Professional Baby Cuddler

Gilbert baker rainbow, huge intersex circle, the design is cluttered but in a good way 10/10

SO YOU WRITE DOWN A WORD

BUT ITS NOT THE RIGHT WORD

SO YOU TRY A NEW WORD

BUT YOU HATE THE NEW WORD

AND YOU NEED A GOOD WORD

BUT YOU CANT FIND THE WORD

OH WHERE IS IT

WHAT IS IT

WHAT IS IT

WHERE IS IT-

Because lets recap: He was tricked, and used, and hungry, and beaten repeatedly, and treated as worthless and disposable, all by a man fully capable of paying him for his work. He was sent alone to deliver a taunt to a dangerous man. He was seven. He accepting the beating he received without complaint, and was further beaten for asking for the payment he'd been promised. He was whipped, and knocked in front of an ox cart.

Chang Ci'an didn't AIM the cart at his finger.

Chang Ci'an deliberately knocked a seven year old orphan child to the ground in front of an ox cart and ordered the driver to drive over the child.

And the driver did.

He manage to escape with ONLY one crushed finger (and, we can assume, many less permanent injuries). Crushing injuries are incredibly serious, and even one so small can be deadly. An orphaned child can't afford decent medical care. Adult Xue Yang has a SEVERED finger, which means that at best he managed to find a doctor who would amputate it for him, and at worst he cut it off himself. At age seven. Xue Yang is INSANELY lucky to have survived to age 8 after this incident.

This is why Xiao Xingchen's suggestion that Xue Yang should have merely cut off Chang Ci'an's finger, or hand, or arm, is so upsetting to Xue Yang. Yes, the revenge he did take was abhorrent and excessive, but Xingchen totally misses the point of the story (understandable in the moment, everything is happening SO MUCH at that point).

Xue Yang, at age seven, had done nothing wrong. He was a child, he was innocent, and he didn't deserve to be treated like his life was worthless by Chang Ci'an, or the cart driver, or the message recipient, or the restaurant owner, or every observer on the street who did nothing to help. And every person who tells him it's "just a finger" further treats the very real devaluing of and threat to his life as normal and fine.

If he, any time after age 7, had been able to exact revenge by cutting off Chang Ci'an's arm, there is nothing equivalent about that revenge. A severed arm is not a crushing injury, and is less likely to produce life-long chronic pain. Chang Ci'an would have good medical care-- a doctor, medicine, pain killers. His life would not meaningfully be in danger. Chang Ci'an had family (and money) to help him with whatever tasks being one-handed made difficult. Chang Ci'an was an adult, who's already lived a life without pain and disability, and who's prospects will not be impacted. Chang Ci'an was an ADULT and therefore better able to understand what was happening and why. And beyond all of that, Chang Ci'an would DESERVE IT.

To say that Xue Yang did everything he did to the Chang Clan in revenge over "losing his finger" is to betray an utter lack of willingness to empathize with Xue Yang. Even the 7yo version of him.

You're also touching on a point I want to dig into more at some point, which is: while killing the entire Chang Clan was obviously excessive and horrific, there is a logic to it beyond just "I was hurt so I will hurt others". The clan he killed were the people who, by nature of being part of Chang Ci'an's clan, supported his power.

"Everyone in town passively or actively supported Orphan Mangler 3000" is such a hilarious and accurate assessment of Xue Yang's takeaway from this event. Every person surrounding Chang Ci'an who did not oppose him therefore supported him. Everyone who did not denounce him condoned his behavior. Everyone who did nothing was complicit.

And when Xue Yang was old enough and powerful enough to take revenge, Chang Ci'an was already dead, so Xue Yang's revenge was redirected to every complicit member of the clan who gave Chang Ci'an the power to do what he did.

Culpability for the Chang clan is such a touchy fandom point because the narrative gives you a character who says "yes they were culpable" and that character is a spree killer who decided that "failing to act to stop the Orphan Mangler" was a crime that deserved the death sentence.

so you have to do a lot of "just because he identifies a problem doesn't mean I agree with his solutions to said problem" throat clearing.

