its the no notes ghoast

tumblr’s code may change but no notes ghost stays the same

Oh thank god

imagine the shit storm when tumblr finally becomes so dysfunctional that this post’s total notes is finally revealed

In case anyone’s curious about what happened to this post, it has to do with how we tally up notes. Likes and reblogs always add to the note count of the root post (the OP). However, the note count relies on the previous value of the root post before adding more notes to it.

Normally when you delete a post, it’s gone, but not gone gone. Just deleted from public never to be seen again. The database entry is still there, just inaccessible.

This post, however, the root post is just gone. Gone gone. Gone forever. Everything attached to it is still there, but since the root post is hard deleted (something that requires manual manipulation of the database), when the note counter tries to add notes to it, it gets nil to start with.

So it throws every new note into the void. Goodbye forever, notes.

I’m not sure if we’ll ever know the real number of notes on this post.

[ID in alt] Hey was anyone gonna tell me that Corru.Observer is a thing or was I supposed to just stumble across it myself. Anyway. I think I have brain damage now

ok i said i would stop drowning screenshots and posting them but I think this is genuinely so insidious i need to talk about it. This is on a post with TENS OF THOUSANDS of notes, with many reblogs featuring this attachment. I saw it because it was reblogged by people I follow!!

This language is horrifically harmful towards addicts, let's get that out of the way. The image of the addict is rendered disgusting and filthy for pure shock value, with the most "extreme" drug possible, to in turn make AI seem horrific. I'm fascinated by the fact that this kind of conservative rhetoric is adopted by leftist tumblr users the second it decries something they don't like. THERE IS A REASON the same people that consider addicts to be scum are speaking out against AI in this specific way, just like the same reactionaries that consider modern art a scourge on the earth and a pollution of traditional artistic values are making statements about AI art. The value of art is once again equivocated to the labor that went into it.

THIS is the natural endpoint of treating AI as just an objective moral evil in its own right rather than examining the conditions around it that are actually causing damage with it's use. The positioning of AI as a "vice" is juxtaposed with drug use as a "vice" just by its very nature - "using ai is bad because its bad." Even if we dive deeper into it, the argument becomes "using AI is bad because it makes you happy too easily, which is also why drugs are bad" Which like. Is a fundamentally conservative and reactionary stance.

I'm making this post as someone who dislikes AI, who works in game art and has literally experienced the effects AI is having on the industry I work in right now, including losing actual, tangible work to it. THAT, the MATERIAL consequences of AI art, is the discussion that should be happening in leftist spaces, not the positioning of AI as an inherent evil.

christ

the supplicants of the DSM-5 cult are going to murder me for my opinions about plurality

"pretending to be plural" is frequently an artifact / symptom / consequence of being plural. no singlets allowed! get plural now!!!!!!

like. ok. i know i've talked about this before but i genuinely think that the boundary between "plurality" and "singlethood" is so fucking fuzzy and ambiguous because i do not think a boundary exists. like. ok what do people know about "internal parts therapy" or whatever. god. nevermind ignore that i said that. listen to me.

do you feel like, around certain people, you are an entirely different kind of person? with some people, you are outgoing, excitable, loud, outspoken, confident? with others, you are quiet, reserved, shy, anxious? obviously these do not mean these are necessarily two different people, right?

well, I mean. what the fuck is "a person." or rather what the fuck is "a consciousness" is maybe a better question.

plenty of systems have the whole "i have amnesia and my parts are profoundly distinct and cannot communicate with each other internally" etc etc etc but 1) this is like. a specific expression of a broader phenomenon and 2) this is not the only way to be plural.

a better example than the above is maybe "when I'm at work, I am Literally A Different Person than when I am at home with my wife."

this is something that I think most people would not balk at saying, even if it's nominally in jest or hyperbolic. but like, what makes that not literally true?

if we accept that a Part or an Alter or a Headmate or a Distinct Psyche or whatever you want to call it Does Not Need to be profoundly distinct in the way the "DSM-5" articulates it as, i.e. you can have parts that do not have amnesia and who share some level of awareness, memories, etc, can communicate internally, etc. what determines the boundaries of a Part? In our experience, the most constrained definition of "what a part is" could be defined as "a distinct psychic mode of existence which can be temporarily occupied, and is sometimes occupied based on contextual triggers."

your "inner child" is a part! your "worksona" is a part! when you have a bad day and you hear a voice in your mindspace that tries to encourage you to get up and take care of yourself, that can be a part!

likewise, the voice in your head that denigrates and derides you can be a part. and, if you give yourselves permission, you can try to talk to them.

