made from This Template
explanations of petnames that require explanations below the cut, tinkered with qu/enya from this elvish translator and used this infernal translator
Melda (dear, precious, beautiful), Vanimelda (the most beautiful), Alelda Lacarinan Ta Mindórinton (one without whom I am incomplete, fractions that I am), Yestilunya Hirmelindo (everything I desire in a partner)
Little Biter, My Love, Sercisonda (one who loves blood), Endamelda (heart of my beloved)
My Sweet, Darling, My Patient Fancy
Luqmz Kdywwulq (night blessing; started as abyssal blessing until Ze/vlor learned more of As/tarion's history)
Lastara (faithless), Carcaran (fanged one), Endanúlanya (my dark / occult / mysterious heart)
.
Darling, My Dear, My Sweet, Love, Lover, Endanya (my heart)
My Heart
My Sweet, My Love, My Night Warden
Ph Riqulq Myirz (my raging heart)
Aurilite (one who believes in Auril), Ancalimon (brightest, the most bright); Morëlissynya (my beautiful goodnight)
.
Druid, Darling, Melwa (lovely), Love
Love, Taurëva (from the great forest), Milquelin (soft, sweet kiss embodied)
Kyifzh Ao Lizfry (beauty of the forest), Vuipalv-Tary (diamond-core = the beautiful / valuable thing that centers me)
.
Darling, Hero, Dearest, Beloved
Sweetheart, Endamaican (blade of my heart)
.
My Sweet, Darling, Fair Knight
Hellrider, Lover, Arquenya (my noble knight), Mirenya (my treasure)
Beloved, Firelight
.
Shady Stranger, My Menace, Láralótë (single flower left on a grave)
Ravenite (one who believes in the Raven Queen), He Who Caws, Vanima (beautiful), Nécelda (pale, faint, dim to see + elf) (not to be confused with Nívelda (pale elf))
7 notes
·
View notes
Obviously art does not rest on methods, media, or the amount of effort a person exerted in making it, but I think AI art is yet another way that capitalism is changing the form and function of art (separating artworks from their original meaning on a different and even larger scale) and given that it is made by exploiting workers (the original artists and the people they pay pennies to sort through it to remove disturbing images) it makes people feel yet more powerless in the face of corporations so there is a big negative reaction to it. This negative reaction may not be articulated in the way you want but I think it's very understandable that people have reactionary feelings about large scale corporate exploitation.
just for the record before I respond, I am replying to this ask in good faith just as you are asking in good faith, I’m not angry at you and many of these questions I’m asking are rhetorical, for the purposes of reflection. So please no slapfighting in the notes, thank you!
First: I’m not disputing exploitation. in fact privileging AI as uniquely exploitative handwaves away the massive amount of exploitation that artists already endure and have endured for a very long time, as well as the horrific amounts of labour exploitation involved in mass producing the ‘tools of the trade’ so to speak.
But this is, again, a non-sequitur to my argument, which is that art produced under exploitative, destructive, “lazy” or politically repugnant conditions is still art. MCU films are art regardless of the fact that they are 3-hour long informercials for the American empire and require massive labour exploitation from CGI animators, actors, film set workers, and everything else: advertisements are art: AI art is art. Horrifying, trite, unoriginal, bad, socially destructive, maybe all of those things are true and we can talk about the merits of those claims (I certainly have strong opinions about them), but what is politically gained from saying bad, unoriginal, horrifying, or trite art isn’t art? Whose definitions are we using here, and if those definitions should be universalised, what does it mean for artists who are only unoriginal, only bad, only whatever else?
I return to my original example: are children not qualified to be artists if they only make “bad” art? I used to trace movie stills from Harry Potter photo books as a child because I loved the characters - am I a fraud for doing so? Am I given grace for my incompetence and “theft” on the basis of me “still learning how to do real art”? When does this grace period end? If we argue that only struggle can produce art, what level of struggle? Struggle for whom? Drawing isn’t difficult for me because I was taught how to hold a pencil, read, write, and draw by a western industrial publicly-funded primary school by a teacher paid with public tax dollars, supplemented with help every night from my mother and father, two married cishet middle class people in a mostly stable (if miserable and verbally abusive) marriage - all of which is resting atop stolen indigenous land. Under what historical conditions can arguments for artistic struggle be made? When we argue for struggle(/hard work/whatever) as the basis of art we are pre-supposing a universal subject whose struggle is globally standardized and calculable - which in all of these discussions on here is (implicitly, though sometimes explicitly) a white able-bodied settler living in a western state who benefits from universal primary education that teaches them the foundational skills of how to make art. You can probably add university educated to that too, given how many of these arguments seem to be swarmed by undergraduate students.
Arguing that there needs to be some threshold for method, labour, intent, or message for art to ‘actually be art’ is politically reactionary and is what I am responding to. It requires transcendental claims about the Artist as a unique labourer set apart from and superior to all others, one whose skills are universalised and whose intent is always observable and present in their work. So if people want to talk about exploitation they should talk about exploitation, not the definition of art. It’s not my fault people can’t stay on topic!
113 notes
·
View notes
ok if you've been on my blog the last couple days i've been talking about this at length. i have decided i don't care anymore and am going to just post my full breakdown of every instance of the intensely transmisogynistic rhetoric being used throughout this "callout."
and then i'm gonna go log off for a while. cya in a bit all
102 notes
·
View notes
Gonna take the bigot’s advice and make my own post on this.
The problem I have with people having this “opinion” or “headcanon” that Astarion is gay (or that Karlach is a lesbian) is that it’s directly alienating to bi and pan folks within the community. Like, there’s bi and pan ppl in the community and you’re saying this shit on main like it’s just a cute lil opinion that’s free of consequences. It’s not ✨just an opinion✨. When you say shit like this, you’re stereotyping queer people and are invalidating that bi and pan ppl exist and are allowed to exist in ways that contradict your understanding of what it means to be queer.
Acting like there’s a difference between saying “I can’t imagine him with women” and saying you only see him as a gay man is being deliberately obtuse. We all know what you mean and the fact that you’d prefer to double down and act like a child in an adult fandom is honestly embarrassing.
On top of that, you have folks (like this person) claiming that because they’re queer themselves they are somehow incapable of perpetuating queer stereotypes and/or being bi/panphobic. I don’t know how to make you understand that it’s complacent to think your identity makes you immune to being a bigot. I rly don’t.
If you’re thoroughly invested in the idea that Astarion is gay and Karlach is a lesbian, please ask yourself why. Then ask yourself why you are easily ruffled when people try to tell you that your opinion is directly harmful to the community. Then ask yourself why it’s so important to cling onto this “headcanon” and what you’re really losing when you acknowledge that all of these characters are bi and pan.
But to the folks who are gearing up to chime in with “lol I’m not reading all of that”: I’m sorry I’m not fucking pithy enough to speak on a subject that gets rehashed every fucking decade. Peace and love ✌️
193 notes
·
View notes
1. good for joe to talk about palestine
2. no, he did not do that to spite taylor what the hell? we know he was always politically active and even encouraged taylor to speak about her political views during their relationship ("your integrity makes me seem small")
3. he probably knew everyone would keep an eye on his social media to see if he posts something on taylor's birthday so he chose to post about something important
4. honestly? after matty? after her shading him in the time interview? if he did choose the timing partially to be petty, good for him💅🏼
114 notes
·
View notes