Like. Of course I, with modern irl morality and sense of justice, think killing a whole clan for their dead leader's horrible actions is fucked up and wrong. But the people in his own society DON'T feel that way consistently. They, in their own time with their own world's version of justice, accept that this is a regrettable but normal way of handling the situation IF the wronged party is a member or the gentry.

Rudolf Koller (Swiss, 1828-1905)

"So the legend is true. The cylinder-wielding bird stalker does exist!"

Because when you think about it, the problem isn't that you can go to your chosen bookseller and find a story where Sparklia Special gets semi-forced to have babies for Broody McDarkenfay (it's okay, she's into it). The problem is that it is unnecessarily difficult to look a little further down the shelf and find a vampire princess domming the hell out of the hunter who knows he shouldn't love her. Reducing people's choices always serves the reactionary agenda one way or another. Expanding choices. That's where it's at.

i came out to my grandma at the beginning of the year over the phone. She really didn't (and I knew) know what transgender was or anything but this past weekend, we were able to see each other in person for the first time since i started my transition. For being 84 years old, the chat went as great as it could have gone! She caught me as I was leaving and she gave me a silver bracelet with turquoise and coral stones. She told me that this style is what Navajo women wear.

It's rude. You're making someone take their time to read something you couldn't bother to write. You're telling them they were so unimportant you couldn't be bothered to actually take the time to say something yourself. And frankly, you're lying about it while you're at it.

Currently, it's marking season for us in the UK. I have an exam board in four hours, in fact, which is where we all go over every profile of every student on our courses, see what results they've achieved, and work out their "decision" - if all is well, the decision is to let them continue the course, or the final degree grade calculated if they're in final year. If it hasn't gone well, the decision is about whether they get to rework the pieces that failed, resit exams, repeat the whole year, or be required to withdraw.

And, as has been the case for the last two years, the profiles are now littered with plagiarism investigations. Every one of those - every single one - will have come in as an assignment that the lecturer received, and started reading, and then with a sinking feeling thought "This isn't your work." Every one had to go to an academic misconduct hearing. Every one is an enormous draw on time and resources, including the emotional reserves of the lecturer.

And I know that's not the main issue! I know in the grand scheme of things, our feelings aren't the most important part of this equation! But as we're talking about rudeness, let me explain:

Firstly, the work itself. You begin reading, you see it's AI. Contractually, we have to read it anyway, and give feedback on why it's shit, and what makes it bad, and that is absolutely fucking soul destroying. Most students who use AI are doing so because they've managed to train their brains to find reading something boring abhorrent, and they want to skip that part; but a ChatGPT-generated report is bland, vague, and utterly devoid of any passion, insight or personality. In short, it's boring. You simply passed your boredom on to us.

Secondly, regardless of your personal feelings about the assignment, it at least had a purpose. It was there to stretch you, and make you think about the topic so you could learn about it, and to test that learning so we can all make sure you have actually learned what you need to. But the slop you handed in, that I now have to mark? What's the point? Literally what is the fucking point of me marking it? You didn't even write it. None of the feedback I'm obligated to give means anything to you. I'm marking ChatGPT, and it can't read.

Which means, not only is it fucking boring, it's actively pointless. Ask anyone in the world what a boring but pointless obligatory task does to your mood. Imagine that.

Thirdly, the misconduct hearing. Because listen, again, the lecturer's feelings here are, once again, not the main point. Students who cheat like this aren't doing so because life is hunky dory. They're stressed and overwhelmed and struggling, and they think they've found a magic way out, and so being pulled into a misconduct hearing - where the best they can hope for is to have to redo the whole piece for a capped mark, on top of all the rest of the work they have (functionally, a bonus assignment), and the worst is expulsion - is a mental breakdown-inducing experience. That, obviously, is the biggest issue.

But, the lecturers know all that, which means we know what we're triggering if we do report it. I cannot tell you how upsetting it is to receive a slop assignment, realise what it is, and then have to make the call to report it. I know damn well how upsetting that's going to be for you. I know how stressful and painful that's going to be. I know this might mean you're going to be thrown out of university. In some cases, I know it means you will be.

