Me: I am literally just doing my job. Everyone else is slacking off.

invisible

never explained

always a different size

you have to guess the size

[star ocean 3]

A Shore Thing by Joanna Lowell

World Running Down by AL Hess

Coffee Boy by Austin Chant

Frankissstein by Jeanette Winterson

Chef’s Choice by T.J. Alexander (& others, ex. Second Chances in New Port Stephen)

The Chromatic Fantasy by H.A.

it's not that they have access to the history of colonialism, it's that they have eyes, and also had limited contact with colonizers previously.

uncontacted peoples, be it the sentinelese or tribes in the amazon, have historically had contact with their neighboring indigenous peoples (obviously). those indigenous tribes are not uncontacted. it's very simple; uncontacted peoples have seen what happened to other communities and want no part of that.

and "uncontacted" is a modern designation that means these people will be left alone by the nation they are nominally a part of, their voluntary isolation will be respected, they will not be prosecuted for breaking the laws of the nation they are nominally a part of (such as for killing people who try to contact them), etc. it does not mean there has NEVER been contact, or that they are fully isolated and have no idea about what is going on.

HEHEHEH! I gave Andy an early chapter from The Ignoble Invasion of Prince Proculo, and said 'draw whatever you want from it!'

IT'S TIME! featuring the beautiful art of notsoappropro (who is the expert on drawing driders in compromising positions, hehe)

The Ignoble Invasion of Prince Proculo is officially out for pre-order, with worldwide links below:

The ocean molded this clump of bricks into a rock shape

Yu Chengyou（于承佑 Chinese, b.1953）

[Cyber Effect] astonishing modern raden (mother of pearl inlay) by Terumasa Ikeda. A nice pun on the classic Ghost in the shell ;)

Raden is a very old decorative craft (see video below), usually used on lacquer bases with floral or traditional motifs. It’s so great to see it used this way!

/gen

Freedom of Expression does NOT cover things that cause tangible harm to specific people.

Think of it this way:

Everyone has innate human rights. Freedom of Expression is one of them, but it is not the only one. People also have rights to bodily autonomy, privacy, dignity, safety, and to not be sexually exploited.

Child Sexual Abuse Material ("CSAM" - this is now the preferred term for "child pornography") may technically be a form of "expression" in the most literal sense - but it is a form that is the documented product of the sexual abuse of a real child, and its circulation continues that abuse.

Likewise, Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery ("NCII" - this is now the preferred term for "revenge porn") is the non-consensual distribution of intimate material in a way that directly violates a specific person’s privacy, dignity, and safety.

So I really don't think this is a case of making some prudish exception to anti-censorship principles. It's a case of recognizing that one person’s claimed "expression" cannot include the right to violate another person’s human rights.

And, as a side note, that is also why FICTIONAL depictions of abuse, or even ugly works that seem to romanticize or encourage abuse, fall into a very different category.

Those works may be highly disturbing, exploitative, disgusting, or morally rotten, but they are NOT actually abusing a specific real person in the way CSAM and NCII are - the harm there is direct, concrete, and inseparable from the material itself.

With fiction, the argument is usually vague and indirect: some third party might consume it, be influenced by it, and then do something harmful later. That kind of causal chain is speculative, hard to prove, based on the actions of another person with their own free will, and potentially limitless once you start to expand on it. If you make that the standard for censorship, then practically any book, film, fantasy, or artwork could potentially end up suppressed on the theory that it might negatively affect someone somewhere.

Great question.

In the case of CSAM and NNIA, they are not merely "dangerous ideas" or "bad influences." In those cases the media itself is a violation of victim because the abuse or exposure of a specific real person is built into the material.

By comparison, a grooming guide, a dogfighting manual, or a Nazi tract is vile, but the harm there depends on a third party later choosing to act on it. That causal chain may be real (in some cases), but it is indirect, contingent, and impossible to police without giving the state sweeping power to punish ideas, arguments, fantasies, and texts for what someone else might someday do with them.

We all ultimately are individuals that have control over our own actions. And I can assume that if you were to read those works you mentioned, you would not become a Nazi child-grooming dogfighter. I mean fuck, I would hope not.