I am Riza; this is my nest. Make yourself cozy. Drop by my askbox if you need anything. (I don't bite, I just nip affectionately. Careful of the talons!) (She/queer/probably no longer single)
Not to be all "the children have forgotten the sacred texts!" but I just saw someone refer to a ship between two people who are good friends in canon as a crackship.
Hon. No. Crackship doesn't just mean "not canon". It's difficult to imagine two people who spend significant canon time together as a crackship. Crackship is when you write Galactus getting fucked by Tony the Tiger.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
So, I've been following mostbelovedqueer's most recent Tumblr poll tournament. They have a rule about aggressive language and anti-propaganda, which is mentioned on every poll post. I sometimes enjoy a good bit of anti-propaganda in this type of poll tournament, but those are the rules for this one, and I've seen them being enforced with disqualifications of ships. But last night this happened, and I'm still not sure how to respond.
The ship the previous commenter would seemingly prefer to win did get a strike against it, but I'm concerned about mostbelovedqueer's response here. To call out the use of "twink" in a derogatory context but fail to mention the phrase "kill that zionist" sure is a choice. I don't think I can formulate the words to really respond to this, but it makes me deeply uncomfortable as a Jew. And I also didn't feel like I could just stay silent, so I'm sharing this as a screenshot so maybe other jumblr users can help me put words to it.
This policy isn't compatible with death threats. Period. And let's be clear here:
This is still permitting death threats. The exclusive focus on "twink" speaks volumes, and is very deliberate.
I feel obligated to point out here that (as far as I know) Noah Schnapp's record of Evil Zionism consists of three major events:
Getting publicly upset over the worst violence inflicted on Jews since the Holocaust
Being caught off-guard by a pro-Israel couple who snapped a picture with him before he could react
Releasing a statement calling for the cessation of hostilities and opposing the slaughter of innocent people
None of this exactly screams "bloodthirsty extremist jerking off to the mass slaughter of Palestinians" to me? Like, I get it if you disagree with him politically, that's your prerogative, but calling for his death?? For THIS???? Kind of an overreaction, no?
The implication of @mostbelovedqueer's decision here is that it's okay to spew death threats and hate so long as you staple "Zionist" to the target's name. Um???? As OP pointed out, that is one hell of a choice to make.
And once more, I feel obligated to point something out: antisemites will sometimes use the term "Zionist" as a dog whistle for "Jews." This tradition goes back decades, it's why David Duke coined the word "Zio" in the 90s. YES, there are many, many legitimate criticisms to make of Zionism as a movement, or the Israeli government, or both. That does not stop bad faith actors from using the word maliciously; if anything, it gives them better cover. Because "Zionist" can be abused in this way, it is in EVERYONE'S interest to keep an eye out for its misuse, so we can weed out aforementioned bad faith actors from honest discussion. Let's take another look at the word's usage here, shall we?
I don't see any conversation about, say, the ideological tenets of Zionism, actions taken in the name of Zionism, arguments made by Zionists, or anything else along those lines. What I do see is a person calling for the murder of a young Jewish actor who has made a few middle-of-the-road statements on the topic. Gotta say, that does NOT strike me as someone trying to discuss the flaws of Zionism. It strikes me as, well, someone thirsting for the death of a young Jewish actor. I'll leave it to you to decide what that says about @smugblueenby69. But I will point out that @mostbelovedqueer is apparently okay with that statement.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a friendly contest, a neutral grounds for fans to bond over their favorite queer ships. How does permitting literal death threats against one of the ship's actors make for a friendly place to socialize?
The complaints about antisemitism did not begin & end with them only calling out one part of a post. The issue is 1) calling out someone for calling someone a twink while ignoring the death threat (objectively a worse thing) in the same post, and 2) making a follow-up post talking about having "an understandable problem with the actor" (for the "crime" of having been deemed a zionist by people on the internet) and still not addressing the death threat. (This list could probably be longer, but this is the crux of my issue.)
"why do you think you are special specifically?"
IDK, maybe because it's the one example of not just obvious hate but A Literal Death Threat that I've seen get ignored? In favor of calling someone out for using the word "twink". Like, they could just acknowledge that they made a mistake and move on, but no, they had to double down, and they've apparently blocked people who directly called them out. I'm utterly unsurprised but still disappointed.
Well. I’d like to say this directly to @mostbelovedqueer, but they have blocked me (no idea why, we’ve never really interacted so I assume they disliked my blog’s content). Perhaps someone can pass this on for me:
Words mean jackshit if they aren’t backed by action.
