that as an argument as to why they don’t think trans women can be lesbians or engage in lesbian relationships. And I just want to scream hey! Not everyone thinks like a terf! Really weird of you to assume I share that transphobic view just because I said I didn’t like men! For the record, myself and all of the lesbians who I know irl don’t like men do NOT include trans women in the “men” label!

Long story short, saying “I don’t like men” doesn’t mean I’m a terf, it doesn’t mean I think he/him lesbians or trans masc lesbians or bi/pan lesbians or trans femme lesbians or non-binary lesbians aren’t valid, in fact, you are all so valid and I am holding hands with all the lesbians in the world Right Now. But please just let me live 😭

#the discourse #lesbian #psa #frenzy post

[unhelpfultarot]

King of Cups and Five of Swords

You’ve been around long enough that you don’t fall for it when someone says they want to “debate.”

#tarot #rider-waite-smith #king of cups #five of swords #the Discourse

[naranjapetrificada]

Maybe I've just curated my dash well but anecdotally, I haven't seen almost anyone express disapproval of the Izzy arc in this particular way, which I would agree is judgy and unproductive. The main concerns I've been seeing (and hopefully expressing, although maybe not effectively) have been from:

People reminded of traumas/relationship dynamics reflected in Izzy and Ed's s1 relationship in general, or specific parts of it like Izzy telling Ed he was better off dead than acting so f*ggy.

People who feel like point number 1 is being retroactively minimized by the narrative (not the characters, the narrative) not acknowledging the role Izzy played in setting off Ed's Kraken era.

People who have seen their abusers get to control the narrative around harm they caused, which the narrative silence around points 1&2 seems to underline.

People who have been gaslit about their traumas and/or felt like the only person in the proverbial room who remembers that something harmful happened.

People who see Izzy suffering and then being granted grace, and walk away concerned that the message is being sent that suffering is the path to forgiveness, which would be a dangerous message period but is especially perplexing from this show in particular.

(I'm not here to argue with any of those interpretations if Izzy or his actions so save us both the energy, I'm here to talk about the post I linked.)

I can understand how, from any of those perspectives, the Izzy arc has felt like a sour note in an otherwise great season. I certainly haven't been able to engage with it as fully as I had hoped to do when I first saw hints of where things might go while watching the first episodes of the season.

I don't need a big speech or conversation about it all or even that much screen time devoted to it. But if the narrative wants me to buy a redemption arc for Izzy, the narrative needs to acknowledge what he's being redeemed for in the first place. When I talk about what's "earned" I'm talking about what the narrative has earned, not the characters. And right now, the narrative doesn't feel like it has earned more than me holding my nose to get through Izzy redemption scenes. And that's sad for me, because I've never felt like that about this show before.

I don't believe you earn forgiveness, or that you atone for your actions for someone else's sake. True forgiveness is something that the wronged party grants for their peace of mind. True atonement is something you do for yourself to make peace with yourself what you have done. Neither is "earned", much less through groveling or suffering. But both require acknowledging and reflecting on the truth of what happened, and that lack of narrative acknowledgement is the missing stair so many of us are having to learn how to work around when it comes to watching this season.

#and yeah I guess you could make some kind of metatextual argument about the missing stair #and how it's a perfect metaphor for Izzy the character too #which should allegedly make it fit within the narrative after all #but if that's the case then the execution is still lacking something and that makes me sad #because so many other things this season have been great! #our flag means death #ofmd #ofmd meta #ofmd s2 spoilers #ofmd s2 #ofmd season 2 #ofmd spoilers #ofmd season 2 spoilers #izzy hands #fandom #ofmd fandom #the discourse #the izcourse