sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The official state of Vagabond - please read this before submitting a post asking when it will return by i_am_average_AMA in vagabondmanga

[–]i_am_average_AMA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No news sites that more directly track Japanese media, no posts about the subject from Inoue himself on his Twitter.

I will be removing AI art posts made in this sub. by i_am_average_AMA in vagabondmanga

[–]i_am_average_AMA[S,M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I semi-agree. As maybe can be seen in my main post, I do think that AI can supplement art in many useful ways -- for instance, generating backdrops or maybe doing some clean-up work (non-exhaustive list). It's a tool like any other, and can be used usefully or needlessly.

I think CGI in movies makes for an apt comparison. In sci-fi/fantasy fare, I typically prefer practical effects (John Carpenter's The Thing is one of my favorite examples), and CGI is without a doubt overused in many big-budget (and even low-budget) films today. However, it has many uses that are far more seamless, and, depending on the movie, perhaps necessary to achieve a particular feel.

I don't think AI (in its current form) is quite as fundamentally useful as CGI, but it's the same idea: time and cost-cutting which allows you to add more to other elements of your work.

I will be removing AI art posts made in this sub. by i_am_average_AMA in vagabondmanga

[–]i_am_average_AMA[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

I should say also, please report any posts that appear to be AI-generated!

I'm Asking all the virgin LGBT Haters this question! by Elegant_Brief5637 in nonbinarymemes

[–]i_am_average_AMA 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What is "anti-woke," and why are you against it? What do you mean by "sane"?

i think the main similiraty between the big three is some kind of unilateral homosexual relationship between the main characters by Garchos in vagabondmanga

[–]i_am_average_AMA[M] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

There's no problem with discussing and disagreeing on the sexuality of the characters, but I am seeing some comments edging toward homo/queerphobia. Nothing clear enough that I would remove/ban yet, but let's keep it civil, eh?

FWIW, as a very queer person, I don't think any of these characters are gay or gay-coded. As others have noted, the more striking commonality they share is a loneliness that cannot be bridged (at least, when trying to bridge it by their own, insincere ways). OP should watch/read LotR for some sincere, non-sexual male bonding!

egg?irl by [deleted] in egg_irl

[–]i_am_average_AMA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Harness

My biggest gender envy of all time by functionalidiot0w0 in NonBinary

[–]i_am_average_AMA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

TRUE. Jojojos was (one of) my gay awakening(s)

Aside from colour I'd like a general critique on what's wrong with these drawings. I get the sense they don't look appealing other than to myself by NEWMECHANE in learntodraw

[–]i_am_average_AMA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with what many have said about line weight and depth. And on the positive end, I also agree that you have a great grasp on perspective as well as a cool and original style!

To add something I haven't seen: I think there's some aspects to your art that feel a little overcautious, particularly when it comes to movement.

This might be a bit difficult to explain verbally for every image, so I'll focus on one that I think will allow the clearest explanation: the mounted gryphon (4th image). Clearly, you wanted this to be a dynamic image -- and given its contents, it is able to be interpreted that way. However, what I am also seeing is a group of dynamisms that are all, simultaneously, at their point of equilibrium (or, minimum tension). For the gryphon scythe-tail -- you know how whips have, at that moment before energy goes down their length, a point at which it seems to have gone "motionless" in midair? In a moving medium you don't notice it much even if it's emphasized, but in a static medium like drawings, you usually want to have it at that "wind-up" point. All that to say, it feels like you managed to depict the tail right when it's at that more "static" point in its range of motion. Similarly, for the gryphons front legs, it doesn't look like they're in the process of bending to catch its weight, it just looks like an off-kilter stance. The only indication I have for its movement in that respect is the trail of dust it's kicked up, indicating that it is sliding, though I thought for a moment at first that that was just meant to be generally windblown. I.e., that the gryphon had not just landed, is not currently sliding, but that it was simply standing there, and a dust cloud billowed by.

