OOC: I don’t have a special post or anything for this just yet–but LiNK changed their fundraising site recently so I had to remake the page. I’ll probably do an actual campaign soon like I did last year with a goal and everything but for now here is the page since my old link doesn’t work any more!
Yacouba Sawadogo is an exceptional man – he single-handedly managed to solve a crisis that many scientists and development organizations
could not. The simple old farmer’s re-forestation and soil conservation
techniques are so effective they’ve helped turn the tide in the fight
against the desertification of the harsh lands in northern Burkina Faso.
Over-farming, over-grazing and over population have, over the years,
resulted in heavy soil erosion and drying in this landlocked West
African nation. Although national and international researchers tried to
fix the grave situation, it really didn’t really make much of a
difference. Until Yacouba decided to take matters into his own hands in
1980.
Yacouba’s methods were so odd that his fellow farmers ridiculed him.
But when his techniques successfully regenerated the forest, they were
forced to sit up and take notice. Yacouba revived an ancient African
farming practice called ‘zai’, which led to forest growth and increased
soil quality.
Chinese fandoms are currently experiencing an actual Purge right now. Every fandom. Accounts are getting banned, all shipping wars has been put on hold. Everyone’s hiding their porn and moving them to ao3.
There’s reward money involved. A recent update to censorship law raised the maximum reward for reporting illicit online materials to 50k yuan (7000 USD), so some people are reporting porn like crazy right now, and apparently, BL fandoms have been especially targeted, where some even more tame things got maliciously misreported.
Anyway, it’s a mess. Content creators are just disappearing off the face of the internet left and right. Expect an influx of Chinese porn fics on AO3.
Well… if there’s one thing out of this mess… nothing bands warring ships/fandoms like censorship…
Hey guys, if some awesome person in China translated your fic into Chinese or created fan art, you really should spread the word! This could affect someone you know!
This is also a call out to all you fuckwits that repost art on Tumblr, twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram. Your negligence hurts people.
^^^
This is literally shitty and it has become worse and worse
Hopefully it will stop before long but just take care of how yiou take your stances on ao3 or what’s happening with Tumblr
A chinese homoerotic novel writer is sentenced to 10 years to prison because of “illegal publication”* and “spread of obscene materials”. After that, China government set up bounty for reporting “illegal publication”. Everyone on weibo, lofter etc. is deleting thier posts.
China is using this act as a way of controling the freedom of speech, it’s not just a matter of “no homo”. They just use the fandom content creators as an easy target and a way to scare people off from writing and publishing things the government doesn’t like.
China is living the Nineteen Eighty-Four novel. Please don’t post chinese fan works, especially not with their original chinese artists/writers right now. You could literally ruin their life.
* in China every book has to be approved by the government before
publication. Anything against the government or with “the wrong idea” will be banned. Their government didn’t pay too much attention to fan books before, but in recent years, they are tightening their grip on their people. Fandom and their activities as a whole has become a target because 1) fandom and their creative community make self-publishing a thing and China doesn’t like that the people know it’s easy to print stuffs (to spread unwanted information/ideas etc. 2) fandom and their creative community is the easiest and obvious target because of the general anti LBGT+ envirnment, general public will support the gornment for “cleansing the society from obscenity” withouth thingking about 1)
how many horrible live action movies will it take for people to realize that animation is the best medium to have fantasy creatures because when everything is animated your suspension of disbelief works better
have most characters be non-minors, around the same age range. this is mostly to minimize underage nonsense.
while family relationships are important, save them as background elements, explored every now and then. focus mainly on the bonds of non-related characters and how their different backgrounds play off each other.
limit the overly edgy tone, where pain and suffering are near-romanticized. try to emphasize wholesomeness, health, and the various ways characters can have good relationships despite their differences. a lot of nintendo franchises are good examples.
