Same shit as the US, lmao

I want to believe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

So for a story I think it really depends on how deep you’re planning on delving into these characters personalities.

If they’re side characters you can just do a surface read of trans culture to add flavor to their description, but you don’t want to overfocus on it (if you’re new to lgbt stuff I would suggest not making a side-character’s queerness overly plot-relevant. It comes off as tacky and as cheap pinkwashed inclusivity).

For example: Erin sits next to Emily and goes to remove her bag. Somehow the conspicuously pink blue and white strap manages to catch her hair for no discernable reason. Emily rolls her eyes and starts to unravel the knots and tangles. The annoyed furrow in her brow deeply contrasts with the doting gentleness in her practiced hand movements.

It’s a bit silly and rough, but above we establish that Erin and Emily have been in a relationship for a long time. References to their queerness are kept to a minimum and are just woven in to how they interact with eachother (the important part). And the facts we can glean from this can be used to provide context for how the rest of the scene will go, why the two of them react to things a certain way, and what decisions they might make. And we can do that without needing to make overt references to their queer status any more than we already have.

Now if you’re trying to do queer main characters, I’d suggest being in the community for a while. There’s no advice or story I can give you that will fully encapulate who we are or how we’re to be portrayed because every context is different. The same depiction can be pandering or cruel or exceptionally clever depending on the subtle things you can glean just by being around us and internalizing the experience. You can make the world’s best attack helicopter joke, better than anything the chuds could do if you can understand and empathize with us innately (I wouldn’t recommend it, but there’s a transwoman out there who’s done it). Like, if you only glean details from second-hand stories, it will be obvious, because there likely won’t be any subtlety, even if you’re trying really hard.

A good queer MC needs to have their identity planned out from the beginning, it needs to shape how they perceive characters, situations, their own place in the world, and even facial expressions or small little happenstance details others might not notice. It will affect what they obsess over, how they focus, where they direct their energy, what they value. But you have to be able to say these things without being like “his transness transed his worldview” or “xe just couldn’t see [thing] the same way after becoming nonbinary.” Like, this is one of those situations where you actually have to follow the ‘show, don’t tell’ rule very closely.

If you hang out with lgbt people more, it gets easier. It’s obvious when people are distant/outside looking in and there’s a longing there. If those feelings aren’t healthy then people will notice. It’s best to learn as much as you can from people so that you can see them for who they really are and not just how you perceive them. It opens the door to being friends too! 😊

Also, nonbinary topics are something I think you could benefit from researching. It sounds like you might be nonbinary, and the enby community is huge, diverse, and has a million different ways of seeing gender. One of those might be what you’re looking for.

B-But I’m the default character. You can’t ascribe ATTRIBUTES to me!!!

I got 11 upvotes on a Ho Chi Minh quote in the clown shoes thread. Was that all you guys?

“Woke” was originally a word in the US black community to refer to people who were class conscious. Specifically to be aware of cooptation and trickery by the bourgeoisie and police. Ironically, like a lot of black slang, it was coopted by whites and its meaning was changed to suit their interests.

Due to the association with activists, it came to mean progressivism, then liberalism, and by that point had fallen out of favor by its original users. Now it just means “thing me no like” for conservatives.

My conjecture based on disagreements I’ve had with them, their goal is to draw in libs so that the marxists actually have people to educate. Without them it kinda became an echo chamber.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xenia-linuxfox

The Linux Fox!

All the cool people come from 🏳️‍🌈 and 🏳️‍⚧️. I wonder why???

Dang Yogthos, the libs roll in and you immediately get ratio’d. 🙃

Not all factions of the bourgeoisie really care for LGBT people, and the ones that do are hardly capable of grasping queer theory the same way we do. They do fundraisers to feel like they’re not imperialist monsters even if they fail in every other way to make our lives less horrible under capitalism.

This will be achieved under socialism only i’m afraid. Although most likely even then there will be no turning back

Hard agree

Unless you mean the thing that really gatekeep art from the workers: talent.

Talent doesn’t actually exist. Getting good at art just takes the motivation and resources to spend thousands of hours practicing. It’s labor like any other labor. The “talent” that people perceive in artists is just an inclination to pursue that particular form of labor, or the privilege of having the free time to learn it. What differentiates art from other kinds of labor is the manner in which capitalists value it. Most human beings are driven to produce some art or craft, many dream of it as a hobby or mythical career path. But only sellouts usually make it, and the highly competitive market artists exist in ensure only those who are willing to work with the bourgeoisie rise to the top, while those who want to pursue art for pleasure or escapism are barred from popularity. Plenty of artists who charge a pittance for their work can create things just as well as any “pro”, the difference is that they grew up proles and didn’t win the lottery. It’s the same game the bourgoisie pulls with sports players. Plenty of people around the world are absolutely jacked and spend all their free time thinking about sports. But the ones who make it sell their performance to the bourgeoisie.