I know I could look the other way to spare you that

And oh, that gets tempting. When things are really bad for you, and I see you struggling, and this is your third strike; fuck me but it's tempting to pretend that I can't tell.

I cannot do that.

Which brings me to number four: the soul-bleachingly fucking horrible ordeal that is the misconduct hearing itself. Most people are non-confrontational; I'm no exception. I also simply do not enjoy a sobbing, panicking student sitting in front of me, telling me about how stressed and scared they are and how they're terrified they're going to fail. But that's how these things go.

Our most recent example is an international Masters student. I don't know the particulars for him; but I do know it's not uncommon in his part of the world for families to go into obscene debt, often to loan sharks, to send their kids to UK universities. Failure means more than just academia for him. Having to sit through him turning white and quietly begging us to give him another chance before he left in tears he tried to hide from us was, obviously, much worse for him than us; but it was honestly traumatic. Even now, two weeks later, I can't get it out of my head. There's nothing we can do; but, I feel guilty anyway. I could have looked the other way.

(It wouldn't have passed anyway. It was terrible. But at least he'd probably be allowed a resit - we're still waiting on the outcome of this one, but he may well be withdrawn)

To bring this back to the point of the post:

So many good points here, but the most important is in the tags. A lot of students get confused or overwhelmed and don’t know what to do which is when they turn to AI in desperation. It never even seems to occur to them to ask for help. Ask for help! Ask for clarification! It’s not a weakness. I have office hours twice a week just for you to ask for help and no one ever comes. I love giving help! It’s not a burden to me; it’s literally what I’m here to do. And I won’t think less of you. In fact, I’ll think more highly of you because it shows that you care enough to try. These are also the students who I get to know as people instead of just faces.

If you have social anxiety, psych yourself up and ask for help anyway. I know it’s hard, but every time you do it, your anxiety lessens a little bit. Every time you don’t, it gets worse and it will be that much harder to try the next time. Some professors are dicks, but consider it a learning experience because you’re going to have to deal with dicks throughout your life and at least you’ll know that you tried, which is good for your self esteem. If you want agency in your life - if you don’t want to be a passive victim of your own fears and insecurities - you have to learn to ask for help when you need it.

When my younger brothers went to the same high school, my dad said that one of them was staying after class to receive help from a teacher, and why didn’t I do that? I was floored. There are hundreds of students, I had assumed that a teacher has their own life they’re ready to get back to, and they can’t spend time after hours helping a bunch of kids. But more importantly, at the time I was enrolled, it hadn’t occurred to me to ask. It just… wasn’t part of the schedule, and I followed rules with a rigidity.

At least ask.

I would have, if someone told me I could.

When I was teaching, if a kid turned something in that they obviously hadn't written, and I quizzed them on it and found they didn't understand what they'd written, it was a disciplinary issue, but not usually one which had lasting consequences beyond a slap on the wrist. Granted I left teaching in 2022 when the problem was far less widespread than it is today.

But after about a year as a money adviser I realised there was a major disconnect between the way some clients presented, and the content of their emails. When they wrote to me it seemed like they understood what they were getting themselves in for, but when I spoke to them face to face it was clear that they didn't.

It was only when I asked one client if she was receiving help writing emails (she disclosed having dyslexia, but there were never any typos) that she admitted she often used AI because she didn't always understand the info I sent, so would ask Chat GPT to read it for her and write a response.

Obviously I felt like I wasn't doing my job properly that she should be put in that position, and have since spent a lot more time explaining things to clients with low-level literacy or who are easily overwhelmed by text-heavy resources, but when I spoke to colleagues or those working for other advice services it was clear that it wasn't just me.

So I cannot stress enough, if you don't understand something your money adviser/financial planner/solicitor/accountant or any medical professional involved in your care has sent, DO NOT use AI to respond, ask them for clarification. They need to know they have your informed consent to do things on your behalf.

In finance in particular, capability is always assumed, until institution taking your money is told otherwise. If you ask AI to respond to an email with serious financial implications, you may end up agreeing to something you shouldn't, because AI is pre-programmed to try and be as agreeable as possible (to the point it make stuff up to appease you)