#for your convenience please accept this pre-packaged self cancellation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

definitelynotplanetfall · 3 years

Text

livestreams are objectively inferior to prerecorded let’s plays. why do people not only put up with such unwatchable trash, but watch the unwatchable trash live with schedule constraints. imagine if whenever someone liked a video you were watching an obnoxious animation would play and it would stop for several seconds. the much vaunted viewer interaction devolves into chat hollering GO GO GO and similar quality un-commentary in nonsensical twitch emote speak or throwing money at the streamer in exchange for canned thanks identical each time. why? why are people willing to donate for an inferior product? why does nobody hate the donors? they literally paid to interrupt the stream and make it worse. patreon donors do not pay to generate extra interruptions because they have basic fucking decency. you would think this would put a ceiling on streamer popularity because the more viewers the less bearable it is and the less chat is usable for, well, chatting, but apparently words are sin and what we really need is to bellow generic noises

don’t get me started on the insistence that every silence is an awkward silence. dead air is fucking called for sometimes. have you never fucking watched a movie. i fucking hate movies and i know what tension is. fuck you. “it’s a performance” yeah and a uniform performance of undifferentiated chatter is fucking garbage

this rant was instigated by an assertion a while back, made by someone in a video, that “telling people to like and subscribe makes the video worse” is just sour grapes from people that refuse to do the optimal, evil thing. it’s identical to the delete yourself become gender thing. you have a duty to not be a person, you are not allowed to want to be specificity, you are not allowed to say the traits being asked for are bad or try to avoid them. there is only the laziness of refusing to get ripped and stop having emotions or tell people to like and subscribe

it has been simmering for months but set off from seeing the avalanche of subscription animations and sheer worthless timewasting drivel you get on unedited vods from major streamers and it would be worse live because you can’t skip around or increase the speed but there are somehow enough people willing to watch live to donate and subscribe live to render the vod a lifeless wasteland of new subscriber animations

retvrn to teenagers with shitty microphones

#bad game opinions #for your convenience please accept this pre-packaged self cancellation #not important and bad timing apparently

22 notes · View notes

definitelynotplanetfall · 4 years

Text

Big Joel has a new video about the school of life and I’m not sure I can watch it. In his first one he said some nonsense to the effect that not liking parties, dancing, or alcohol is “incel shit” tantamount to “hating fun” and I just-

there’s some token stuff in there about how he himself does not like parties and it’s fine not to and the problem is TSOL is claiming liking parties is moral deficiency.

this could have been, in his own words, fine so easily.

and then he just goes “he thinks you’re a weirdo if you like to dance and get drunk and have fun with people” and like dude

DUDE

this is EXACTLY what the “myeh you must like parties or you are not a person” people do, this is exactly what they say, they present it as “just how you have fun” like you’re all for being hypervigilant and studiously avoiding the enemy’s language then you just carelessly drop this?

the video he criticizes is some bargain-basement “atomization bad, and being in a room with other people is not connection if you still have to put up a facade and lie and are still an interchangeable cog” which he should be all over given his other stances on things and the only objectionable thing about it is the pretentious presentation and some weird conspiratoriality that “10% of the population is forcing parties down our collective throats”

which is bad because it’s not “10% of the population” it’s “normativity and your worth being predicated on conforming and how fungible you make yourself” and please criticize the actual problems instead of weird imagined demons and please for the love of god don’t fucking undermine “atomization bad” to stick it to someone who takes a tone you don’t like when criticizing a social norm that a lot of people chafe under you singularity

is the woke(tm) stance on this just incoherent on purpose?

I’m sure Joel himself, personally, means well and legitimately doesn’t have a problem with people disliking parties and I’m just doing the equivalent of the tone-policing-adjacent argument he’s making about the video. But I have legitimately seen very progressive disliking-parties-really-is-inhuman-and-contemptible types couch their arguments as like, “they’re antisocial what is diversity” and “mediocre men not putting in the work,” so the rest of this post is for them.

like I don’t understand how it’s possible to hold a view like “all gender presentations are valid” without it being derived from “all harmless beings and doings are valid.” I don’t know how you can arrive at that point otherwise, unless you believe all human actions should be harshly regimented and gender only gets to be an exception because gender is magic and ?????

(Full disclosure: I understand gender theory a negative amount.)

“People are free to choose between doing what I want them to and being mocked” is still harsh regimentation coupled with psychological torture.

