Happy2Write

Readers of web fiction. I am starting to write a web serial called WESTWARD STRANGER. It's an action and adventure fantasy featuring a haunted hero in a world full of dark magic.

"Timir is travelling west, for reasons known only to him and to Koru, the god that haunts him. He will meet troubled people on his way, and monsters almost as fearsome as him. But he can't always fight, or make friends, or enjoy the wondrous world he is walking through, because Koru won't let him stop."

You can follow it on the following fiction platforms.

(Original cover art by Pradeep Yadav)

✔ Wattpad - https://www.wattpad.com/story/410985088-westward-stranger

✔ Royal Road - https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/166158/westward-stranger

✔ Tapas - https://tapas.io/series/Westward-Stranger/info

There was once a centrist who wanted to be equidistant from both extremes. So he built his home at a spot that was 10 kilometers from the sea on the right and 10 kilometers from the edge of the forest on the left. He was thus satisfied that he was the same distance from both sides.

Time passed and the climate changed. Water levels rose, and the sea came closer. Deforestation caused the forest to recede.

But the centrist kept telling everyone proudly that he was equidistant from both sides.

Time continued to pass. Eventually, there came a day when the forest had receded so far away that it wasn't even visible from the centrist's house. And the sea had come so close to the house that it was practically beachfront property.

But the centrist continued to say that he did not take sides and that he was happy to occupy the space in the middle. That he was neither on the side of the sea nor the forest.

If the system requires change, who is going to bring it? Those who are comfortable in it? Or those who are hurt by it? The answer is obvious. The ones with comfort lose nothing if change doesn't come. Ones without it stand to lose even more if things don't change.

So the question "why do they have to protest?" only comes from those who benefit from the system as it exists right now. The reason they don't see the need for opposition is that the system isn't broken in their eyes. Because it works for them. They don't even see the problems when the problems are specifically pointed out to them. Their frames of reference are so different that they are literally unable to understand how the lived experience of someone else might be different from theirs.

As far as they are concerned, theirs is the only way of life and the only lens through which to see the world. This is why we see privileged folk ask questions like "Why do only they protest?" and "Why don't you see us civilised people on the roads?" The answer of course is that what they think of as civilised is only privilege. And because they don't understand this answer (because privilege only makes sense in context and they have no context except the context of their own life experience), they fall for the dehumanising answers.

Answers like "these people are uncivilised by nature" or "it's in their blood only". And thus starts the process of the privileged high-fiving each other over their "logic" and "realism". In truth, theirs is a child's understanding of the world. And like a child's worldview, it is extremely confident. Unfortunately, unlike a child's view of the world, this one can end up causing a lot of real-world damage.

When this childish privilege is unleashed into the spheres of policymaking, we get discriminatory laws, lapdog media, and hate-mongering politicians calling for murder from stages, all of which happens while the privileged nod from their drawing rooms and their dinner tables asking "that's exactly what needs to happen" and "these people should be put in jail" or "these people should be shot" or "these people are attacking us".

The journey from smug child to scared child is a short one. The future, if it's going to be different from the past and the future, is not going to be brought about by sitting on our asses, blaming peaceful protesters for violent crimes, and not making any efforts to understand how the other half lives.

When someone has decided that you are their enemy and nothing short of your utter destruction is going to satisfy them, then the responsibility of striking a balance is not on you. You didn't start the war. You are only trying to survive it somehow.

When those who have declared you their enemy tell you that you are taking things too far, their goal is not to protect your moral fabric. It is to hijack your moral values in order to guilt you into paralysis. If you fall for it, you will be responsible for your defeat and consequent demise.

So the way to counter every argument that starts with "you are becoming what you hate" is with "I know what I hate". Your enemy isn't an expert on you. You are. You are already fighting a war you didn't ask for. Don't make matters worse by letting your enemy decide what weapon you will use.

Hold fast to your moral centre, sure. But remember also that you didn't start the war. It was thrust upon you by those who want you destroyed. The last thing on their mind is equality and harmony. The last thing they care about is honour. They have acquired power through lies and deceit and hatred. And deceit is how they seek to keep that power.

When we speak of insidious conditioning that turns people into their most subservient selves, we speak of domesticated women, toxic men, and dehumanised members of minority communities. But we don't often talk about the self-hating worker. These days, since the influence of corporations on culture is widely visible, it's worth thinking about how the working class remains cut off from civic life and why.

The average blue collar office-goer remains convinced that the highest compliment anyone can pay him is that he is "employable". He measures his self worth using estimations of how "productive" he is. He boasts about working longer hours than he is paid for as if it is not exploitation. For all intents and purposes, this is someone conditioned to think of his abuse as a favour. He dumps large amounts of time and effort into acquiring objects that help him achieve the carrots that hang before him - status, house, car.

