Mistaken for cosplay

SIMON: Post-collegiate straight jewboy, working at Brooks Brothers and looking to FIND HIS FORTUNE, or just a real job thanks. Kind of a dandy. Likes writing, gaming, literature, Homestuck, men's fashion, liberal politics, and a variety of Magical Picture Box shows.

Now comes with an AO3 account! Check it out here: http://archiveofourown.org/users/whisperwhisk
MAGE OF LIFE
COOL PEOPLE LISTED BELOW

mtg-talk:

I want to name my child after this. Nobody would make fun of them. 
NOBODY.

"Dad, the kids at school are making fun of me again"
"You have an extra turn and Annihilator 6, sort it out yourself!"

"Dad, the kids at school turned into dust. So did the teachers. And the school."

professorspork:

okay, so.

as I’ve sort of mentioned in previous posts and conversations, I have a very strong ambition to write a BIG GAY DISNEY PRINCESS MOVIE (erm, that’s only the working title) and, unless something should go terribly wrong, I’m planning for that to be my screenplay project when I hit grad school this fall. [Note: if for whatever reason Tisch is like “no you can’t write a fake Disney movie, come on” I’ll just write it outside of school, so whatever. this is happening.]

I have the protagonists all sorted out, and the basic skeleton of a plot (spoiler alert: girl is all set to marry boy, villain kidnaps boy, girl hires lady rogue to help her rescue boy, girl and lady rogue fall in love, boy is totes fine with it), but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. I know how important the idea of this movie is to me—the concept of a Disney-esque animated feature where two girls fall for each other and that’s supported and normalized—and so I think community input is crucial. We’ve all been waiting for one. All of you have an idea of what you’d want it to look like. I want to use those shapes, if I can.

Disclaimer: I can’t promise that all or even any of your suggestions will be in the final product. Thus is the nature of movies. But I appreciate every single contribution, and my mind will be open.

SO. To the questions!

1. Are there any fables/myths/legends/historical events/etc that you think would make excellent Disney-style movies that haven’t been used yet?

2. Are there any fables/myths/legends/historical events/etc that you think particularly lend themselves to queering? Why? (i.e., many people view The Little Mermaid through a trans* lens, for example) It’s fine if there’s no overlap with question 1, or if those tales have been made into movies.

3. As a member of the LGBTQA+ community, do any movies from the Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks/etc canon speak to you as being particularly queered? Why did that work for you? Were there ever moments where they lost you? (Bonus points if you mention movies that are not Frozen, Brave or Mulan, but I’m looking more for your interactions with the text/how you think it affected you from childhood into adulthood than discussions of each movie’s plot. Any movie will help.)

4. What kinds of villains tend to appeal to you MOST in animated features? Why?

5. What kinds of villains tend to appeal to you LEAST in animated features? Why?

6. What is your stance on animal sidekicks? Necessary? Superfluous? Somewhere in the middle?

7. Would it still feel like a Disney princess movie to you if there were no magic? Part of me is like “magic is a metaphor and is therefore unnecessary if they’re already gay” and the rest of me is like “BUT MAGIC THO” and I can’t decide. Too Willow-and-Tara? Crucial to the genre? Discuss.

8. What messages/themes/content do you think would be absolutely ESSENTIAL to a movie for children about a queer princess? (i.e. “I would want multiple same-gender relationships to show that the main pair isn’t an anomaly,” “I’m sensitive about bi erasure and would want that discussed somehow,” whatever.)

9. What messages/themes/content do you think should be absolutely AVOIDED in a movie for children about a queer princess? (i.e. “I’m so over homophobic parents, just let them be happy,” “Please don’t make the villain LGBTQA+ because that’s already a stigma/cliche trope,” whatever.)

10. FREE SPACE—if you have any other suggestions, or questions, or concerns, go ahead and put them here.

Okay! So you can put your answers to these questions in my submit box, or you can send it via fanmail, or you can even just stick ‘em in under a reblog. Whatever works for you! I’ll be keeping track of this post. (If we’re friends and you have my email, email me about this anytime, day or night).