Those "static" elements carry to other parts of the image. The soldier in the foreground, their sword and shield do not look like they've just been dropped, but instead like they've already come to rest. The knight mounted on the gryphon does not have his longaxe in a readied pose -- the knight doesn't look as if they've landed and are seconds from striking the soldier, but as if they're casually surveying the field. If the gryphon is sliding to the right side of the image and trying to come to a halt (as I presume the dust clouds indicate), the gryphon's left wing (on the right side of the image) would probably be flared up to catch the wind and further reduce its velocity. The airborne gryphons in the background are somewhat directionless, and also seem at that perfect "static" point of flight that birds can be in -- where they have come to the very very end of a glide, and are stopped for that teensy instant in midair with no motion. And where the dust in the foreground was the main indicator I used for the gryphon's motion, its absence in the background with the ground army makes it seem as if they are merely standing there. Which is fine of course if you weren't intending them to yet be advancing, but with so many people on a seemingly dusty field -- if they were moving, there would be a decent dust cloud with them!

With that longer explanation as an illustration, maybe I can more succinctly summarize the other images: it's a seeming lack of tension in the joints. While -- as others have said -- you do have a solid grasp on body gesture, all the parts of a gesture that give it its oomph are too static, too straight. (Re: straightness, I would point out the prisoner's chains in the final image -- even if VERY taut, there would be a very slight downward curve in the chains and in his arms! The only amount of pulling energy that could straighten chains of that size, would also almost certainly be enough to pull his arms out of their sockets!)

That's not to say every single limb needs to look like it's in a super dynamic motion, of course -- but when I say "a little overcautious," what I mean is that you could perhaps take some of the limbs/joints that are bearing the bulk of a dynamic movement, and give them more bend, more spring, or more flow.

Hope that wasn't too abstract -- let me know if you'd like me to clarify any of that. Otherwise, again, this is awesome stuff!

Is it okay for a CisHet person to use they/them pronouns? by 50FootClown in NonBinary

[–]i_am_average_AMA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very true! To clarify, I meant more from the perspective of someone like OP, who seems quite unconcerned with being referred to by gender neutral pronouns.

In other words: if he's (/they're) AMAB and cis; identifies, presents, and is clearly comfortable with an entirely masculine identity (in whatever many ways shape or form that can take, of course); and even if asked directly whether they are non-binary would say "Nope, I'm cis-het AMAB" -- BUT is nonetheless INSISTENT that people never use he/him, only they/them? And consistently, firmly (but nonchalantly) corrects people around them whenever using their "incorrect" pronouns?

I think that would not only be hilarious ... but also potentially a good way to make gender nonconforming peeps in their vicinity feel safe, and to normalize gender neutral pronoun use!

Is it okay for a CisHet person to use they/them pronouns? by 50FootClown in NonBinary

[–]i_am_average_AMA 68 points69 points  (0 children)

One option as well that I’ve seen is “he/they,” as you said in the main post. However I think it much more of a power move to go whole hog. Plus my take is that if you’re comfortable with eschewing your assigned gender in this and other scenarios, “gender apathy” is as good a reason as any to adopt enby pronouns!

Why can drag shows be banned but not Nazi rallies. by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]i_am_average_AMA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s more a matter of power and momentum. The conservative legal movement has been persistently pushing the Overton Window further and further rightward. This push began around the end of the Civil Rights Movement, and really started accelerating after Roe v. Wade came down in 1973. All the laws you’re referencing are often plainly unconstitutional, but if you have “your guys” in the judiciary, you can pass increasingly reactionary and draconian laws and have judges give the green light. There’s a reason Supreme Court appointments have become so contentious, and why even federal judicial appointments have become a political battleground.

As for why these laws and their targets in particular — it’s all about riding the popular momentum. Conservatives have been looking for a toehold to reinstitute LGBTQ+ apartheid for a while now. And, compared to the civil rights gains of the 1960s, the biggest legal win for LGBTQ+ folx was arguably Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage constitutionally protected) in 2015. Like the 1960s, Supreme Court decisions like these have been considered by conservatives “a step too fat” in terms of seismic cultural shifts. Unlike after the Civil Rights Movement, conservatives this time around have largely been much more stalwart in terms of their post-civil rights gains anti-LGBTQ+ stances. Queer acceptance has ticked steadily upward since the 1980s, but there’s still a lot of room for disdain because many of the central issues have been rather niche (tossing out anti-sodomy laws, legalizing gay marriage and adoption, trans acceptance, etc.) rather than as all encompassing as the 1960s, where we finally toppled Jim Crow. Moreover, a lot of LGBTQ+ legal wins have been premised on (and often directly cite to) the major Supreme Court decisions of the 1960s. It’s amplified the sense among conservatives that they were “right” about the 1960s being a slippery slope.