avoid creating significant characters who are utterly irredeemable with harmful ethics. (for me personally, i limit elements such as abuse and discrimination for background conflicts while presenting more interesting, morally gray arguments, where either side is right/flawed) if you’re going to have a villain, either make them team rocket goofy or classic disney fun.
just. try not to have characters + relationships rely on racial tropes. if you overly rely on a tough dark-skinned / dainty light-skinned formula, you’re going to see some racist shipping. mix it up. round ‘em out.
same goes for gendered tropes. if a dude is downright violent and irresponsible and a level-headed girl has to put up with his flaws without him facing consequence, that’s a downright unbalanced relationship. and do keep in mind that if two boys utterly despise each other, people will absolutely take that a certain way. again, with #3, try to play off disdain as comedic or with exception rather than constant seething hatred.
obviously these aren’t hard and fast rules, and what/how you create will vary. but it’s how i generally approach my work
I am legitimately amazed that tumblr’s weird obsession with Never Have Anything Unwholesome writing advice has now reached the point of:
– Don’t have children in your work,
– Don’t have families in your work.
– Don’t have any themes or ideas darker than Nintendo, because that’s romanticising suffering.
– Don’t have villains unless they’re in the relatively simplistic, child-friendly mould of Disney or Pokemon, and don’t try to deal with any difficult themes.
– Don’t have characters dislike each other.
The idea that you should build your work – because these are all fundamental aspects of a story – around preventative measures against ‘gross shipping,’ and that coincidentally all those measures boil down to “Have as little nuance, conflict, or difficult and unpleasant things as possible,” is kind of creepy.
i feel like the #1 reason to not rely on racist and sexist tropes in your writing should be that racism and sexism are intrinsically bad things to promote, not primarily… that you might accidentally inspire someone else to write bad fan fiction
I kept waiting for the punchline and there was no punchline
(look, gross shipping and absolutely abominable fandom behavior seem to be just plain baked into the human psyche, possibly owing to an incident involving a snake and an apple; the only solutions for a writer, as far as I can see, are to ignore it completely, or never try to write anything for publication. I’ve adopted the second course)
historians: well we dont want say this is a love letter because men often expressed affections differently back then, so this person wasn’t gay, they were just friends
the letter in question: hey babe i cant wait for you to raw me tonight. aw man i love you so much dear husband. love having amazing homosexual intercourse with you. i think of your face everytime my wife makes me fuck her, you are my soulmate, i am gay,
what’s infuriating is that people with an agenda that is political and discriminatory in nature keep purposefully twisting what trans people are saying, again and again. you don’t have to date a trans person whose genitals you’re not attracted to. no one in their right mind is saying that you have to have sex with a pre-op trans person. in fact you don’t have to date anyone. your bodily autonomy is respected. you’re allowed to reject whoever you want for whatever reason. are there some people who have used this excuse to imply those things and be abusive? yes. but i don’t think it’s necessary to discuss why using an entire class of people as a scapegoat for the abuse of some is disgusting and discriminatory. implying that all trans people, especially trans women, are abusive and rapists is disgusting and discriminatory.
what this is actually all about, explained in very plain words:
there’s a widespread knowledge, among lesbian and gay trans people, about the fact (and don’t even try to deny it) that the cis lesbian and gay community don’t view us as part of the community, but rather as external elements of disturbance that are there to infiltrate “their spaces”, trick them into having sex with us (reminds you of something?)… there’s an underlying feeling of sexual repulsion that lingers when we enter said “spaces”, even when we’re doing nothing sexual in nature. it’s in the eyes of people. it’s in the way they talk to us. sometimes (and i speak from personal experience) gay trans people willingly isolate themselves from the gay and lesbian community because we feel like we’re not welcome there- this means no safety net, and no environment where we can be safely out.