PLEASE signal boost this, because again, the more input and data I have, the more I’ll feel like I can make something that represents the best of us.

(oh, and final note, people who identify as straight are also totally welcome to respond to these questions, especially 1 and 4-7. Door’s wide open, safe space, all god’s children, whatever.)

Thank you!

disheveledwisdom:

whisperwhisk:

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

I basically forced an objectivist professor to state, in a public debate, that his philosophy, if implemented, would let kids die of preventable diseases or treatable conditions.

guy tried to weasel out of it with charity, dude you are an objectivist, you don’t believe in the value of altruism.   

I don’t think you understand what altruism actually means.

see the thing, is the guy in the debate basically sneered at philanthropy as a waste of money, I already know what you are going to say, that to be truly altruistic you shouldn’t be “coerced.” but he couldn’t even go there as charities wouldn’t have any money in his objectivist society as everyone is pursuing his or her own self interest.  You people will never get away from  the fact that your hyper competitive society would result in children dying of preventable illnesses if their parents couldn’t afford treatment.

Where am I even going to begin here?

image

Well, first of all you’re using composition/divison fallacy to apply the unsavory characteristics of this particular person. I’m not him, I’m a random person scrolling through the ‘objectivism’ tag. You’re addressing me, not him. 

Now that we’ve divorced him from the issue, let’s analyze your statements factually.

I already know what you are going to say, that to be truly altruistic you shouldn’t be “coerced.”

That’s another fallacy, but let’s run with it. You also dodge defining ‘altruism,’ but whatever, it’s a nice day. 

charities wouldn’t have any money in his objectivist society as everyone is pursuing his or her own self interest

You know, this bit here crops up a lot, and it really bothers me. Objectivism is not about ‘self-interest,’ is it about selfishness. The two are commonly used as synonyms, but apparently it’s necessary to separate their meanings.

Selfishness is not limited to doing what benefits you materially. It’s doing what brings you joy. I want to see other people be happy, selfishly. I have no obligation to do so—that is the premise of egoism. But I will, because it’s what I want to do, and that, too, is egoism.

So you see, there would be money for charities. Indeed, there would be far more available without income taxes, and it’s been shown that private charities are far more efficient than government programs.

You people will never get away from  the fact that your hyper competitive society

Do you actually have any reasoning behind ‘hyper competitive,’ or are you just trying to make an appeal to emotion? At a guess, this derives from the self-interest premise disproven above.

would result in children dying of preventable illnesses if their parents couldn’t afford treatment.

Well, we’ve already seen that there’s no conflict between selfishness and benevolence. But you know what, I’ll go further. In an individualist society, we’d have less suffering of children (and every other group, for that matter). When an altruist gives, he’s trying to sooth his conscience; when an egoist gives, he means it. He won’t throw money haphazardly at whoever is asking, he’ll choose carefully, to maximize the effect in the direction he desires.

Why? Because when you value life, you hate to see it wasted. It’s the most selfish thing in the world.

I’ll say this and only this because objectivism is completely ahistorical and based on assertions that if this happens than this will happen rather than appealing to reality at all, we had a completely individualistic society and it was called Dickensian England, the industrial age was great at allowing people to pursue their own self interests and horrible at helping the unfortunate.  There a good case study at what actuallly would happen if your ideology was actually implemented.  

You admit you didn’t read a word I wrote. I challenged your schema, and instead of so much as acknowledging my arguments, you’ve made an appeal to history that ignores the very points I raised.

Until the day when and if you resume critical thinking, kindly leave the political arena to those of use who us reason, not emotion.

i wish you to leave the political arena to those who are actually concerned about how the world actually works and not your baseless assertions.  

I’m the one trying to rectify human nature with civil society. I’m not really sure what you’re doing.

I did, I just didn’t find any use for it, as it didn’t reflect reality. 

So you’re not interested in convincing me, you’re interested in giving me a scolding. How incredibly enlightened.

prior to the New Deal the elderly were forced into poverty, children were forced to work in factories and workers died in fires.  

Which magically stopped once the government created a series of ponzi schemes?