He willingly traps himself into cycles of debt and repayment. He lashes out against those who say he is actually a labourer and has more in common with those he treats like freeloaders than the rich men he adores and worships. He spends his days reading up success stories of the one percent and refuses to engage in movements to ensure that labourers get their rights.

I keep getting comments from people who say: "People opposed computers in the 90s. Opposition to AI is just the same. These people are opposed to technology." I find this horrendously clueless because it has no sense of proportion attached to it. Since I am from the 90s myself, I wrote a comment to explain the differences today. Sharing it below.

The question I am answering is: Vimoh, why your concern about AI is not same as 90s people used to think about computers?

Computers are reliable. AI is not. Computers give you consistent and reliable results. AI is fundamentally unreliable and this has been shown to be true in multiple major and minor institutions and companies by now.

Computers were not replacing human beings, simply moving them from one kind of job to another. AI is ending human employment as a concept. AI company CEOs are OPENLY saying they want all human jobs to go away.

Computers created a lot of jobs. Most of us today are working because of computers. AI is creating no jobs. Even AI data centers don't employ more than a few hundred people.

Computers didn't destroy the environment the way AI does. AI data centers are leeching off huge amounts of electricity and water supplies that humans need, especially in these times of great climate change. Computers plugged into existing power systems and worked just fine.

Computers were adopted by people because they were genuinely useful. AI is being forced on people in offices. If it was actually useful, people would happily use it. People using AI frequently produce bad or substandard work and that low quality output is becomign a new standard. It's a collective lowering of value.

Computers enhanced creativity and enabled humans to create tons of culture. AI is reducing the value of human culture by turning the entire internet into slop.

Computers were not part of a massive financial bubble. AI is. This has been reported on a lot by now. You can read about it.

Readers of web fiction. I am starting to write a web serial called WESTWARD STRANGER. It's an action and adventure fantasy featuring a haunted hero in a world full of dark magic.

"Timir is travelling west, for reasons known only to him and to Koru, the god that haunts him. He will meet troubled people on his way, and monsters almost as fearsome as him. But he can't always fight, or make friends, or enjoy the wondrous world he is walking through, because Koru won't let him stop."

You can follow it on the following fiction platforms. I don't know much about this area, but my preliminary research has told me that RR is the best place for a story like this.

✔ Wattpad - https://www.wattpad.com/story/410985088-westward-stranger

✔ Royal Road - https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/166158/westward-stranger

✔ Tapas - https://tapas.io/series/Westward-Stranger/info

AI helps me use correct grammar. You could correct grammar before AI. AI lets me write. You could write before AI. AI lets me illustrate and create designs. You could do that before AI. Many image manipulation tools are still free. AI lets me read emails. You could read emails before AI. AI lets me write scripts. You could write scripts before AI. AI helps me study and prepare. You were studying and preparing before AI

The list is long. But if you think about it, you might find that generative AI has not added to the number of things you can do. It’s just helping you get sloppier, lazier, and saving you a few minutes on tasks you were already doing just fine.

The question is: Are those few minutes worth the massive cost you and the world are paying for AI? And by cost I don't mean the twenty odd dollars (soon to be way more than that by all estimates) that you pay for your AI tool subscription.

Maybe the answer is yes for you. Maybe you do believe that data centers that destroy thirty thousand jobs and create a hundred jobs are a good price to pay for those few minutes. Maybe you do think that corporations firing tens of thousands of people and replacing them with dumb as rocks malfunctioning chatbots is a good price to pay for those few minutes. Maybe you do consider the massive financial bubble that is threatening the world’s economy right now to be a good price for those few minutes.

I do remember not having friends who did not share my interests. Some my closest friends, even today, don't share any of my interests. Maybe you can find a friend who has an interest that you have. Maybe they can be happy to have found you. The trouble with growing-up years is that we are all in our heads a lot. If you ask around, you might find that some of your friends won't mind trying out your hobbies.

My question for you is, what was your favorite cartoon growing up?

I grew up in the 90s and early 2000s, so I got to watch and love Defenders of the Earth, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Phantom 2040, Mummies Alive, Thunder Cats, Silver Hawks.

Of all these, I think my favourite was Defenders of the Earth. It had a great backdrop and innovative stories. The rest were okay, but DoE ruled.

I have spoken about this before, but my answer unfortunately is that I have no intention of going back to live streaming right now. What most people don't realise is that it is extremely tiring and takes a toll over time. There is a reason so many live streamers quit. Beyond a point, it just gets too much to handle.

I was live streaming for three years on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis. I was completely spent by the end of it. It took me months to regain some semblance of calm and quiet in my life, which is necessary for me to be able to write and create art.