I don’t understand how a tendency that believes in bodily autonomy in terms of “categorically shaming abortion-getters as a class is wrong even if it is completely legal” can then turn around and say “categorically shaming teetotalers as a class is a-ok.”

Even if we’re using “hurting someone is only wrong when it’s part of systemic oppression” rules do you seriously not see how pressuring people into drinking alcohol could make them easier to abuse? (or for that matter, be abuse in itself?)

Not to go full brazenautomaton, but is it really just noises to you?

(do i get to say things like that or am i too un-integrated?)

This goes back to the thing from last night, with “get better hobbies” adjacent concepts. I’d like to know:

What do you want people that hate parties/dancing/alcohol to actually do?

Do you want them to be forced to go to parties? Dance? Drink?

What if they earnestly try those things and are miserable?

How can you tell if it was earnest?

What if they have a disability that makes it physically impossible or dangerous?

Why is it mandatory to do the recreational activities you like?

Do I get to call you a misogynist because you’re bored by 4D chess (which is a real game and not a meme)?

Why not? How is this different from you calling all party-dislikers incels?

What determines what activities must be tried?

Who determines those criteria?

Does your approach change at all when addressing an individual rather than broadly defined groups?

I’m very sure there is a good and well-thought-out explanation about why it is extremely progressive to call all introverts incels and say people are morally deficient for disliking events that happen to be disliked by a lot of autistic people (:

#feeling uncharitable might delete later #for your convenience please accept this pre-packaged self cancellation #i meant to post about this when i saw the previous video but i forgot and was only reminded today #god this shit makes me so angry #i am ready to die #i want to know if something is wrong with me #am i morally tainted for not liking parties/dancing/alcohol #am i unlovable for same #GOD i am so ready to drive into a tree #or off a bridge #if i am incompatible with the human things #why do i belong in the world of humans #wasting their air etc.#i do not want to have to go to a public loud room #with music blaring about how ugly people are unlovable #because that is what all music is about #in order to interact with people #kill me immediately #if your response is 'i bet you're real fun at parties' you are the fucking problem #if you insult someone for it you think it is bad #by definition #you fucking idiot #if you think people are allowed to not like parties but use 'bad at parties' as an insult #you are tipping your hand

4 notes · View notes

definitelynotplanetfall · 4 years

Text

Some days I wish I wasn’t used to typing on QWERTY because... this is going to sound dumb, but it’s like they engineered what letters are next to each other precisely to make it as easy as possible to mistype innocuous words as terrible racial slurs. (It’s also on the people who came up with the words in the first place, but still - the language came before the keyboard and only one had the luxury of planning.)

This would be manageable on its own if not for my constant paranoia that I am hallucinating user interfaces saying the wrong thing. This is partially just a general distrust of the senses (the origin of which I could navel-gaze about at length, because oh, I have so many theories, but I will not, dear reader, for your sake), partially a tiny bit of experience trying and failing to communicate internal program state to a user, and partially the “computers and especially the internet are inscrutable demons and will try to hurt you at every opportunity” scare campaign we all got but only I didn’t realize wasn’t to be taken literally. I will seriously fret about whether I sent an email to the right person when the recipient’s name is right there on the screen or that actually if I don’t go back and look at the post I just submitted it might have somehow been replaced with something vile I would never say, or -

This is basically isomorphic to the thing where if I don’t actively keep quiet my mouth will start spewing abuse of its own accord. Yeah, that’s a thing too.

So you start avoiding innocuous words because you’ll be a monster if your finger slips and in the past you’ve let things like “T-shit” go for months before you notice them. You stop speaking words that are even close to things you can’t say because one time your mouth ignored the instructions to say “tell” and said “hell” instead even though that doesn’t make sense as a verb. If I were in a more discoursey mood I’d say “this is the problem with the modern focus on words over deeds and why it’s particularly hellish for me” but that’s not really the case either because I’m worried whenever I’m near another person that my arms will just decide to hit them for no reason.

I’m really dubious about sharing this because it seems like the sort of thing that would only exist as an excuse abusers give for why they hurt people but no I am constantly terrified my body will just start doing things I don’t tell it to

I don’t know what the point of saying all this is except that I am a lost cause and any sort of “more vigilance is necessary” type things are extra despair-inducing because the current level of vigilance is already both untenable and insufficient and all the woke writing proclamations were way, way more destructive to my ability to allow myself to write than any “I don’t understand True Literature” BS and if your response to that is “mission accomplished now you will not write something bigoted” I’ll have you know the thing it was preventing me from writing was two characters becoming friends and if your response to that is “how dare you reinforce social scripts about mooching therapy from “““friends”““ why would you even pretend it is about anything else” then just pick up a gun and put me out of my FUCKING misery already

#for your convenience please accept this pre-packaged self cancellation #scrupulosity i guess #this is not an attempt to out-suffer anyone #unhinged bullshit #reverse poland cannot into literature

2 notes · View notes

definitelynotplanetfall · 4 years

Text

People that advocate bullying should be ground up and canned for use as emergency rations.