The wealthy of America certainly didn’t make sufficient effort to alleviate these situations.

You’re making the assumption that because something happened one way once, it must always happen that way. Less that three trials is insufficient for the hard sciences, I should think more are necessary in the social sciences.

you have failed to address the historical realities that contradict your fantasy of the benevolent wealthy coming to rescue of unfortunate.

Now you’re just using emotional language to misrepresent my position and insert your own. I’m not talking about a wealthy/poor dichotomy, I’m talking about a society of individuals, all with different degrees of mental and physical endowment, working to advance their own happiness, which necessarily includes advancing the happiness of others.

You still haven’t given your definition of ‘altruism.’

I’m done with this debate, you haven’t attempted to match your assertions with reality.  American and British industrialism isn’t just two points of data, they are clear applications of your ideology on a real world stage over a substantial time frame (from what I see your answer is well next time will be different, again a baseless assertion given the historical evidence countering it).  The results contradict your assertions of what would happen if people were given the opportunity to pursue their own self interest with limited governmental interference.

I’m really enjoying the way this guy continually shifts the definition of “altruism” to whatever is convenient at the moment

I’m also really enjoying his increasingly elaborate attempts to avoid having to consider any actual evidence

I’m not sure which of the two is funnier

He was trying to get into a debate on the existance of altruism arguing that I can’t disprove that any action made for another’s interest was really done with self interest in mind.  As I find that position unfalsifiable and useless as Ayn Rand has clearly stated that acting for the sake of others is basically slavery.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/129091-the-man-who-attempts-to-live-for-others-is-a

If true altruism is nonexistent than arguing that it is somehow a bad thing is pointless and is essentially stating that what people perceive as altruism is bad which includes willfull charity.

That awkward moment when you challenge someone’s definitions

and instead of defending them they throw a fit because you didn’t argue in the single specific manner they were prepared for

Welp, the FCC just gave the nod to online corporate extortion. I for one welcome our new technocratic overlords.

I don’t understand why people complain about being poor. All they have to do is work harder. I mean, we’re poor too – my dad only makes $500,000 a year, and we struggle.

Psychology major

[S/N: And in case you think I’m exaggerating, I’m 100% serious about this. He literally tried to make an argument that he was poor because his dad only made $500,000 a year.]

(via shitrichcollegekidssay)

(via meatsuit)

cyanblur:

nintendo???

(via wecansexy)

saddeer:

zkac:

what’s Whitney Houston’s favorite type of coordination?

HAAAAAAAAAND EYEEEEEEEEEE

i hate this i hate u 

(via crappyfolktownhero)

fallontonight:

"A nursing home in Long Island is being sued for hiring male strippers to perform for the residents…But you know who’s most upset about the strippers is the residents’ families. They’re suing the nursing home. And this is real, these are the lawyers they hired…That’s like Carmen San Diego on the side, a Dick Tracy villain, a geriatric pimp in the middle, a woman wearing a backwards leather jacket, and the guy in the back looks like a blogger.”

(via shakespearesdreamatorium)

We do not comprehend the organic fascination with self-poisoning, auditory damage, and sexually transmitted disease.

(via meatsuit)

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

objectivistnerd:

disheveledwisdom:

I basically forced an objectivist professor to state, in a public debate, that his philosophy, if implemented, would let kids die of preventable diseases or treatable conditions.

guy tried to weasel out of it with charity, dude you are an objectivist, you don’t believe in the value of altruism.   

I don’t think you understand what altruism actually means.

see the thing, is the guy in the debate basically sneered at philanthropy as a waste of money, I already know what you are going to say, that to be truly altruistic you shouldn’t be “coerced.” but he couldn’t even go there as charities wouldn’t have any money in his objectivist society as everyone is pursuing his or her own self interest.  You people will never get away from  the fact that your hyper competitive society would result in children dying of preventable illnesses if their parents couldn’t afford treatment.

Where am I even going to begin here?

image

Well, first of all you’re using composition/divison fallacy to apply the unsavory characteristics of this particular person. I’m not him, I’m a random person scrolling through the ‘objectivism’ tag. You’re addressing me, not him. 