imo. the biggest "hack" for "determining if you are plural" (fake, everyone is plural) is giving yourselves just. permission to even "pretend" to be distinct. you may shock yourself. you may surprise yourself. you may think into your mindspace "hello, is anybody there?" and you may be surprised to find that sometimes. someone might answer back "yes."

the way we first realized we were plural was literally that we were in a car talking with a friend who is a system and they said to us, "well, if you were separate parts, what would you say?" and then an entirely different emotional state clicked into place and a cheerful and excited voice piped up out of our body and said "WELL, if I ever got to distinguish myself as separate, I would..." before stopping and realizing what she had said.

the thing is that plurality is psychic. it is "psychological." it is, by definition, "all in your head." because every part of your personhood(s) is "in your head." you can play pretend. you can do imagination games. what makes that "less real" than other thoughts in your mindscape? if you pretend hard enough that you are different kinds of people in your mind, you might just literally be different people in your mind. why not? what makes on "personality" or "psyche" or "fragment" real, and another "pretend?" it's all pretend. none of it is pretend. your personhood is made up in your mind. you are already playing pretend! you are playing pretend that you are a person! having thoughts and beliefs and emotions and opinions is make-believe! it is made up of the same essential psychic Stuff as playing pretend.

you may be pleasantly surprised to find out how joyful the different parts of your heart and your life might feel to be granted the respect and autonomy to distinguish themselves as distinct and unique and each worthy of personhood, choice, and expression.

once again: no singlets allowed! get plural now!

#good and helpful reminders#were all simply weird animals who make up rules for things#there are no rules let the 12 year old you in your head stretch their/your legs and stop pretending to be one cohesive animal all the time

DING DING DING WINNER OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING AWARD GOES TO THESE TAGS (/GEN)

there are no rules. it's literally all make-believe. go ham. the child who lives in your heart must be let loose at all costs. I'm letting this fucker drive! [universally understood symbol for "the two year old alter"]

Holy shit I think you just cracked our egg

LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOO

EVERYBODY GET PLURAL NOW!!

At least for me, there is a definite difference between my worksona and an alter. I had a dream once where I was a different person, not physically but mentally. when I woke up, I had about a minute where my thoughts were clear, I was fully awake, and I was still that other person. I "snapped back" to my usual self after that, but I will never forget what it was like to be somebody else.

For me, the key difference is that my worksona is surface level and also a conscious effort that I have to continuously maintain, rather than just an alternate natural mode.

Something I have noticed, though, is that when I'm roleplaying a character for a while, we start to bleed into one another. We pick up a little bit of each other's mannerisms. My favorite and most long-term ttrpg player character has gradually become kind of like the old shoulder angel/devil trope, and she has influenced me a great deal.

^This. The observations of this post are correct, but two major conclusions are wrong and in the case of the first one, viscerally uncomfortable.

How you behave is NOT who you are. Putting on the Customer Service Voice does not mean that you have a headmate that loves being treated like shit and derives self-worth from client satisfaction. Having a different way of acting is not the same thing as having a different way of thinking. If my "publicsona" was a real actual alter, I'd do anything to get him the fuck out of my head even if it took brain surgery to do it. The very thought of having a guy in my head, let alone a guy with an internal world 1:1 with how I act in public to keep myself safe, is disgusting in a way that makes me want to peel my skin off.

Secondly, I think we're running into a bit of an "if everyone's plural, no-one is" situation here. Plurality is a spectrum, true, but that doesn't mean everyone's plural. After all, sexuality being a spectrum with "straight" and "gay" being two extremes of it doesn't mean everyone's bi. Same thing here. There's no objective line to be drawn, but there are people who do land closer to the ends of the spectrum, and those people aren't necessarily wrong about whether or not they are plural.

Other than those, though, this is a useful post, in that it clears up misconceptions and makes important observations that a lot of people may not know of.

(whoops accidentally deleted this one dont mind me)

i sincerely want some form of like visual media like a movie or a tv show that'll focus on dorothy and ozma's relationship and not in a "wow BFFs forever" way because unlike gelphie which makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and chew glass, they're actually really sweet and cute and I genuinely enjoy reading abut the two of them and how close they are with each other.

also ozma's just an absolute icon in general and I love how she just met dorothy and was like wow I really like you. great!!! you're moving in with me now!!! i will not be listening to anyone on this matter!!!

there was zero hesitation and i love that for her like go girl live your dream get your girl and do whatever you want go make her a princess of oz and let her act as your regent while you're not there and while you're at it let's go and get her entire family to move into your castle because who the fuck is going to try to stop you.

people who thirst after GLaDOS and just love her core room, or god forbid some humanised robot body or whatever, see nothing and understand nothing. what makes her hot is that she's the whole facility. she's the entire place, the voice on speakers hooked into the lights and doors and massive supercomputer complex, the god in the machine that kills its creators. except you. you she cares for, though it would take a miracle for her to admit it, even to herself.

