how come you'll say tragedy is your favorite genre and then 100 thousand million people will be like "you should check out this adaptation of this famous tragedy but the twist is there's a happy ending this time." GET THAT AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
make an awful, ill-conceived, sponsored post about "responsible"/"ethical" uses of ai in writing
immediately get ratio'd in a way i've never seen on tumblr with a small swarm of chastising-to-negative replies and no reblogs
start deleting replies
reply to their own post being like 'agree to disagree!!!' while saying that ai can TOTALLY be ethical because spellcheck exists!! (???) while in NO WAY responding to the criticisms of ai for its environmental impact OR the building of databases on material without author consent, ie, stolen material, OR the money laundering rampant in the industry
when called out on deleting replies, literally messaged me people who called them out to say "We don't have a problem with folks disagreeing with AI. It's the tone of the discourse." So. overtly stated tone policing.
get even MORE replies saying this is a Bad Look, and some reblogs now that people's replies are being deleted
DISABLE REBLOGS when people aren't saying what nano would prefer they say
in light of NaNoWriMo the nonprofit org announcing that they'll be shutting down less than a year after this horseshitmay i just say
i'm still fucking frustrated, i'm still fuckign disappointed, i'm still just SO furious that some stupid repeated management dipshittery took a fun event that encouraged people to just WRITE and not get stuck in their own heads and fucking turbo spiked it into the mantle of the fucking earth. FUCK them for ruining this. FUCK them for killing something that helped me connect with other writers. FUCK them for ruining something that actually made me write. Clowns and fucking fools.
Actually that no punctuation plot hole ooc wattpad fanfic written by that 12 year old will ALWAYS be better than character ai. And I love that 12 year old btw
I wish age gap discourse hadn't spiraled the way it has because I want there to be a safe space to say "Men in their 40s who date 25 year olds aren't predators, they're just fucking losers"
"College grad" is not a developmental stage, nor is it what I would describe a 25 year old as. I was 4 years out of college at 25. My mother had two children at 25. You can be a fucking congressman at 25.
There's a difference between a man who is immature and buys into misogynistic views of beauty and aging and one who is a predator. Also, many actual predators? Not losers and able to move through society pretty freely being seen as cool and the ideal, so conflating the two isn't helpful.
This is going to be my final response to any attempt at discourse. You're welcome to continue amongst yourselves.
also sometimes a 40 year old and a 25 year old just weirdly find each and it's a perfectly normal relationship - like all human relationships are complex and situational, it's so rarely an either/or thing let alone just one thing only
if a 40 year old dude only dates 25 year olds, DiCaprio style or something adjacent to it, then yeah he's a loser
if a 40 year old dude meets a 25 year old through social event or friends or whatever and they happen to hit it off and make a go of it, and this isn't some sort of reoccurring pattern for the guy, that's just a relationship with an age difference
being predatory means something specific, and man I agree w/ OP and really wish people just stopped ascribing it to any and all relationship dynamics they personally might not like
predator and groomer - two words that need to go up on the "can't use till you learn their meaning" shelf
people in the usa are so uninformed/misinformed/propagandized about socialist countries that even knowing like, basic facts about the electoral system of marxist leninist countries feels like being privy to some kind of forbidden knowledge.
most of my ride-or-die mutuals probably already know about al of this, but for any of the non-tankies who follow me who might not be aware:
in most marxist-leninist countries, the way the elections work is that the citizens elect representatives to the local council/assembly, who in turn elect from amongst themselves a delegate to go to the council/assembly at the next level up, all the way up to the national assembly, which in turn elects from itself a president/chairman. depending on the country and time period these selections by the assembly might also be put to a confirmation vote by the public, to either confirm or veto the assembly's selection, but this is largely a formality.
let's use cuba as an example, since it's a small country and consequently it's system of nested assemblies has a lot less layers and is much easier to keep track of. community meetings are held where between two and eight candidates are put forward for a single seat to the local municipal assembly. the municipal assemblies, in turn, elects from themselves a representative to go to the national assembly. prospective representatives to the national assembly are also put forward by various trade unions and other mass organizations which represent students, the elderly, non-working mothers, etc, these proposed candidates are also voted on by the municipal assembly. the national assembly then in turn elects from itself the 31 member council of state, which in turn elects the president. these representatives elected by the municipal and national council are then put to a confirmation vote by the whole citizenry, but again, this is largely a formality. there also used to be provincial assembly that was above the municipal assembly and below the national assembly, but this was removed in order to streamline the system and give a more direct path from the democratic input at the municipal election level to the national assembly.