You do need to put time and labour in the AI generation. Currently generating something decent require dozens of tries and most likely also post processing to remove artifacts.

Key word: currently. As they get more refined, they will learn what humans find proper and what we don’t, and those roles will be automated out too, or someone will design tools specifically for the purpose of automating them out.

If anything the amount of “gruntwork” will increase.

Why would capitalists pay 5 people $35000 per year ($175k total) to produce a couple dozen sketches per day at best, when they can pay one person $60k-$80k per year to make hundreds of finished works. AI works have the speed of being a punch-press operator with the fine-tuning of a CNC-miller. We haven’t really seen custom work of this scale before. I think it will be a preview into what physical labor will look like with cheap modular robotics vs current methods based on machine operation and support crews.

Your argumentation is silly because it is exactly what happened with all other automatized trades: it eventually gets concentrated.

I agree with this. I think there will be fewer professionals who get paid more while simultaneously producing more, which will cut out a lot of the skilled workers the same way the first wave of industrialization replaced blacksmiths with metal workers and engineers. But I think in this case the people doing the cheap dataset training won’t necessarily need to be artists and they’ll probably be outsourced to third parties. So the only artists necessary are the ones telling the AI “create x images based on this drawing I uploaded”. And since most companies want a uniform style across their product line, they won’t want multiple artists messing with that data, they’ll want one person whose style is recognizeable. Similar to how big name soundtrack musicians currently get all the brand recognition despite having numerous supporting technicians, but with AI performing the role of the technicians. Another example is voice artists and actors. Anyone can have Tara Strong in their work of all they need to do is pay for a few voice samples. Or how in the new star wars movies, they found a Mark Hamill lookalike but still CG’d Hamill’s face over the actor, making the actual actor himself just a host for someone with brand recognition.

How is that different from the current state?

Small-time artists don’t make money on IP. A lot of them are IP thieves in their own right, and get popular by remixing the works of others. Their own characters and stories usually don’t get as much attention and they make most of their money on commissions (ie. a person with no skill needs their skill to make an image). Getting your own characters or story to blow up is seen as “making it” and is extremely rare if they don’t already have connections with powerful figures. Most pop culture figures have rich parents when you look into it, including animators that a lot of poor artists look up to. The reason smalltime artists get upset about AI art is because it takes away the only thing they can offer, which is the skill to create something a buyer wants. I would imagine more prolific artists are upset about it because AI will increase competition until only the most recognized brands survive, so a lot can see themselves being cut out of the equation and having all their customers go to people who are already millionaires.

to corral the AI art for the sole exploitation tool for the bourgeoisie massive legislation will be requires

I think this goes along with the myth about github’s AI program writer making it easier for newbies to get into programming. All it really does it make Github the keyholder. If you take away the necessity of learning a skill, then the person who owns the tool has all the power. Because you won’t know how to produce it yourself and will instead rely on the keyholder to give you the answer. Another example is facebook giving people pre-formatted user pages vs people doing their own html. When a tool does the work for you, you give all the power to that tool and its owner. Sure more people than ever have internet profiles, but at the cost of the real owners selling user data and manipulating their psychology. Rather than democratizing the internet by making it accessible to newbies, it instead promoted walled gardens and placed the control in the hands of big business.

They don’t give a shit for the real art workers producing content already owned by their bosses, they are only interested in their own class interests

I agree with you on this one.

I agree art needs more workers who are paid fairly and don’t need to be so competitive to get a decent wage. The gig economy is toxic and offers people less for their work than its true value. A lot of young artists will spend 6-8hrs on a work and charge $30 for it. That’s $5/hr! Far lower than minimum wage.

Due to this demand for cheap art, AI turns people who don’t do any labor into salesmen who “sample” the labor inputs of others so that they have a product to sell. In this case I side with the artists, and not the wannabe capitalists trying to use technology to wrench the means of production away from the productive forces.

Yeah, most artists are poor as fuck or use it as a second form of income to some shittier job. Calling it “petite bourgeois” to make like $500/yr on commisions is a bit disingenuous. Plus tons of formal artistic work is just making corrections, doing draftwork, or the repetitive gruntwork of someone who has a bigger name than you.

What AI replaces are the above. The people it will elevate are the big-name artists with brand recognition. They’ll use AI to do the gruntwork. Instead of teams of concept artists you just get one highly paid person to draft inputs for the computer to interpret and then have it auto-generate hundreds of lookalikes. Architects can use AI to work out the fine details while they just focus on “the vision”. Animators won’t need tweeners or posers or texture artists or modelers, just someone with a recognizeable art style to feed data.

