{{Title.here}}

sometimes that character just wouldn’t hide an injury. it’s a great trope but only if they would do that.

and sometimes the character wouldn’t try to push through sickness and do their day job or whatever. again i see what you’re going for but sometimes in these fics something else can happen. open your hearts and minds to scenarios such as “the character is actually pretty expressive about their needs and is willing to complain a lot but the other characters still don’t take it that seriously for whatever reason and have to deal with the guilt and quencies after”. or “the character takes a rest at the appropriate time (or earlier!) but then faces punishment/being ignored/hostility for doing so and that is what worsens their condition into a serious one.” or “the character is a practical one who informs people sensibly and takes every necessary step, yet to their distress their condition still spirals out of the control.” or whatever else but just do you see what i’m saying not every character is a silent sufferer and that isn’t the only way to put them in a situation . we can innovate

the thing about copyright abolition is that. what makes theft bad is that something is taken away from its rightful owner. in this sense, copyright infringement is literally not theft, because making a copy of something doesn't tangibly cause the original owner to lose anything that they would otherwise have. copyright enforcement, on the other hand, does take away people's access to what should be theirs. anyone who makes art while employed by a corporation and is unable to sell their work because it does not belong to them, anyone who's been sued by a pop musician for making music that sounds vaguely similar if you don't allow the jury to listen to the actual songs, these people have far more in common with victims of theft than anyone whose copyright has been infringed

like the thing with the film rights to MLK's speeches being owned by spielberg / dreamworks, that's not actually an instance where copyright law failed to protect artists. that's the system working as intended. MLK's speeches were his intellectual property. when he died the rights to that intellectual property transfered to his family, and his family decided to sell those rights to dreamworks, thereby functionally preventing anyone else from legally using those speeches in a film for the next several decades. no crime was committed, nobody was tricked into anything, that's just how intellectual property rights work

Please anyone tell me if I accidentally reblog sth ai generated! It's NEVER intentional

this site ain't so bad. it's something to do in the mornings while ur bread toasts, right? ^_^