now, i'm sure there are any number of critiques you could make, or ways this system might be improved- but anti-communists by and large aren't interested in critiquing the cuban electoral system (or any other marxist-leninist electoral system) as it actually exists. they completely ignore the multi-candidate municipal elections, ignore the electoral process by which the municipal assemblies select the delegates to the national assembly, and instead laser focus on the mere formality confirmation vote on the representatives the municipal assemblies elected, to paint a narrative that in communist countries you can only choose one candidate. you know the drill, "in communist countries, 'elections' have become a sham, a farce! you have no choice, but to vote 'YES' for your evil dictator overlord- under communism, so-called 'elections' are merely a method of control and humiliation, meant to enforce total submission to a system you have no say in!" here's just one example of that kind of rhetoric: [link]
the very existence of multi-candidate municipal elections utterly debunks this of course, people in communist countries choose between candidates in elections all the time. even if you completely reject the "bottom-up" method of leninist democracy, and you think that the elections by the municipal assembly of representative to the national assembly have no meaningful democratic content, (if this is you, just out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the electoral college? or the supreme court?) it's pretty hard to deny that the competitive races in the municipal/local level put at least some democratic input into the system.
now, i can already hear what some of the anti-communists who lurk my blog because they hate-follow me are thinking. "multi-candidate municipal elections? in cuba????? where the fuck are you getting this dogshit. let me guess, you read it on the website of some tankie political party, and like the gullible moron you are, you immediately believed it. pathetic. find any source, *any* source at all that isn't overtly communist that corroborates this claim."
this is a genuinely good point! i did originally learn about this from overtly communist sources, and if those were the only sources claiming this, it really would cast some pretty serious doubt on the veracity of these claims. so, can i find anti-communist sources that corroborate this?
yes.
from the congressional research service:
Although National Assembly members were directly elected for the first time in February 1993, only a single slate of candidates was offered. Direct elections for the National Assembly were again held in January 1998 and January 2003, but voters again were not offered a choice of candidates. In contrast, at the local level elections for municipal elections are competitive, with from two to eight candidates. To be elected, the candidate must receive more than half of the votes cast. As a result, runoff elections between the two top candidates are common. In 2007, the process of nominating candidates for the local municipal assemblies took place in September 2007. Municipal elections were held October 21, 2007 (with runoffs on October 28), and over 15,000 local officials were chosen. The new municipal assemblies then met on December 2, 2007 to nominate candidates for provincial assemblies and for the National Assembly of People’s Power.
given that this is an anti-communist source, they are of course playing up the confirmation vote in the usual ways (ouagh! aough! only one candidate! no choice!) but given that this document is intended to be viewed by congress, and isn't really intended for the general public, it has to at least passingly address actual reality at least a little and can't spend it's whole time rolling in propaganda slop.
or check this out, from fox fucking news:
Municipal assemblies also nominate candidates for half the representatives on provincial assemblies. The provincial assemblies then nominate candidates for half the representatives for the National Assembly, which elects Cuba's ruling Council of State, which in turn elects the president. The other half of the candidates for the municipal and provincial assemblies are selected by a government electoral commission, assuring continued Communist Party control. Once all of the candidates are nominated, voters choose among them in general elections. Every municipality is divided into block-level voting districts. The two-month process of electing municipal assembly representatives begins when residents gather in an empty lot or at a school to nominate neighbors as candidates. Each district picks at least two candidates — more populous ones have more. The top winners of show-of-hands votes at the meetings became the official candidates put before voters in Sunday's election. In all, there are 27,000 candidates to fill 12,589 seats on municipal assemblies for 2½-year terms.
and this is in an article about overt anti-communists successfully getting nominated as candidates for the municipal assembly! (they lost their election though lol bye bozos) [link]
they're trying to spin it, of course- the part about the "government electoral commission" is misleading and inaccurate (as previously stated, the other half of candidates are put forward by mass organizations such as trade unions, which are then voted on by the municipal assembly. the electoral commission simply approves the selections made by the municipal assembly.) fox news, engaging in anti-communist disinfo? unheard of!
but even here enough of the truth is shining through the lies to put to bed the idea that there's no element of choice in the cuban electoral system.
and what's crazy is that all of this info is just out there for anyone who cares to look. but a lot of people are simply too incurious to bother, they were told that the Enemy Country is a totalitarian regime without any democracy and it just never occurs to them to check into it. the US ruling class barely even needs to try to hide the truth, because most people in the US are too lazy and apathetic to look for it.
dr-gaytorius
damienthepious
intoapuddle