What AI creates is petit bourgeois content creators. You can already see this on sites that allow AI submissions, where hundreds of copy-paste grifters cheaply produce multiple AI generated images per day, based on someone else’s art style, with no skill or talent of their own, and charge people for the copyright. It’s taking the ownership of the means of production from laborers and giving it to hacks who would’ve never put in the effort to learn to do it themselves.

Contrary to popular opinion, copyright and IP make AI image generation more lucrative, because skill is no longer a barrier to entry. What makes an AI work valuable is the “ownership” rights to the image itself, because that’s what’s being traded in a transaction. In this way it’s quite similar to NFTs and draws the same crowd of supporters.

/r/gatekeepingyuri

proletarians would end up having to crush them and dispose of their unprincipled practices, right?

This cracker mentality is exactly why they don’t take marxists seriously.

they are not trying to build any kind of solidarity with other colonized people in Mexico

They will if those people try to do things their own way, but as it stands they have enough on their plate holding their own border (similar to Cuba, which sends aid but not soldiers due to US pressure). It’s like asking a starving man why he won’t donate to charity while doing nothing yourself, and why Galeano calls out the Basque revolutionaries who pointed a finger while failing to take root in their own territory. They haven’t shown they can do the work, while the EZLN has. You are the chauvinist he is addressing in his letter.

Their ideology is in their indigeneity. They do study western leftist currents, but don’t see them as their own movement. Rather, they see the proletarian struggle (as colonizers with colonizer class interests) as something separate from their struggle against colonization by the mexican federal government. They welcome Mexicans to engage in their own struggle, but believe it will be a fundamentally different thing with different aims. Proletarians do not understand the EZLN’s aims or ideology in such a way that a communist state would necessarily be compatible. The EZLN sees global communism as a noble goal to end imperialist hegemony, but they don’t believe a proletarian communist state will automatically consider their interests in the same way they currently can manage under self governance. For them to integrate, respect would have to be earned.

While we are on the subject of rebellious indigenous peoples, a parenthesis would be in order: the Zapatistas believe that in Mexico recovery and defence of national sovereignty are part of the anti-liberal revolution. Paradoxically, the ZNLA finds itself accused of attempting to fragment the Mexican nation.

The reality is that the only forces that have spoken for separatism are the businessmen of the oil-rich state of Tabasco, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party members of parliament from Chiapas. The Zapatistas, for their part, think that it is necessary to defend the nation state in the face of globalisation, and that the attempts to break Mexico into fragments are being made by the government, and not by the just demands of the Indian peoples for autonomy. The ZNLA and the majority of the national indigenous movement want the Indian peoples not to separate from Mexico but to be recognised as an integral part of the country, with their own specificities. They also aspire to a Mexico which espouses democracy, freedom and justice. Whereas the ZNLA fights to defend national sovereignty, the Mexican Federal Army functions to protect a government which has destroyed the material bases of sovereignty and which has offered the country not only to large-scale foreign capital, but also to drug trafficking.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/subcomandante-marcos-the-fourth-world-war-has-begun

Zapatistas have won the right to the word: to say what we want to, about what we want to, when we want to. And for this we do not have to consult with or ask permission from anyone. Not from Aznar, nor the king Juan Carlos, nor the judge Garzo’n, nor ETA.

We know that the Zapatistas don’t have a place in the (dis) agreement of the revolutionary and vanguard organizations of the world, or in the rearguard. This doesn’t make us feel bad. To the contrary, it satisfies us. We don’t grieve when we recognize that our ideas and proposals don’t have an eternal horizon, and that there are ideas and proposals better suited than ours. So we have renounced the role of vanguards and to obligate anyone to accept our thinking over another argument wouldn’t be the force of reason.

Our weapons are not used to impose ideas or ways of life, rather to defend a way of thinking and a way of seeing the world and relating to it, something that, even though it can learn a lot from other thoughts and ways of life, also has a lot to teach. We are not those who you have to demand respect from. It’s already been seen how we are a failure of “revolutionary vanguards” and so our respect wouldn’ t be useful for anything. Your people are those you have to win respect from. And “respect” is one thing; another very distinct thing is “fear”. We know you are angry because we haven’t taken you seriously, but it is not your fault. We don’t take anyone seriously, not even ourselves. Because whoever takes themselves seriously has stopped with the thought that their truth should be the truth for everyone and forever. And, sooner or later, they dedicate their force not so that their truth will be born, grow, be fruitful and die (because no earthly truth is absolute and eternal) rather they use it to kill everything that doesn’t agree with this truth.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/subcomandante-marcos-i-shit-on-all-the-revolutionary-vanguards-of-this-planet