If someone makes a death threat in a space you are moderating, you are responsible for making it clear that death threats are not acceptable. You do this by punishing them explicitly for making a death threat.
This did not happen in the above case. @smugblueenby69 was reprimanded solely for using the word twink in a derogatory manner. The death threat they made, much less the antisemitic tone of their statement, was ignored (please see my earlier post for why this statement should be considered antisemitic, not anti-Zionist). To the contrary, @mostbelovedqueer stated in a follow-up post that the accusation of Zionism was a justifiable reason for hating Noah Schnapp, a Jewish actor. The truthfulness of this accusation. Again, I must point out that Schnapp’s Zionist offenses appear to be making a few middle-of-the-road statements about the conflict (no, I am not including getting ambushed by a couple of propagandists, and neither should you), something many other celebrities have done. Why, then, does only the Jewish actor deserve hatred?
To answer your question, @mostbelovedqueer: we don’t think we’re special. We think we deserve equal treatment. Why do you think holding someone accountable for an antisemitic death threat to be “special treatment?”
why do closed captions keep pretending english is the only intelligible language? when a character speaks spanish what exactly is forcing your hand to transcribe it as "[speaks foreign language]" rather than "Si"
This intersection of Anglocentric bias + ableism and audism makes my blood boil.
People commonly defend this practise with "But the audience isn't meant to understand!" or "It's inconsequential!", neither of which actually address a) their assumption that the [ideal Anglo] audience wouldn't understand, or, perhaps most crucially in the context of CCs, b) that this is a failure of accessibility. A hearing person who speaks that "foreign" language will know exactly what's being said. A deaf or HoH person – the people CCs are primarily intended for – who speaks or reads that language should therefore have the exact same opportunity to understand. It very much feels to me like an assumption that we deaf and HoH people couldn't possibly understand any language but English, so there's no point in getting those languages transcribed for us. I hope it goes without saying how profoundly audist that sentiment is.
There is also, I think, a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of Deaf culture at play. Which is to say, CCs in English-language media are written with not only the assumption that the audience will be native English speakers, but that all d/Deaf and HoH people speak English as their first language, so all other languages are as supposedly foreign to them as they are for hearing people. But sign languages are their own distinct language. BSL, ASL, ISL, AusLan, NZSL etc ≠ English (and are indeed different from one another), LIS ≠ Italian, JSL ≠ Japanese, and so on. So, if you follow the captioners' logic to its natural extreme, all non-signed dialogue is "foreign" to many d/Deaf and HoH people and should therefore be labelled [speaks foreign language] / [speaks English] / [speaks own language] / etc. – which is, obviously, a terrible idea that perfectly highlights all the biases implicit in closed captioning.
TL;DR: your accessibility feature fails in its function as soon as you fail to transcribe all spoken languages.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I started using Head and Shoulders ten years ago for itchy scalp and dandruff, and then for ten years I have not had itchy scalp and dandruff, so I thought “why do I still buy shampoo to combat itchy scalp and dandruff when I do not have itchy scalp and dandruff,” so I stopped buying the shampoo for itchy scalp and dandruff and can you guess I have now? Can you predict what currently afflicts me? It’s alright if you can’t because apparently I fuckin couldn’t either
Cutting something out of your life because you think you don’t need it any more only to realize that it was in fact working as intended and preventing a problem that will return should you stop doing this is a good experiment to run periodically with something small like dandruff shampoo, lest you start to think it would be a good idea to do this with like let’s say public health and the social safety net and vaccines
I had a liver transplant when I was 14 and like six months later I was chatting with my surgeon and he said “there’s gonna come a time, probably when you’re a teenager, where you’re gonna think, ‘I feel great, why am I still taking all this medication? I haven’t needed it in years.’ and you’re gonna want to stop taking all this medication. Guess what’s gonna happen then? You’re gonna go into rejection and your liver is gonna start failing, and you’re gonna be dying again, and we’re gonna have to find you another liver. So don’t do that.” And I said “why the fuck would anyone do that?” and he said “people are stupid.”
every once in a while when I get annoyed by a pharmacy or don’t wanna get out of bed to do my drugs I think “ugh, this is dumb, why do I do this?” and that conversation slams into me like a truck and I remember that I am, in fact, stupid
Text of tweet under the cut because it is loooong.
But... Stochastic Parrots.