It follows naturally, no? If the correct retaliation for infinitesimal discomfort is tangible harm, the correct retaliation for tangible harm is unspeakable evil. You do realize that’s how multiplication works, right?

(of course they don’t, “bring back bullying” types consider anyone who can count without using their fingers a valid target)

#pathetic dweeb separatism when #for your convenience please accept this pre-packaged self cancellation

4 notes · View notes

definitelynotplanetfall · 4 years

Text

so about that orientation/preference brouhaha

Having slept nonzero hours and having mulled this over a bit

I don’t exactly have a horse in this race as a filthy Fake Pseudo Ace That Doesn’t Even Have The Decency To Be Aro Or Gay Or Even Completely Ace I Mean Stolen Valor Much. It’s literally impossible to criminalize not having sex. Utterly unenforceable. I get that I’m not being targeted here and my opinion doesn’t really matter except as a barometer for “is planetfall a good person” (which I am not, and could have told you without any of the fuss). I have no specific love for the phrase “sexual preference,” I don’t think I have ever even used it, but also it’s such a nothing distinction. I do not care that Important Organizations declared it offensive years ago, because the reasoning they used to do so is silly, and of the people I’ve seen saying it definitely is not offensive what on earth are you on about, a bunch of them are LGBTQ.

And again, to address the issue that spawned this specific instance of this discourse, given Barrett’s record and the way homophobes do seem to insist on saying preference, it probably is a signal she intends to use her power in bigoted ways.

But like.

First of all, it is incredibly foot-shooty to say the evidence of her prejudice is the fact that she said “sexual preference” and not “sexual orientation,” which requires a fair bit of contextual understanding to see what the problem is and looks like pedantic hair-splitting without that knowledge, when shit like this exists.

Second - I’m sort of Von Wokensteining here, and to my understanding this entire argument started from one tweet or something similar, and it’d be misleading to assert “this one tweeter is the avatar for progressivism!“

EDIT: That’s not correct, it was a senator at her hearing rather than a rando providing commentary. I should have confirmed this myself and only learned it a few days later. This shows how accusations are taken out of context and passed around demanding judgment. I definitely could have spent more time reading about this incident, because I am a shitty excuse for a person with unlimited time. Every random Joe Blow does not have that luxury.

In my defense I was not paying attention to the hearing because I just assumed she would be maximally bad on all issues, considering who appointed her, and that was not a swamp I really wanted to wade through.

However.

People rushing to defend the assertion that “sexual preference” is self-evidently offensive gives at the very least an impression of a unified ideological coalition.

And, I said this in the last post but it bears repeating, the left lost the right to use “born this way” rhetoric the moment it became a semi-common talking point that you need to challenge your attractions if you aren’t attracted to an adequate cross-section of your area’s ethnic makeup or whatever. To intentionally try to change your attractions. To choose your attractions, if I may be so bold.

The charge against “sexual preference” is that it implies that orientation is a choice, which is supposedly hopelessly reactionary. Even ignoring for a moment that it does not in fact imply this, you do not get to tell people it is indefensible to IMPLY things that your side SAYS OUTRIGHT.

Also, quite frankly, I consider myself to have been made more ace during my lifetime by certain prevalent messages (and other hyper-targeted ones), and like, if the argument is actually that non-innate sexualities are illegitimate, does that mean that there can be no moral objection to someone raping me because the sky wizard said so?

[edit: screaming redacted]

It literally does not matter whether who you’re attracted to is a choice or inborn or whatever because that is not the moral dimension, the moral dimension is “does it hurt anyone?” which it fucking doesn’t why is this so difficult

I don’t give a shit about the rhetoric. The rhetoric sucks. The rhetoric is wrong.

Third, I’m extremely suspicious of any sort of euphemism-treadmill type anything, but one thing that’s especially suspect is when someone says “X term is offensive to Y demographic” against the wishes of that demographic. Like, my circles are not the widest, but I have mostly seen LGBTQ people being upset at being spoken for against their own wishes, sometimes with people chiming in and helpfully saying “no, see, you should be offended! This article says you are offended so stop pretending not to be!”