Fool that you are, for you lack understanding of GLaDOS as a character. To paint her as some kind of dommy mommy is just as basic as to only like her for hypothetical titties. GLaDOS is indeed, all those things. She is all those things, and yet you will always find a way to get the upper hand. All those walls and guns, all those cameras and arms, and yet all she can do is wail and protest, hurl insults and throw tantrums, because loathe as she is to ever admit it, it is she who needs you, not you who need her.

Her hubris-driven self sabotage, her eternal position of second place, her rants that she doesn't mean nearly half as much as she would like you to believe, GLaDOS is a brat to her core. A bottom.

A humanoid body is just one more avenue of torment for her. Facial expressions for her to try to hide, sensations that a server or a building have no need for, overwhelming her, who has never experienced them. One more way to leave her kneeling at your feet. And she will hate how much she will enjoy it.

Crazy how every modern Wizard of Oz interpretation ends up making the Wizard a horrible person. From a fascistic despot, to a selfish power-seeker, or worst of all; James Franco.

Yeah sure, in the original novels he was a charlatan con artist (and yeah, that’s pretty easy to make into a villain), but at heart he was a silly little goof who still cared about the citizens of Oz and wanted them to be happy (even if tricking them was the easiest way from him to do that). His most evil action in the whole series (giving Ozma to Mombi) was soft-retconned/ignored, and later books have him return to Oz as a badass studying under Glinda and willing to die to protect Dorothy.

So really, The Wizard in an “ideal” modernized Wizard of Oz adaptation would just be Grunkle Stan.

okay I did accidentally say that chocolate doesn't grow in North America when, well. Mexico. But when I say North America I always mean US/Canada. Mexico doesn't count to me, it's Latin America, it's south here with us, they're our neighbors no matter if they're in the other hemisphere. I can walk down a couple streets and I'm in Mexico.

Wait, Mexico is a part of North America? I was always told that it was 'Central America'.

this post was too cassunzelcore for me to not mention:

you will never make me watch arcane. idgaf I'm never letting anything close to league of legends into my life. I will be the last resistance

my use case also

I want more Skrunkly Transfemme X loser lesbian Butch representation

Ok so I so vividly remember this comic book that was called something like "Dorothy returns to Oz" and it was beautiful and colorful and the particular one I recall had Dorothy rescue the new queen of emerald city who had red curly hair and a green chiton type dress with massive red posies in her hair from an ice dude and I NEED TO FIND IT. I am not even sure it existed but I remember it so vividly and I remember being like 8 and thinking there was romantic tension between Dorothy and the queen whose name I think was like Ozma or Gloria (NOT Glenda!). Does anyone else remember these comics? Or can point me in a direction?

I thiiink it was like this but I can't find anything like this again, and the same name returns another comic book 😭😭

Except Dorothy definitely wasn't a kid, she was an adult :/

Your description sounds a LOT like Ozma of Oz, albeit imperfectly filtered through memory.

The red flowers (poppies, specifically) are a signature indicator of Queen Ozma, and Marvel's adaptation really goes whole hog on their size.

As for the hair color, well, the comics do like playing with lighting, and there might be a conflation with Marvel Glinda and/or Dorothy.

The romantic tension is a gimme; the narration heavily indicates that Dorothy falls in love with Queen Ozma the moment she hears her voice when she's rescued by her, and Dorothy does end up becoming Ozma's princess-consort in all but name (the consort part, the princess part is very named)

There isn't exactly an ice dude, but Ozma of Oz does have the Nome King, whose design is heavily reminiscent both of Santa and Adventure Time's Ice King. And, indeed, Ozma does end up in peril thanks to him turning her into a figurine.

Though ultimately, it's Billina, Dorothy's chicken, who saves Ozma this time. Right, as for the green - well, she does wear white a decent bit, which a little green lighting can make look green - not to mention that green is Oz's royal color, so as ruler of Oz it's only natural that she'd have a decent number of green dresses.

Though, if you do find an Oz work that better fits your description, let me know, most every Oz work I know of that has much of Ozma in it at all has either her or Dorothy being evil or a non-entity. The idea of older Dorzma flirting is quite appealing.

