🙃🙃🙃🙃🙃

this joke operates through absurd extension.

there exists a real argument that animation is "for children." this is an argument most people have encountered at least once in their lives. whether they agree with it is irrelevant; they recognize it as a familiar position. the joke takes that argument and extends it beyond the point of reason.

instead of saying animation is for children, it says ALL movies are for children. instead of stopping there, it goes further and suggests that the moving image itself is inherently juvenile. instead of stopping THERE, it goes even further and implies that enjoying images at all is childish. at each step, the claim becomes more ridiculous.

this is a rhetorical device called reductio ad absurdum. one takes a premise and follows its logic to an absurd conclusion, demonstrating that the premise itself may be flawed. for the post to be sincere, one would have to genuinely believe that the entire medium of cinema is intrinsically childish. that the technological phenomenon of projected moving images itself is puerile

(which is not a position held by any meaningful school of criticism, philosophy, aesthetics, media studies, psychology, sociology, anthropology, or common sense)

the sentence "the moving image is inherently juvenile" is not written like a serious claim. it is written like an exaggerated parody of a serious claim. it adopts the language of academic certainty while attaching it to a proposition so self-evidently ridiculous that the contrast becomes the joke

a useful comparison, in this case, would be: "all books are for children because they contain little pretend symbols."

or: "all music is for children because adults should not require repetitive sounds in order to feel emotions."

or: "all food is for children because mature people should not require a little snack.”

these statements are not arguments, nor are they “mean” (to whom? movies?? people who watch them? almost everyone in the world????). they are comic escalations. some responses have argued that the post is not a joke because it is not funny. fortunately, the presence of humor is not determined by whether a particular individual laughs.

a joke can fail. a joke can be unfunny. a joke can be poorly received. what it cannot be is transformed into a sincere statement by virtue of somebody not liking it. if i tell a knock-knock joke and nobody laughs, i have told a bad joke. i have not unintentionally published a manifesto on knocking doors.

the "milkman" is a common figure in stories depicting a woman's infidelity and adulterous affair.

this implies that the ability to provide milk would both decrease the likelihood of a man abandoning his wife and children, as it would eliminate the need for leaving to get milk AND would secure that man's marriage, as his wife would have no need to seek milk from an extraneous source.

therefore, all men should produce milk, through various means such as:

- being a cow

- being an almond

- being a woman

- being a coconut

- being in the omegaverse

- being an oat

(list is exemplary and not finite)

I had to turn this off, but it's something that allows Windows and anyone using your device to generate text/images.

OR.

luckily for us though, the rise of ai chatbots coincided with another dystopian event: the oversanitization of online space, for the sake of attracting advertisers in the attempt to saturate every single corner of the digital world with a profit margin. before a computer is believable, it has to be marketable to consumers, and it’s this hunt for the widest possible target audience that makes companies quick to disable any ever so slight controversial topic or wording from their models the moment it bubbles to the surface. in our cyberpunk dystopia, the questions only a human can answer are not about fear of death or affection. instead, it is those that would look bad in a pr teams powerpoint.

They're a bit messy as I rushed colouring and transparency is here and there but, what can I say. I had a vision and I needed it now. Pssst... Below are gifs and the smaller ones are sized for Discord emojis...

➡️ Not every medium of fiction and storytelling has or is expected to have content warnings or extensive tagging.

➡️ Print novels do not traditionally warn for content in any way.

➡️ Until AO3 came along, fanfiction did not traditionally warn for content in any significant way.

➡️ An author is only obligated to warn for content to the degree mandated by the format they publish their fiction on.

➡️ Content warnings beyond the minimum are a courtesy, not an obligation.

➡️ 'Creator chose not to warn' is a valid tag that authors are allowed to use on AO3. It means there could be anything in there and you have accepted the risk. 'May contain peanuts!'

➡️ Writers are allowed to use 'Creator chose not to warn' for any reason, including to maintain surprise and avoid spoilers.

➡️ 'Creator chose not to warn' is not the same thing as 'no archive warnings apply'.

➡️ It is your responsibility to protect yourself and close a book, or hit the back button if you find something in fiction that you're reading that upsets you.

"Author Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings" = "I'm not telling you whether or not this fic includes any of the Big Four. It might! But it also might not! It's a surprise! Read at your own risk, knowing in advance that there might be anything from 0 to 4 of the Big Four featured in this fic." Note: this tag also applies only to the Big Four.

"These gifts you have: a piece of me. Given freely. But those before you... were butchers. Flayed flesh... for stolen stars."