when you try to date and get rejected as an undesirable pariah and subsequently asked about your genitals over and over, it’s dehumanizing. this is not to say that anyone *has to date* you specifically. it’s a matter of- after being told- not “sorry, i’m not into you” but “sorry, not into dicks” over and over, you start feeling as if people really do see you as just a dick (or a vulva, in the case of trans men). do i need to explan why this is bad? a cis person is, maybe, going to be told “sorry, i’m not into women/men”, but this still recognizes your full humanity. “not into dicks” does not. maybe you’re rejecting us because you’re not into genitals, but would it cost a lot to not remind us that something that causes us grief and distress in day to day life enough already is also the only thing you see when you see us, instead of a whole person? you don’t need to justify rejection. it’s not something you need to say, ever. if your reason is this reason, specifically, i would strongly advise you to follow this advice.
sometimes y’all cis people don’t notice how rude, and exhausting it is when, before we even have a chance to become friends, you need to specify that you wouldn’t date us. as if … as if anyone asked… y’all cis gay people do a great deal of complaining when cis het people feel the need to reinforce their heterosexuality and assume you’re interested in them sexually by default- “sorry, i’m straight! tee hee don’t get a crush on me!” // “we can’t let gay people in changing rooms or they will stare!” and then you turn around and do. the exact same thing to trans people. just because i’m trans and gay it doesn’t mean i’m attracted to every cis gay man that breathes. i can assure you that your genitals are not magnetic, alluring, made of molten gold and irresistible to us disgusting transes.
with all of this considered i’d appreciate not to see any more bullshit posts on my dashboard that imply any of the above stated accusations!!! please and thanks!
There are a lot of times I feel like just…flipping the vegan script.
It’s not ‘polyester’ it’s plastic
It’s not ‘vegan leather’ it’s plastic
Its not ‘faux fur’ it’s plastic
Plastic is a pollutant and causes far more damage to the environment both now and in the future than leather or wool.
Please stop telling me that the Plastic Lyfe is the only life, it is not. My leather shoes will last a decade where pleather is lucky to last 12 months. Leather (and wool) decompose and are renewable. Plastic is neither of those.
THANK YOUUUUUUU~
and that is without even mentioning how:
• using the hide of a (bred for meat) carcass is less wasteful
• sheep need to be sheared or they are at risk of a long and distressing death due to heatstroke
veganism, carried out properly, is a long-form philosophy. if you listen to the loudest, dumbest and trendiest vegans (which most people do purposely because they enjoy mocking them) then yes, you’ll run into people who can’t contextualize animal rights progress with the reality of the system we live in
however, it’s nonsense to suggest that the issue of sustainability alone can permanently answer a moral question involving living organisms, and it’s also nonsense to point out that using hides from meat animals is “efficient” without touching on the fact that the meat industry itself is inefficient and unsustainable
there’s also a magnificent irony to the fact that this post is an eyeroll at vegans for being bandwagoning moral police, yet you’re doing the exact same thing with the current version, which is plastic hysteria
i am an ex-vegan who quit because i didn’t find it practical and am now vegetarian, but i still have a huge respect for anyone willing to be a leader on these issues. “blah blah blah plastics” doesn’t overwrite the fact that animals are alive, think, and feel
Superheroes that are like “if we kill them we’re just as bad as they are uwu” ? Micro dick energy
The only exception is Aang, whose whole “I’m not gonna kill him if i can find another way” thing is less false moral equivalency and more “I’m twelve and I have been through way too much bullshit this year to add ‘commit my first murder’ to the list.”
I do respect superheroes who don’t kill, and I really think “we’re as bad as they are if we do it” is a terrible oversimplification of why someone would come to that moral conclusion.
Three reasons why a hero might not kill:
1. They are not granted by their society a “licence to kill.” Many (not all) people accept that a soldier or a judge might need to kill a wrongdoer in the course of their duties. Those people (should) act under strict rules and processes to determine when a death is just. A society, to be peaceful, usually functions under a guarantee that people won’t on their own judgement decide to off people. Vigilantes don’t usually have state-sanctioned authority, but they do rely on public goodwill to be counted as heroes and not menaces or even villains. A hero, especially an independent, self-proclaimed one, may lack the authority or judgement to serve as executioner. Most just societies require a trial before delivering a sentence.