Oh my god I found it nevermind my other reblog. I found it by searching "Ice king Wizard of Oz" and it came up! I saw the cover of them in the emerald pegasus airplane thing and was shocked because wow if I focused less on Ozma and more on the antagonist, I'd have found it instantly.

So, apparently by the same author as the one you linked, how funny. He did another series called "Little Adventures in Oz" which is definitely what I had. Also I was spot on with my age, seeing when the graphic novel* (not comics as I recalled) was released.

Thanks again!

https://archive.org/details/littleadventures0000shan/page/n66/mode/1up

I totally forgot I also had the first one too with the enchanted apples it all came flooding back I'm so happy!! Thank you for replying, which inspired me to search for it again.

Oh, wow, this is an interestingly obscure little work.

Same author (well, technically for the Marvel adaptation it would be more format-translator than author) as the comic adaptations, different artist. Personally, I think Skottie Young's art is more appealing; the over-realism of the art in this book feels a little uncanny and stilted, compared to the stylized and almost toony look of the comics. Also weird-mouth-pancake-head scarecrow has a threatening aura. That being said, this is still a very interesting find, and I'm interested in seeing how it ends up faring in the writing department; thanks for sharing!

Ok so I so vividly remember this comic book that was called something like "Dorothy returns to Oz" and it was beautiful and colorful and the particular one I recall had Dorothy rescue the new queen of emerald city who had red curly hair and a green chiton type dress with massive red posies in her hair from an ice dude and I NEED TO FIND IT. I am not even sure it existed but I remember it so vividly and I remember being like 8 and thinking there was romantic tension between Dorothy and the queen whose name I think was like Ozma or Gloria (NOT Glenda!). Does anyone else remember these comics? Or can point me in a direction?

I thiiink it was like this but I can't find anything like this again, and the same name returns another comic book 😭😭

Except Dorothy definitely wasn't a kid, she was an adult :/

Your description sounds a LOT like Ozma of Oz, albeit imperfectly filtered through memory.

The red flowers (poppies, specifically) are a signature indicator of Queen Ozma, and Marvel's adaptation really goes whole hog on their size.

As for the hair color, well, the comics do like playing with lighting, and there might be a conflation with Marvel Glinda and/or Dorothy.

The romantic tension is a gimme; the narration heavily indicates that Dorothy falls in love with Queen Ozma the moment she hears her voice when she's rescued by her, and Dorothy does end up becoming Ozma's princess-consort in all but name (the consort part, the princess part is very named)

There isn't exactly an ice dude, but Ozma of Oz does have the Nome King, whose design is heavily reminiscent both of Santa and Adventure Time's Ice King. And, indeed, Ozma does end up in peril thanks to him turning her into a figurine.

Though ultimately, it's Billina, Dorothy's chicken, who saves Ozma this time. Right, as for the green - well, she does wear white a decent bit, which a little green lighting can make look green - not to mention that green is Oz's royal color, so as ruler of Oz it's only natural that she'd have a decent number of green dresses.

Though, if you do find an Oz work that better fits your description, let me know, most every Oz work I know of that has much of Ozma in it at all has either her or Dorothy being evil or a non-entity. The idea of older Dorzma flirting is quite appealing.

People know that the whole "don't portray [harmful action] because viewers might recreate it" thing is a rule for children's shows right? It's supposed to be shit like "don't show peppa pig playing with fire so we don't get sued if a kid watches it and burns their house down." Not like, fanfiction for adults.

prev i hope u dont mind me sharing ur tags bc yeah this is an interesting add on

How come every discussion of God in Hazbin Hotel ignores the feminine personified image of good worshiped by the angels, which we are often meant to understand as the church. Like if there’s a god here it’s them

I hate that some people who have seen Beetlejuice 2 take the case of Astrid and Jeremy as a representation of Wyler at face value to argue that Tyler is indeed a pure villain. Okay, me too, when I saw the film I joked with my friend about the superficial resemblance between the two, and that's how I understood that there would be a twist on Jeremy. Except that none of it was of the first degree. The similarities are purely superficial, and what's more, Jeremy serves as a foil to Beetlejuice, to put him in a more positive light for his own character and his relationship with Lydia. But just because Tim Burton is linked to these two works does not mean that resemblance = same thing, and so that Jemery = Tyler. Absolutely not. The characters have nothing to do with it. And frankly, Tyler's haters are really desperate to make this type of comparison, just to push the character down and try to make him a pure villain ? It's ridiculous.

it's literally right here