New Walk Centre. Leicester, October 2014.
tfw no gf (good field) to sow your seeds upon
Photo with 4 notes
Man, if people get outraged when someone releases one person’s address and contact info to the public, wait until they learn about the fucking phone book.
i hate whoever started calling “making people take responsibility for their actions” “the neoliberal security state manifesting within activism”
Stop consequencing yourself! Stop consequencing yourself!
1. The biggest straight-up error made in the activist left, I think, is the belief that nobody of any consequence changes her or his mind about policy or social practices by looking at which side has better epistemic hygiene. The formalist nerds are many, they are influential, and they hop real far across the spectrum case-by-case based on their judgements about which side is more intellectually honest, well-informed, and searching. (Which is partly their best heuristic for first-order empirically informed decision-making, partly an aesthetic-social preference about whose side they want to be on, but that’s like anything else). And if these formalists are easily prey to false positives, biasing their conception of epistemic hygiene to the tactics of the libertarian right, they are also irreproachably reliable in recognizing a good argument, including a good refutation of a meretricious argument, biasing them all the way back to the tactics of a left that’s doing its damn job.
2. Not so damn obviously wrong, but probably wrong, and accepted as a given, is the theory that anything proffered as leftist thought should only ever be critiqued for propagating failures of solidarity or failures of intersectionality, and every other way in which a text or theory or programme might be normatively or methodologically or empirically messed up, on one’s best judgement, should be passed upon in silence cause these other modes of failure don’t have consequences worth the social price of a critique.
3. Both of these theories are weird artifacts of being a community that operates by putting pressure on institutional policy-making on a case by case basis, but lives off a theoretical folklore evolved for literally revolutionary politics – like, the lead-up to the Russian revolution – wherein the consolidation and mobilization of a vanguard could be separated from, and chronologically prioritized over, the deliberation over policy, and where convincing the ideologically uncommitted of the value of an individual policy is basically worthless cause you’re only ever looking to recruit, not looking to negotiate. This theoretical folklore makes zero sense when what you actually do when you do radical left activism is pick a policy decision you want made or changed and try to get a lot of people to agree with you out loud.
taylorswift I HAVE A FIRST DATE TOMORROW WITH A BOY IVE BEEN BEST FRIENDS WITH FOR TWO YEARS? WHAT DO I WEAR? HOW DO I DO THIS I DONT HAVE AN OLDEE SISTER AND I NEED ADVICE CAUSE WHAT IF IM NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I’m gonna have a breakdown about this tomorrow I’m not ready
don’t leave me hanging ://
If he’s your best friend and asked you out on a date, he’s probably seen you at your best and your worst, hair up or down, make up or natural… He likes you for you, so don’t act like someone else or stress out to the point of acting different than you usually act.
You got this.
I told you Taylor Swift is going to be Queen of America.
(She will be A Good Ruler)
Post with 1 note
Unlike spacetwinks I’ve never written erotica for the public, but I did grow up with a.s.s.t.r (and a.s.s.t.r.m), and my standard way to break writers’ block is to daydream up sexual fantasies and then write them down.
Only ever shown them to (and crafted them for) girls I was involved with, but the feedback’s been positive.
haggady said: kind of a broad question, what do you think it means for a character to have agency
i think “agency” is mostly shorthand. any fictional characters we create, by rule of the fact that they are characters we create and control in the first place, do not actually have agency. they do what we write them to do. agency in fictional characters does not exist, really.
agency, then, becomes shorthand for a larger discussion and analysis and just a general feel of “is what the character doing work for the character, or is this done for the thrill of the audience”.
i’ll give an example from comics. rogue is a pretty well liked member from the x-men, right? and black widow has her own pretty good share of fans, both from the movies and the comics.
in A+X #2, an avengers and x-men teamup book, chris bachalo writes a story where rogue and black widow have to team up and fight a sentinel. but, he writes a scene which feels pretty clearly not for the characters, but for the audience.
of all the ways for rogue to get natasha’s knowledge, there’s tons - nose to nose contact would have done it, and rogue herself knows her powers well enough that she doesn’t need to be told that she can just absorb the knowledge from natasha on how to fire a sniper rifle. what’s more, the info she absorbs/remarks almost immediately turns to natasha’s private romantic/sexual life, and rogue remarks on what a good kisser she is. the scene, the plot, was put together to get them to kiss, everything else be damned.
it’s a scene that breaks any illusion of agency, because it comes off pretty clearly “i wrote a scenario to get the two hot girls to make out”, and like, exists solely for that. it’s not for the characters, it’s for the audience and it feels like, to some degree, the author themselves.
this isn’t even going into the horrible Emma Frost/Black Widow team up, which is a million times worse.
natasha and rogue do not have agency, flat out. they’re fictional characters, and they do what they are written and drawn to do. however, a writer and artist can construct a story, a narrative, where what the characters do feel like they are doing for the characters, and not for the author, and much more pertinently, the audience. discussion of camera angles and focus in any medium would be useful here, not just story choices - what the camera focuses on and how it frames characters very much changes internal feelings and ideas about a character’s “agency”.
agency doesn’t exist in fictional works, but how media frames characters, how they setup their stories, actions, and reactions, determines whether we feel like the character is being themselves, or if the character is doing something that raps on the glass of the TV screen or the glossy pages of the comic book and makes it clear that they have no agency.
Thing is it’s not even hard, I got two off the top of my head;
First is okay, girl can’t kiss anyone without powersucking them, that was the whole tension of the R/G thing. Which means her only opportunity to consensually kiss someone is if they volunteer for a powersuck, which means every time someone volunteers for a powersuck she’s going to want to, and press for, intimate contact, a kiss at least, out of skinship hunger. Her sexual desperation expresses both as lonely vulnerability and ruthless predation at the same time, so match her up with any given character and she can bottom from the top while perfectly expressing the X-titles “mutant=puberty” theme. (Plus between all the personas she’s internalized she’s the pannest pansexual there is.)
That’d take some setup outside of any given scene, though. For a one-off the correct answer is she absorbs demurely through gloveless fingertips, then once she has a taste goes in for the kiss. They look shocked and she says “come on, you always wondered what that would be like”, they go “what, making out with you?”, she smirks and says “no, making out with yourself” and flies off to kick ass.
Photo with 1 note
Went to my first Timbers game. Good shit. Basically a Timbers Army event that put on a soccer game as a stage show.
So euro, we have terrace chants. So euro, we wave a regional-secessionist flag as a team symbol.
Never seen that many drunks in green outside of St. Patrick’s. Went with a Boston girl, musta been nostalgic.
Around 400 AD, an Indian medical book recorded a disease marked by pustules and boils, saying “the pustules are red, yellow, and white and they are accompanied by burning pain … the skin seems studded with grains of rice.” The Indian epidemic was thought to be punishment from a god, and the survivors created a goddess, Sitala, as the anthropomorphic personification of the disease. Smallpox was thus regarded as possession by Sitala.
Page 1 of 245