Related: I had a thought the other day about the "trans is just the thin end of the wedge for transhumanism" take that circulates so often, more often on the Christofascist end of the TERfash continuum one...
...which is basically the idea that the point of "the trans agenda" can't simply be that trans people exist and would like rights, because *obviously* trans people don't exist, so we must be hiding some larger agenda, which is: transhumanism.
And the idea is that if we can be used to convince Normal People that bodies are mutable, that your body is a thing you have authority over and can modify or revise or even potentially choose to do without, then something something something... as Ana said, somehow this is bad?
And it says so much about the mindset, the assumption that there is something precious in being STUCK in the body you're born in, that there's something that's sacred that is lost if you're able to remove something about your body that you don't like.
And I remember somebody in a TERF thread recently, arguing for conversion therapy over medical intervention, and they said words to the effect of "The mind is only there to support the body, so the body shouldn't be changed for the sake of the mind."
Here, exact quote:
"The mind really exists to serve the body but these activists are encouraging people to to change the body to suit the mind.
This is wrong the mind needs to be treated"
And that is so backwards to me? I am a mind that has a body, not the other way around.
And I feel like I *get* the people who fear transhumanism as a rejection of "God's design" or whatever, but I don't feel like that viewpoint naturally leads to the kind of bizarre materialism on display here, where consciousness is a servant of the body.
I guess basically, yeah? The only level on which it really makes sense is an extension of the evo psych/alpha male type mindset that says the only point of life is to pass on genes and any other outcome is a failure.
I think the most hilarious permutation of this I've seen was someone calling Nancy Pelosi a transhumanist and when one of their allies asked in what way, the answer was "All Democrats support radical trans extremism* and that makes them all transhumanists."
*LOL, I wish, right?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This IS one of the most hilarious things about NFTs, because when the bubble began, the point that got hyped up the most was "guaranteed unique", leading to widespread confusion among the public when, for instance, everybody at a ceremony got "the same NFT" of Chadwick Boseman.
Which is probably why the NFTer-Grifters have moved on from "uniqueness" as a hype point to "scarcity", which I feel is going to backfire on them in a more subtle way, as you can't explain how a digital asset is "scarce" without revealing you just chose not to make more of them.
And if you can choose to make more of them at any time, then nobody's "investment" in your "scarce" asset is actually secure. They're just trusting you not to flood the market and devalue their "holdings". Nothing in the NFT framework prevents this, or even can prevent it.
As someone with food sensory issues, I can tell you exactly what the difference is between Kellogg's frosted mini wheats and the bargain brands (K has thinner biscuits, thus higher ratio of sugar frosting to extruded fiber), and also that it's no reason to cross a picket line.
If you have a need that can literally only be answered by crossing a picket line, I'm not going to tell you to not do it, but... you don't have to make it a public referendum. You're not going to benefit from it.
Great thread, with the hilarious addition of indignant cryptobros in the QTs of various tweets going "Clearly the OP hasn't heard that sometimes NFT sellers are also selling perks like a copyright or license for the art with the NFT, which means the NFT has value."
If you're selling an album or tickets to an event or a piece of artwork -- that is legitimately yours and that you're actually selling -- and you attach it to an NFT, the NFT adds nothing to the process but waste/expense and hype.
Would I like it if there was some open source system where small venues, even ones that aren't particularly tech savvy, could set up ticketing and sell tickets for events without partnering with a big company? Sure.
NFT techbros who say NFTs are this want to be the big company.
The most ridiculous "well actually" I ever received on here was somebody who replied to one of my tweets about being "wide awake at two in the morning" to tell me that well actually "morning" refers to the time after the sun has risen, and I meant 2 at night.
Not to get all timecube in here, but... there's more than one morning. That is, "morning" has more than one meaning, and which one a person means -- when they don't overlap -- is clear from context.
Like, day and night are opposites, and when it's night it's not day, but a daily occurrence can take place at night and there are 24 hours in a day.
Words mean things, but they also mean other things, some of which seem contradictory.
So to be serious on Bad Art Friend/Kidney Person discourse for a bit... as a satirist I'm not super comfortable with the consensus that Sonya Larson is a plagiarist.
My understanding is that she had the actual text of Dawn's note in an early draft as a placeholder, which...
...is how I wrote this post, and also my Hallelujah/Smash post earlier. And many of my non-Twitter, long-form satirical posts have passages that began their creative life as unaltered text copied and pasted from the satirized source.
It took me five or six tries to get through the New York Times Magazine article so it's entirely possible I've missed something else that I would agree is plagiarism, but if it's "earlier versions of the story contained unaltered text", or "she copied the general idea", I can't.