Now that we’ve divorced him from the issue, let’s analyze your statements factually.

I already know what you are going to say, that to be truly altruistic you shouldn’t be “coerced.”

That’s another fallacy, but let’s run with it. You also dodge defining ‘altruism,’ but whatever, it’s a nice day. 

charities wouldn’t have any money in his objectivist society as everyone is pursuing his or her own self interest

You know, this bit here crops up a lot, and it really bothers me. Objectivism is not about ‘self-interest,’ is it about selfishness. The two are commonly used as synonyms, but apparently it’s necessary to separate their meanings.

Selfishness is not limited to doing what benefits you materially. It’s doing what brings you joy. I want to see other people be happy, selfishly. I have no obligation to do so—that is the premise of egoism. But I will, because it’s what I want to do, and that, too, is egoism.

So you see, there would be money for charities. Indeed, there would be far more available without income taxes, and it’s been shown that private charities are far more efficient than government programs.

You people will never get away from  the fact that your hyper competitive society

Do you actually have any reasoning behind ‘hyper competitive,’ or are you just trying to make an appeal to emotion? At a guess, this derives from the self-interest premise disproven above.

would result in children dying of preventable illnesses if their parents couldn’t afford treatment.

Well, we’ve already seen that there’s no conflict between selfishness and benevolence. But you know what, I’ll go further. In an individualist society, we’d have less suffering of children (and every other group, for that matter). When an altruist gives, he’s trying to sooth his conscience; when an egoist gives, he means it. He won’t throw money haphazardly at whoever is asking, he’ll choose carefully, to maximize the effect in the direction he desires.

Why? Because when you value life, you hate to see it wasted. It’s the most selfish thing in the world.

I’ll say this and only this because objectivism is completely ahistorical and based on assertions that if this happens than this will happen rather than appealing to reality at all, we had a completely individualistic society and it was called Dickensian England, the industrial age was great at allowing people to pursue their own self interests and horrible at helping the unfortunate.  There a good case study at what actuallly would happen if your ideology was actually implemented.  

You admit you didn’t read a word I wrote. I challenged your schema, and instead of so much as acknowledging my arguments, you’ve made an appeal to history that ignores the very points I raised.

Until the day when and if you resume critical thinking, kindly leave the political arena to those of use who us reason, not emotion.

i wish you to leave the political arena to those who are actually concerned about how the world actually works and not your baseless assertions.  

I’m the one trying to rectify human nature with civil society. I’m not really sure what you’re doing.

I did, I just didn’t find any use for it, as it didn’t reflect reality. 

So you’re not interested in convincing me, you’re interested in giving me a scolding. How incredibly enlightened.

prior to the New Deal the elderly were forced into poverty, children were forced to work in factories and workers died in fires.  

Which magically stopped once the government created a series of ponzi schemes?

The wealthy of America certainly didn’t make sufficient effort to alleviate these situations.

You’re making the assumption that because something happened one way once, it must always happen that way. Less that three trials is insufficient for the hard sciences, I should think more are necessary in the social sciences.

you have failed to address the historical realities that contradict your fantasy of the benevolent wealthy coming to rescue of unfortunate.

Now you’re just using emotional language to misrepresent my position and insert your own. I’m not talking about a wealthy/poor dichotomy, I’m talking about a society of individuals, all with different degrees of mental and physical endowment, working to advance their own happiness, which necessarily includes advancing the happiness of others.

You still haven’t given your definition of ‘altruism.’

I’m done with this debate, you haven’t attempted to match your assertions with reality.  American and British industrialism isn’t just two points of data, they are clear applications of your ideology on a real world stage over a substantial time frame (from what I see your answer is well next time will be different, again a baseless assertion given the historical evidence countering it).  The results contradict your assertions of what would happen if people were given the opportunity to pursue their own self interest with limited governmental interference.

I’m really enjoying the way this guy continually shifts the definition of “altruism” to whatever is convenient at the moment

I’m also really enjoying his increasingly elaborate attempts to avoid having to consider any actual evidence

I’m not sure which of the two is funnier