2. They don’t need to. Paradoxically, or maybe not so much so, the stronger a hero is, the less they need to kill. One of the most common defenses for a murder is “self defense,” the idea that the person making the plea was in so much danger from the deceased that killing them was justifiable. But once you’re a swordsman swift enough to cut bullets or a muscleman strong enough to lift trucks, who’s that big a threat? As your control over your power and your ability to master an opponent both increase (and barring completely wild or uncontrolled abilities, these two are very linked) the easier it becomes to hold back, to subdue with the minimal amount of damage and to render even the worst villains neutralized without going nuclear.
3. The power to kill is bad for their mental health.Not everyone can perform even a “just” killing with a clean conscience. A hero might fear the trauma of killing, and seek to avoid the damage. Or a hero might introspect, and realize that, should they kill today, tomorrow the choice will be easier. Killing an opponent, rather than subduing them, is often the easy way out, and a hero who comes to rely on that solution might find themselves killing more and more, Even if killing isn’t addictive, a hero might still fear that mindset.
Now, a common version of this problem is Batman, who wouldn’t kill the Joker even if the Joker is at maximum edge, dealing out huge terrorist acts and body counts. The best reason for Batman not to kill him isn’t “I am as bad as the Joker if I kill,” but more, “I am a man who uses superheroism as a trauma coping mechanism, and if I start committing extrajudicial killings my mental state and my loose alliance with the police will both deteriorate.”
THANK. YOU.
The thing is, the “no killing” rule often gets basterized by writers who don’t understand it. That’s especially prelivant with Batman and his extended family.
Batman’s refusal to kill the Joker after Jason’s death for exampel was originally due to the fact that Bruce was extremly unstable and would have completly snapped. Yet people seem under the impression that this meant Batman had some kind of delusional attachment to the Joker and that’s why he kept him alive.
So now Batman’s refusal to kill people is spawned from some false sense of justice more often then not rather then him being literally traumatized by the idea of losing controll over himself.
Damian is a similar case where his “no killing” rule is part of his unlearning process and to prevent his ptsd from being triggered. He keeps this rule not because of some sort of idealism but because it is a necessary boundary to both keep the trust of his support system and to keep his own mental health in check. However a lot of writers seem to not understand that either and believe that Damian would activly kill if given the choice to do so.
So rather then characters who refuse to kill being the issue, it’s writers who misunderstand the reason behind them not killing and push harmful, victim blaiming agendas with it.
I feel like sometimes people on Tumblr overlook the importance of personal philosophies and codes of ethics for individuals, with this belief that everyone must conform to some radical leftist ethos or something. The person talking about Aang is really oversimplifying his motives. Aang is a Buddhist and it’s a huge aspect of his character. An important aspect of Buddhism is never killing others, which even includes vegetarianism. All life is precious. Part of Aang’s whole philosophy and outlook on life is nonviolence.
And consider Kenshin from Rurouni Kenshin and Vash from Trigun. Both live in extremely violent societies: Kenshin is a former samurai who used to kill with impunity and Vash lives in a sci-fi version of the Wild West. By rejecting killing outright, these characters have a particular approach to promoting peace in their respective settings. Their histories of killing others also tie into it, but they also are up against enemies who place very little value in human life. The point isn’t so much “killing makes me as bad as you” but rather “unlike you, I value human life, and killing is against my code of ethics.”
Consider the rejection of the death penalty as another example. A horrible person may deserve to be punished and may have taken many innocent lives, but some would argue that killing is in and of itself wrong regardless.
Just because a character values human life and morally opposes killing doesn’t mean they think their enemies are redeemable or that killing their enemy is an act of the same “badness” as their enemies’ actions. There are many valid reasons people choose not to kill or harm others. Striving for peace and nonviolence in no way makes you weak or “problematic.”
Archive 