mtraki

[mtraki]

You literally reblogged a tweet that claimed the holocaust wasn't actually about killing Jews. Can't get any worse than that when it comes to either ignorance or strategic disinformation.

You didn't come with sources... Are you talking about this post? If not, I don't know what you're talking about, because you didn't cite your sources.

Anyway.

That post isn't claiming that the Holocaust didn't target and kill Jewish people. It's claiming that broad education about the Holocaust often leaves out pertinent information to spin a narrative-- information like other cultural groups that were targeted.

Which is factually true. x It then further claims that this narrative supports a zionist agenda. Which is also true from the pure fact that the Jewish were the only victimized cultural group to get a country out of the bargain that didn't have one to begin with. Whether that was justified for any reason or not, it's still true.

You might have a reading comprehension problem, Anon. Not only are you apparently willfully misunderstanding the post I reblogged, you didn't bother to follow my explicit instructions on how to engage with me about this.

This is the last ask about this topic I'm going to entertain if they're all going to look like this. I'm not going to discuss with you if I have to do the work of digging up your sources as well as my own...

#my mic #asks answered #israeli palestinian conflict

[mtraki]

YES I’ve been chased and hissed at by a Canada goose but it doesn’t make me hate them guess I’m just built different

#animal behavior

[mtraki]

I spy, with my little eye, a photo that was faked by an AI image generator! Can you spot the clues?

FB is turning into a parade of fake AI images churned out by click-farming pages. More misinformation is on the way. Learn some tricks for spotting AI photos!

#wisdom

[mtraki]

This pic is literally what unmedicated adhd feels like if someone ever asks you why you haven’t completed a simple task in 7 months just send them this

#adhd

[mtraki]

Most tabletop RPGs don't bother to have a rule like "characters can't walk through walls." It is either implicit or prescribed through having a special ability that specifically allows one to do. Now, an RPG that specifically had a character option that stated "this character cannot walk through walls" would instantly reframe every other character in the game. If only a specific type of character has some limitation that we humans would assume to be self-explanatory, what the hell is the baseline in this game?

Games have implicit or explicit assumptions about their characters. In D&D it is assumed that characters can see, hear, speak, walk unassisted, and so on. These capabilities can be taken away but only through very specific rules interactions. A character's ability to see isn't marked until a player says that they would like to play a blind character.

I don't even know where I was going with this. This started out with me thinking about how funny it would be to make like a supplement for a game that features these really strange and specific abilities that suddenly change the assumptions of the game. Like, a supplement that has a creature with an ability like "Floorwalker: this creature can walk on floors." Because none of the other creatures in the game have that ability, it's now implicit that they can't walk on floors.

Anyway if anyone would like to help me salvage this post by saying something insightful go right ahead, I'm gonna go make some pasta.

[mtraki]

I'm begging you to do your research on the holocaust and on the middle east before you continue reblogging islamist, antisemitic propaganda. You should be old enough to know better. Find a reliable source (hamasnik twitter and tumblr don't count) and read. Keep reading. Read more. Learn. And then maybe speak. You're causing actual harm, not only to Jews, but also to those you claim to support in this war you and your 'sources' have fandomized.

I considered just deleting this and moving on, but I think this is a learning moment-- if not for you, then maybe for somebody who ends up reading this. Hopefully it's one for me, too!

If you are trying to convince or inform, this isn't the way to go about it. You've come to my blog with a bunch of assumptions about me, my body of knowledge on the subject, my willingness to engage or be engaged on the subject, and then calling me to action with no incentive outside of your authority or approval. Except I don't know anything about you, either. Why should I care what you think?

Genuinely, you don't know me. If you did know me, you'd know that if you want to have a serious discussion, you just have to reach out to me personally-- which you'd know how to do. Because you'd know me. Because you'd know that this is my little tumblr blog where I mostly just post things I enjoy or find amusing. I don't really talk about myself, or the things I really believe in, struggles I'm having, or my life. Yeah, sometimes I do reblog other people's posts who make points I agree with on less light and fun matters. For example: I don't think it's a good idea or remotely excusable to blow up hospitals. I don't think it's okay for people in positions of power, who claim to be upholders of global justice, to pretend the relentless, systematic slaughter of civilians is acceptable. I think people have a right to food, and that any military or government that thinks withholding food from non-combatants advances a worthy cause, are wrong and immoral. I don't care about the religious or political backgrounds of either or any side of this. You don't know me. You don't know how old I am, actually. You don't know my experience or knowledge of the middle east, its history, or its political, cultural, and religious turmoil. You don't know what I do or don't know about the Holocaust.

And you probably don't care, either.

