Best posts made by Tinuviel

@Kestrel said in Cyberrun:

I think a lot of people on this thread defending the game on the grounds of "kids can't play here" are missing the point.

I think that if you think we're defending the game, at all, then you're missing the point.

@Auspice said in RL things I love:

@RightMeow said in RL things I love:

Realizing in my (coughcough) not youth, that I sort of dig the goth/emo makeup look on myself. I never tried it because I was told I was too bubbly IRL to pull it off, etc. So I never did. I tried the first time this literal year (hello 2020) and I dig the look.

what do those people not know about Perky Goths?!

Do you even need to link to the page when an image of Elvira is enough?

@Ghost Main reason? Because I don't want to spend my free hobby time hunting predators. We comment on the things that amuse or interest us. Be it like rubbernecking a car accident or discussing recent developments on whether the + sign needs to be in front of softcode commands. It interests us. Hunting for potential sexual predators, outside of those that have actually predated on people, isn't something I would say many of us would like to spend our time doing.

We also have fundamentally different opinions as to what makes a child predator in this exceptionally specific context. I'll be clear, we're not the only ones. The scientific Journal of Sexual Aggression is still working at this, and that's their entire job. We're amateurs.

If you want to invest resources, gather folks, start a group up? Go for it. You'll likely get eager participation. But it's very important to remember, we aren't "the community," least of all when it comes to sex-as-theme games like Shang or PenDes or this shitshow. We don't have the influence, or the ability to impact things, because we're not there. It's really hard for me to stop a mugging in Detroit when I'm in Sydney.

@GreenFlashlight said in The Work Thread:

@Auspice said in The Work Thread:

Someone put up posters all over work for a fundraiser they're doing for Australia.

And I'm like.
This is cool what you're doing but covering the poster with glamor shots of yourself plus like, two stock koala photos is weird and means I am prob just gonna look for an official foundation thanks.

(p.s. Australia is more than just koalas.)

Yeah, I won't take shots at anyone trying to help, but I'm really suspicious of how basically every story I hear about the Australian fires frames it in terms of animals dead and contains no mention at all of the effects on the indigenous population. It makes me think there's a horror going on there we're not being told about.

To be fair, the fact that an estimated billion animals have been killed in these fires is really hard not to talk about. People have died, twenty-five at last report, and it is possible more unreported indigenous deaths... but that pales in comparison to a billion dead animals.

@Auspice said in Derbyshire Estate:

@Tinuviel said in Derbyshire Estate:

@Auspice One hundred miles in Europe is a long way. One hundred years in the United States is a long time.

When is Australia going to get some history of its own, btw?

When your dude starts nuclear war, and we're left as the only nation standing.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

I think it's reductive to call Lovecraft's works products of their time.

I think it's reductive to try and boil down the entire sphere of literary criticism to talking about one dude and his shitty stories.

I'm sort of curious, now, as to what a whisper attack actually is. Is every single instance of talking about someone without them being involved a whisper attack, now? Do such things have to meet the broad definition of libel or slander? Do they absolutely have to be untrue to be an attack?

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:

I really hope I'm misinterpreting you here

You are, and that's okay. People who understand the words I typed get it.

Oh, no, in that example you're just being stupid. I agree with the general idea that people shouldn't seek to ban or otherwise prohibit works, but the quote you offered doesn't attempt to do that.

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

@magee101 Or impossible. You can't clone yourself in real life as much, but Life is one flexible Arcanum.

Okay, now we get to the important questions.
Is boning your clone incest, or masturbation?

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

Censorship begins with someone's personal views on a work or body of works.

Censorship also takes power and enforcement. I have my personal views on art, and I wouldn't make recommendations that go against those views. That is not, in any way, the same as saying that nobody can view art I disapprove of.

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

Alright, I'll get this thread back to its disgusting track by asking all the wrong questions!

Does the played-by (either your character's or someone else's) matter to you when it comes to TS at all? Does it influence how you play your PC or which characters they pursue or uh, how?

Not in the sense of attraction, I use the @desc to judge if my character's into them or not. But I do judge people for the kinds of PBs they use, and the people - though that is less a TS judgement and more an RP-in-general judgement.

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.

No, we're not saying that. Stop groping that straw man.

You're the one equating personal views with advocacy for censorship.

@mietze That mostly started because people weren't reading them to begin with, and then reacting to the character... 'incorrectly.'

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Ghost said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Tinuviel said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

ETA: Like, I added that preface to the sentence because I thought to myself, "Self, someone is going to make the nonsensical accusation that I am saying OP can single-handedly rain down book-burnings and op-ed bannings, better make sure to close up that loophole." I am a failure.

No, we're not saying that. Stop groping that straw man.

You're the one equating personal views with advocacy for censorship.

No, Pandora added that ETA because they thought someone was gonna think they were saying that.

And then they go and say it.

At no point have I said 'omg, @Kestrel is going to get books banned'. Try harder.

And nobody is saying that's what you're saying.

@Pandora said in Separating Art From Artist:

you practice Cancel Culture and would happily see authors that you politically disagree with censored if anyone could get away with it

That pretty damn clearly falls under 'advocacy for censorship.'

@Auspice said in TS - Danger zone:

'Hey, I'm sorry, but I need to call a pause here so we can hammer some things out.'

Isn't hammering things out what they were trying to do in the first place?

@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:

I wonder if that's why people say "a product of his time." It feels like a deliberate attempt to uphold the power structures that existed and still exist.

In actual academic circles, the serious ones, no. It's an explanation, rather than an excuse.
If one is creating an artistic work that is meant to be sold, it needs to be popular. Therefore it is more likely to reflect the views of the time, no matter how bigoted or aberrant. It's important, too, in determining whether something is being particularly targeted at attacking a demographic, or "simply" displaying life as it was.

ETA: The phrase has its academic uses, but I honestly don't know what it means in general parlance. I only ever see it being used as an excuse, but I don't know that it's the totality of its usage.

@bored said in TS - Danger zone:

Your "one on one PRP" case is a weird one, because that's essentially not a PRP and just two people sandboxing, which may violate game rules and be a concern for reasons beyond TS.

Wait, what? How would a one-on-one PRP be against any policy?

@Pandora I feel dirty being upvoted in this thread, honestly.

@Ghost Well, of course it's fucking weird. It's a bunch of nerds talking about sex with people on the internet.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

In terms of a RPer (and we're being pretentious here and referring to ourselves as artists) playing a character (and we're calling that art, too), at what point do you separate the person behind the keyboard from the character they're playing?

If it comes out of the character's mouth, it's the character until and unless I learn credible information that the player is a raging twat. End of.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

You happen to know OOCly that I, the player, am a racist-sexist-homophobic-whatever. My character on the other hand is super nice and cute and likeable and you really like my writing style. Can we RP?

No. If I have proof, I'll work my hardest to get rid of you.

@insomniac7809 said in Separating Art From Artist:

Stop whining about cancel culture, you fucking hothouse flowers. People are allowed to call a work a piece of shit. People are allowed to call out when a work is being racist. People are allowed to decide not to pay for something and to tell their friends not to pay for something, and even to let the distributors know why they aren't paying for something.

That's not Cancel Culture(tm). At least not as far as I understand it. Airing legitimate grievances is one thing. The lightspeed reaction of the internet declaring THIS PERSON IS NOW UNFIT FOR SOCIETY based on nothing other than someone said something to someone once a decade ago and that means they're horrible evil fascists is more what I'm railing against. The speed of outrage is ridiculous, and the drama always flies faster than the correction.