Timnit Gebru was fired from Google in December 2020 for refusing to retract a research paper, and every single warning that paper made about large language models has now happened at a scale the industry spent 4 years trying to make people forget about.
Her name is Timnit Gebru.
She co-led the Ethical AI team at Google. She co-wrote a paper called "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" with Emily Bender at the University of Washington and two other researchers. The paper was 14 pages long. It was submitted to a top AI ethics conference. And it was the reason Google decided that one of the most senior Black women in AI research could no longer work there.
The story Google told publicly was that she resigned. The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email while on vacation because she refused to either retract the paper or remove her name from it.
The paper had not even been published yet.
Here is what she actually wrote, and why every prediction inside it has now come true.
The first warning was about scale itself. Bender and Gebru argued that training ever-larger models on ever-larger scrapes of the internet would produce systems that appeared fluent but had no actual understanding of language. They called these systems stochastic parrots because they would repeat patterns from training data with statistical confidence and zero comprehension. The paper predicted that this apparent intelligence would fool both users and developers into trusting outputs that were structurally incapable of being reliable.
This was 2020. GPT-3 had just come out. The paper predicted the hallucination problem before anyone had a word for it.
The second warning was about bias amplification. The paper documented in detail that internet-scale training data contains systematic overrepresentation of dominant viewpoints and underrepresentation of marginalized ones. The models would not just absorb this bias. They would amplify it, because the optimization process rewards confident outputs, and confidence in language patterns tracks frequency in the training set.
The prediction was that hiring tools built on these models would discriminate against women. That healthcare triage tools would underperform on Black patients. That loan approval systems would entrench inequality while presenting their decisions as neutral algorithmic judgment.
Every one of those things has now been documented in deployment.
Amazon's hiring algorithm penalized resumes that contained the word "women" in any context. Healthcare risk scoring algorithms used by major US hospitals were found to systematically underestimate the medical needs of Black patients. Apple Card's credit algorithm gave wives credit lines 10x lower than their husbands for the same financial profile.
The third warning was about environmental cost. The paper calculated that training a single large language model produced emissions equivalent to the lifetime output of 5 cars. The prediction was that the race to scale would create an environmental footprint that would eventually rival entire industries.
In 2024, Google's emissions were up 48% from 2019, and the company explicitly blamed AI infrastructure. Microsoft's were up 29%, same reason. Both companies have now quietly abandoned the climate commitments they were publicly celebrating the year Gebru was fired.
The fourth warning was about documentation. The paper argued that the training datasets being assembled were too large for anyone to actually audit. Nobody at Google, OpenAI, Meta, or any other lab could tell you with confidence what was in the data their models were trained on. This was not a temporary problem to be solved later. It was a permanent feature of the approach.
In 2023, researchers discovered that the LAION-5B dataset, used to train Stable Diffusion and other major image models, contained thousands of images of child sexual abuse material. The companies that had trained on the dataset had no way of knowing. The paper predicted that category of failure 3 years before it was found.
The fifth warning was the one Google cared about most.
Bender and Gebru argued that the deployment of these systems would centralize linguistic and cultural power in the hands of the small number of companies that could afford to train them. The internet would become a place where the dominant voice was a statistical average of dominant voices, presented as a neutral assistant. Languages underrepresented in the training data would degrade over time as more web content was generated by these systems and fed back into the next training run.
This is now happening in real time. A 2024 study found that 57% of new web content in English is AI-generated or AI-assisted. Researchers studying low-resource languages have documented active degradation in translation quality, because the synthetic content fed back into training is itself worse in those languages.
The paper Google fired her for predicted the model collapse problem before model collapse had a name.
The mechanism behind why this all happened is the part of her work that nobody quotes.
Gebru's argument was not that AI is dangerous in some abstract sci-fi sense. Her argument was that AI is dangerous in a very specific structural sense. The technology was being built by a small group of researchers who shared similar backgrounds, worked at similar companies, and were rewarded for shipping products faster than competitors. The incentive structure made it impossible for safety, ethics, and bias concerns to slow anything down. Anyone inside the system who raised those concerns was either ignored, sidelined, or removed.
She was making that argument from inside Google.
Then Google proved her right by removing her.
The team Google had built to make sure their AI was safe was dismantled in 90 days because they did the job they had been hired to do. Margaret Mitchell, the other co-lead of the Ethical AI team, was fired two months after Gebru for searching through her own emails for evidence of how Gebru had been treated.
Gebru did not stop. She founded DAIR, the Distributed AI Research Institute, in 2021. The mission is to do AI research outside the control of the companies that have a financial interest in not hearing the answers.
