we're just normal mads.

let's play a game called 'is this actually a joke or is the person just using aave'

leaving a bad review of The Art of War on Amazon so my enemies don't buy it

I love the implication that, as Larry is an "unpaid trainee", the dog is paid.

If youre a closeted person somewhere out there thinking "I want to transition but it would be less progressive/unique/countercultural for me to be that gender instead of this one" please know that you are a real person not a character in a narrative and cant live your life based on what is good media representation. You are real you can only be yourself and theres no moral weight to any identity over another

Liberal transphobes enjoy positioning trans identities as regressive compared to cis queerness or like non-transitioning transness or anything else they can leverage to make transphobia look progressive and I think its easy to absorb that message subconciously. But in real life we just are what we are and no ranking of validity can change the fact that you have an identity that is NOT chosen and is just your unchangeable truth. Not only should you not have to live a life dictated by what is most countercultural to identify as or whatever but also: being trans is extremely countercultural and feminist and leftist to begin with and theyre only trying to convince you otherwise bc theyre bigots

"Why cant you be a feminine man society hates feminine men 🥺" and "all the butch lesbians are becoming men we need u 🥺" = stay in the closet for the noble purpose of being an abstract representation point in my new york times opinion column. You wont actually be a gnc cis person youll be a closeted trans person who uses the wrong words but I need you to do that because i hate you

Imagine living at Avengers Tower where Loki also lives. After the election, you talk about packing your bags and leaving the country. At night Loki appears next to your bed, asking you to stay.

no post has changed me more than this one. every time i get drunk at a bar i need to physically restrain myself from talking about it

i actually don't think it's a bad faith nonequivalent argument to point out that artists are perfectly capable of holding a moral stance about what they will produce and sell when it comes to AI, but not when it comes to gambling or sweatshop labor. i can't really imagine why being righteously opposed to AI is just natural regardless of whatever hypothetical financial benefits could be gained from it, but expecting a similar stance towards extractive business practices or exploitative labor conditions is some sort of unbelievably high bar to meet. Why? Can anyone explain to me why other than pure, naked self interest from artists that AI is a more legitimate moral concern than those other two things?

instead of “this person made good art so they can’t be a bad person” try looking at it like this: “this person made art so they can’t be a good person”