Now, honestly, I don't think you're a real person anyway-- and to be clear by 'not a real person' I don't mean to be rude or take away anyone's dignity or right to self-realization. I mean you're very likely a bot, or a shot-gun blast, copy-paste canned ask from a troll (that I shouldn't be feeding...). If you are not, then I apologize for my assumption, but you sure read like one. I don't know how I'm supposed to take you seriously and believe you want to have a dialogue about this important matter.

But then, you probably don't want a dialogue. You want to monologue. You want me to shut-up with my thoughts that are different from yours. Well, I'm not going to shut-up. This is my blog, I can talk about whatever I want (within the ToS). If you don't like it, you are welcome to block me, or my tags about the topic.

However, my Anon-friend, if you're serious about talking about this, come on back. Do your research, gather your sources. I'll do the same-- though you might not like how thorough I can be once activated-- and we can have this conversation. I do insist any claims you make come with sources, though, or I'll be forced to continue in my belief that you aren't even real, and therefore not worth having a reasonable conversation with.

#my mic #asks answered #israeli palestinian conflict

[mtraki]

"A cishet person must have made this, no queer person would ever portray queerness in this way."

"This artist must be white."

"No SA victim would ever handle the subject in this way."

"No woman would ever write women like this."

"This creator is obviously neurotypical. Everyone with autism/ADHD/depression understands-"

Nope.

People who make these blanket statements are very frequently proven wrong when the creator comes out as a member of that group. And even when they aren't proven wrong, even in cases where the creator isn't from the group in question, actual members of the group who don't fit whatever arbitrary criteria are being expressed will see these statements and feel excluded and erased.

Not everyone in your group is going to share your experiences. No single individual gets to personally decide what does or doesn't count as a "valid" expression of trauma or being part of a particular group, and creators are also not obligated to out themselves in order to "prove" their validity.

If something doesn't resonate with you, all that means is that it doesn't resonate with you. You don't have to like it. But you don't get to decide what it means to someone else.

#wisdom

[mtraki]

Dragon sketch with notes

Concept art for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Art by Adam Adamowicz

#skyrim

[mtraki]

Do you think in the omegaverse there’s a new, awful layer to “the talk” that teens get

#omegaverse

[mtraki]

Do you think in the omegaverse there’s a new, awful layer to “the talk” that teens get

#omegaverse

[mtraki]

reminder that digital libraries aren’t owned, also why pirating digital content is a necessity

#yo ho ho

[mtraki]

[mtraki]

[mtraki]

#shenanigans

[mtraki]

“Get a rat and put it in a cage and give it two water bottles. One is just water, and one is water laced with either heroin or cocaine. If you do that, the rat will almost always prefer the drugged water and almost always kill itself very quickly, right, within a couple of weeks. So there you go. It’s our theory of addiction. Bruce comes along in the ’70s and said, “Well, hang on a minute. We’re putting the rat in an empty cage. It’s got nothing to do. Let’s try this a little bit differently.” So Bruce built Rat Park, and Rat Park is like heaven for rats. Everything your rat about town could want, it’s got in Rat Park. It’s got lovely food. It’s got sex. It’s got loads of other rats to be friends with. It’s got loads of colored balls. Everything your rat could want. And they’ve got both the water bottles. They’ve got the drugged water and the normal water. But here’s the fascinating thing. In Rat Park, they don’t like the drugged water. They hardly use any of it. None of them ever overdose. None of them ever use in a way that looks like compulsion or addiction. There’s a really interesting human example I’ll tell you about in a minute, but what Bruce says is that shows that both the right-wing and left-wing theories of addiction are wrong. So the right-wing theory is it’s a moral failing, you’re a hedonist, you party too hard. The left-wing theory is it takes you over, your brain is hijacked. Bruce says it’s not your morality, it’s not your brain; it’s your cage. Addiction is largely an adaptation to your environment. […] We’ve created a society where significant numbers of our fellow citizens cannot bear to be present in their lives without being drugged, right? We’ve created a hyperconsumerist, hyperindividualist, isolated world that is, for a lot of people, much more like that first cage than it is like the bonded, connected cages that we need. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is connection. And our whole society, the engine of our society, is geared towards making us connect with things. If you are not a good consumer capitalist citizen, if you’re spending your time bonding with the people around you and not buying stuff—in fact, we are trained from a very young age to focus our hopes and our dreams and our ambitions on things we can buy and consume. And drug addiction is really a subset of that.”

—

Johann Hari,

Does Capitalism Drive Drug Addiction?

(via bigfatsun)

#wisdom

[mtraki]

[mtraki]

leg refences

#creator resources