Its Unreal How All Of My Favorite Characters Have Exactly The Same Traits And Hobbies And Diagnoses As

its unreal how all of my favorite characters have exactly the same traits and hobbies and diagnoses as me

male gaze is not 'when person look sexy' or 'when misogynist make film'

death of the author is not 'miku wrote this'

I don't think you have to read either essay to grasp the basic concepts

death of the author means that once a work is complete, what the author believes it to mean is irrelevant to critical analysis of what's in the text. it means when analysing the meaning of a text you prioritise reader interpretation above author intention, and that an interpretation can hold valid meaning even if it's utterly unintentional on the part of the person who created the thing. it doesn't mean 'i can ignore that the person who made this is a bigot' - it may in fact often mean 'this piece of art holds a lot of bigoted meanings that the author probably wasn't intentionally trying to convey but did anyway, and it's worth addressing that on its own terms regardless of whether the author recognises it's there.' it's important to understand because most artists are not consciously and vocally aware of all the possible meanings of their art, and because art is communal and interpretive. and because what somebody thinks they mean, what you think somebody means, and what a text is saying to you are three entirely different things and it's important to be able to tell the difference.

male gaze is a cinematographic theory on how films construct subjectivity (ie who you identify with and who you look at). it argues that film language assumes that the watcher is a (cis straight white hegemonically normative) man, and treats men as relatable subjects and women as unknowable objects - men as people with interior lives and women as things to be looked at or interacted with but not related to. this includes sexual objectification and voyeurism, but it doesn't mean 'finding a lady sexy' or 'looking with a sexual lens', it means the ways in which visual languages strip women of interiority and encourage us to understand only men as relatable people. it's important to understand this because not all related gaze theories are sexual in nature and if you can't get a grip on male gaze beyond 'sexual imagery', you're really going to struggle with concepts of white or abled or cis subjectivities.

So the AI art industry might be done before it had a chance to get started.

In other news, PETA might have accidentally done something good, for once.

hh. hell.o? hi. exccuse the. typing. im nnot. great with words

saw. dsmp, fnaf. kincall

not.. the person you were. looking for

not. a person.

but. hii. 👋

anamatronic tubbo (ficctive). nice to see you, i think

Hi Tubbo! It's nice to see you again. Sorry it took so long to respond to this. It really is nice to see you! And don't worry about your typing quirks, they're quite charming! Gives your words personality. No one else has responded to our kin call yet ^^" so we got quite excited when we saw you in our inbox, as Karl and I do remember an animatronic Tubbo in our timeline. Would you be open to discussing timeline memories in DM's? It's okay if you don't want to talk about certain things; from what Karl and I remember, there was... a lot of trauma regarding certain events, especially early on. Hope to chat with you more soon! -Quackity (& Karl!)

I’m always gonna be pissed that amatonormatvity as a term and a model for understanding society was literally mocked into disuse by exclusionists because of its association with aromantic folks.

Amatonormativity, honestly, has approximately fuck-all to do with aros. We did not even coin it, we’re simply the only people who actually take it seriously cause we’re among the ones who are most hurt by it. And it PISSES me the fuck off that it is not a widespread model used in greater queer discussions.