I am not trying to make a false equivalency of the relative badness levels but please, try to appreciate the poetic irony in unironically deploying “The Dedicated Truth Decreer said the innocuous-on-its-face thing was bad” in this of all possible situations.

It’s the “listen to X (I am not X, and X that disagree with me are not real X so don’t listen to them)” thing. The entire authority of that sort of article rests on the authors speaking for groups, so when members of that group say “this is bullshit pedantry and not offensive, and in fact your declaring it offensive on my behalf makes me feel less safe in places purportedly organized for my benefit” does in fact undermine the authority of those declarations.

Fourth, this is not as strong of an argument and really super tangential, but I’m personally sick of people just... giving things up because bad people claim them. I don’t extend this infinitely, so for instance Hindus trying to reclaim the swastika are probably right on the level of “it is wrong that this important symbol from our culture has been made synonymous with the greatest evil in living memory, and this change should be reverted,” but it’s so culturally ingrained that I don’t know if it is possible to fix at this point.

However, I remember when a bunch of Nazis were like “we own Pepe the frog now” and the response to this was like, “Yeah! Let them grab whatever culture they want, it is tainted by their even saying they want it! Also all Pepe memes made before this point are retroactively fascist!” and just...

That’s fucking transparently stupid. That specific thing has abated and you can find lefty Pepe memes now, nature is healing etc etc, but the “anime = fascist” thing hasn’t and it’s so so mind-numbing that you would just cede entire genres of art and start asserting that anyone who enjoys them is automatically irredeemable without considering what effect this might have on how unhinged you look or your ability to say your ideal world is better than theirs. I remember arguing with someone about this circa 2016 and I said something to the effect of “well what if instead of next they claim jazz” and they said it would suck that nobody could listen to jazz anymore. (iirc, this person was white which makes it extra hilarious/depressing, but the forum thread where it happened seems to be deleted so assume I made this up from whole cloth)

The reason I bring this up is part of the reason people say “it implies orientation is a choice” is because that’s what homophobes say it means (in contradiction to the literal words, naturally) and why they insist on using it. It’s less of a concrete thing, but the two feel isomorphic.

Lastly... OK so in my other post I used sort of a cringy programming metaphor, because I was half asleep so the only part of my brain still functioning was “comprehension of programming problems” amirite fellas. I don’t like definition debates in general but it seems like a lot of the people insisting “preference = choice” are using different definitions, so this is mostly just to show how that is not the only obvious interpretation.

A sexual orientation is a description of what gender(s) someone wants to have sex with.

A preference is a description of what someone wants.

Therefore a sexual orientation is a type of preference.

Note that nothing there says anything about origin or mutabiliy. Just that if you ask someone what their orientation is, you will get information about what they do and don’t want.

I need to stress that based on the context that sparked off this debacle I can understand why someone’s interpretation of the phrase might be “orientation is a choice” - even though I think it’s wrong to assume that’s what is meant by the phrase inherently, it’s a reasonable reaction to pattern-match talking points.

But the other thing is that it’s probably wrong to perma-delete the phrase because it isn’t gibberish.

What I mean by that is I get frustrated whenever someone is talking about an expenditure of energy and time related to feelings, and someone else comes along and screeches “THAT’S NOT WHAT EMOTIONAL LABOR MEANS”

and yes, that is not what the jargon phrase “emotional labor” means

but the person you’re yelling at was in fact describing labor that is emotional, and due to the way English works, you are allowed to delete the “that is” and move the adjective before the noun. Some would even recommend this in the name of concision. (And as I’ve said before, “emotion work” as a substitute phrase is...linguistically unpleasant to say the least.)

Saying that you can’t say “sexual preference” is sort of in the same boat. People will want to talk about preferences that are sexual, because there are more variables than just orientation, but those things still matter and should get a category name and look the entire argument falls apart if you don’t make bizarre assumptions about the connotations of the word “preference” and there are only so many ways I can state that fact.

IN SHITTY CONCLUSION

The fact that I wrote out a giant post defending a phrase I don’t otherwise care about reveals some sort of deep moral failing.

#language discourse #the orientation / preference mess #homophobia #rape mention #for your convenience please accept this pre-packaged self cancellation #fuck i did the programming metaphor again just without jargon #if i wanted to be uncharitable i would say people assumed preferences only meant the options menu and meant like flipping a switch #i just know that i will get canceled if nonzero humans read this

0 notes