Every prediction in the Stochastic Parrots paper has now been validated by deployment. Hallucinations are an industry-wide problem the largest labs cannot solve. Bias amplification has been documented in hiring, healthcare, lending, and criminal justice. Environmental costs are larger than entire small countries. Training data audits remain impossible. Model collapse is an active research crisis at every major lab.
The question worth sitting with is the one almost no one in the industry will say out loud.
Every researcher with the technical credibility to call out these problems watched what happened to her in December 2020 and made a calculation about their own career. The number of people willing to speak publicly about safety and ethics issues inside the major AI labs collapsed after that firing and has not recovered.
The researcher Google fired for warning about exactly what is now happening was right.
The company that fired her is now the second-largest deployer of the technology she warned about.
And the people inside that company who agree with her are not allowed to say so.
I feel like a mom on facebook reblogging this but I genuinely like it. I want to make this into a full size poster and put it in my 3rd grade classroom but I’m 20 yrs old and not a teacher
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
actually im doing really well except for the fact that everything makes me sad and the things that dont make me sad make me angry. but other than that im fine
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Good evening friends and enemies, it's time to learn how to source unsourced videos instead of perpetuating the chain of missing attributions that progressively obscure the original source with each repost. 😃
STEP 1: Take a screencap of the video, preferably while it's playing so that the PLAY button isn't blocking the image.
STEP 2: Reverse image search of choice. To my chagrin, I tend to end up resorting to Google's Search by image because Tineye keeps failing me and I haven't gotten around to doing a deep dive into currently available reverse image search services.
If you use the Firefox desktop web browser (untested: other desktop web browsers, Firefox mobile web browser) you can combine STEP 1 & STEP 2: Feel free to repost the video to Tumblr first, preferably as a draft or private post to prevent people from reblogging the uncredited vid, because this method doesn't work as well on Reddit videos.
Right-Click on the video. In the right-click menu, look for "Image Search Options" and hover over it to bring up a list of search options. I'll have to try out some of the other options later, but for this demonstration I used Google.
The search engine should open in another tab.
STEP 3: The Search. This part will be a mix of luck, tenaciousness, and deductive skills.
For Google, I recommend going to the "Exact matches" tab because it presents matches and their information in a much more condensed format than the other tabs. "Exact matches" is a misnomer, as is apparent in the screencap below. This search actually pulled up images from at least two separate videos by the same woman hanging from the same tree: one where she's wearing a slate grey pencil skirt and blazer (as in the video reposted by OP) and one where she's wearing a pale grey long-sleeved dress.
Ideally, a functional search engine would let you sort results by useful variables such as "date posted". Google is not such a search engine, and with its progressive enshittification you may or may not be able to bully Search by image into limiting results to certain date ranges. Luckily, these videos have been less flagrantly reposted than some, so I didn't have to scroll through too many.
When searching for a source, one of the primary things to pay attention to is date. Obviously, the original source has to be older than any of the reports. Unfortunately, not all the Google results have dates, so the earliest dated video isn't guaranteed to be the original.
In this case, the earliest result was of the grey dress video variant posted on Instagram on Jan 17, 2026. However, upon checking the link it became apparently that the Instagram account was not the originator of the video and their repost was unsourced.
If the date check fails you, keep an eye out for any undated results that clearly stand out from the rest. In this case, I picked up on the following:
Which has the following unique traits:
A new outfit! This is the only result that features the woman in a pale brown blazer and pencil skirt.
Dimensions. This result is 1080 x 1920, while the majority of results were smaller in size. Reposts are more likely to be downscaled from the original than upscaled, so if the initial date-check fails you, you're better off checking the largest undated results first.
Specific username (Liang Li (@liangli521)). A lot of the other results just have captions or titles in various languages. Depending on the website, these are usually either captioned reposts or random search terms that don't even link to the actual video. Results with specific usernames are rarer and thus worth checking out, though some of them may turn out to be reposters.
In this case, I hit the jackpot! There they all were: OP's video, the grey dress video, the brown blazer & skirt video, and many, many more!
Legitimately, Liang Li's whole thing seems to be going ham in skirts, dresses, and frequently heels. Possibly for advertising purposes? Very beautiful. Very powerful.
Bonus videos:
Cool lights!
Obstacle courses and playgrounds with friend!
H-hot damn, ma'am...
The Fiction Treehouse @rizaoftheowls - Tumblr Blog | Tumlook