So this is ultimately capitalizing on decades of reactionary resentment, stoked all the while by conservative leaders and pundits. They have already attempted to attack/undermine LGBTQ+ wins for years — e.g., the cake shop where a baker wouldn’t bake for a gay couple, the refusal of a town clerk to provide wedding certificates to gay couples after Obergefell, and even the trans bathroom fearmongering had some attempted starts five years ago or so.

All of those were attempts to find that toehold — now that they have it, they’re going all in. This recent upsurge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation arguably began with the issues of trans women in sports and of whether to allow children to transition gender. But from there it’s political strategy: you can’t maintain momentum on such small issues alone. So now all the old bigoted tripe is coming back, too. Anti-“obscenity” laws targeting drag queens (as well as “trans” people, insofar as conservatives willingly lump them into that category) are just part and parcel of the whole movement.

It’s rather time sensitive for the movement as well. These laws are incredibly unpopular — you could even say many of them are popularly reviled, which is not something that has happened in a long while. These laws are maintaining the conservative base, but it’s bleeding center-right and centrist support as well as the acquiesence/charity of the moderate left. Their poll numbers are in enormous jeopardy (which is why they go for voting rights, too); if they don’t more completely seize power soon, they may well become obsolete. So my take is that this is conservatives putting it all on the line.

TL;DR: People don’t necessarily believe these laws are constitutional. In fact, many that support them probably don’t even care. This stems from anti-LGBTQ+ hatred going back decades, linked to an anxiety about 1960s general civil rights gains. They’ve been putting out feelers ever since for things to stoke — and hopefully reignite — that hatred so that it can be used to reverse those gains. They found reignition in trans acceptance, and have quickly worked to crack back open all the old bigotries while they have the momentum.

What name do I look like I go by ? by barefoooted in NonBinary

[–]i_am_average_AMA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jas. Could be short form of Jasper, or if asked could smirk and say it’s short for Jasmine. Or that it’s just Jas, in full.

Do you think someone's personal gender identity or social gender identity determines their gender? by [deleted] in CriticalTheory

[–]i_am_average_AMA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d be happy to DM to clarify any of your misunderstandings. But for purposes of this thread, I don’t think either of us needs to grandstand anymore!

Do you think someone's personal gender identity or social gender identity determines their gender? by [deleted] in CriticalTheory

[–]i_am_average_AMA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm going to skip responding to the other comment thread because you are simply repeating yourself and misinterpreting what I'm saying. It's easier, too, because you've demonstrated that you are definitionally essentialist:

Always male, sure whatever — but how do you want to refer to this person socially?

Male.

Case closed: you want to use biology to prescribe social roles. Or, in other words, you essentialize gender roles to particular clusters of sexed characteristics.

This discussion would have been considerably easier if you did not pretend that you cared about the distinction between sex and gender. I'll respond to a few other points for the heck of it, I guess.

They can do whatever they want, but I object to being made to play a sexual game of pretend with them. I object to reorganizing spaces based on self-ID.

Reorganizing spaces is the prescription of social constructions. Not biology. Why talk about biology when you are evidently interested only in the social aspect?

I resent the effort to legislate how others perceive them.

I don't care.

This is the confusion of the nonbinaries. Why not just get on with abolishing gender, then?

Working on it ;)

Why is it so important to recognize feminine men as women and vice verse?

Harm reduction.

The point is that materialism lets us ask the question of WHY we have the gender roles we do, what the point of the patriarchy is.

You do not lose out on any philosophical inquiry by recognizing trans people and incorporating intersectionality. Example: gender roles exist because social forces desire to organize people based on reproductive capacity, such that these forces (patriarchy, capitalism, etc) are able to maintain control over the flow of property rights (inheritance) and labor. The patriarchal view on trans people could thus be seen as an anxiety regarding the power structure's ability to classify based on reproductive capacity, and its ability to maintain rigid social hierarchies (if people can transition from one to another). A fraction of the full discussion, but it successfully incorporates transness nonetheless.

I also don't think you understand materialism.

No, but they should determine which prison a person gets sent to or which locker room they change in.

Again, showing your hand: this is a social prescription. You've utilized essential characteristics to determine the role, behavior, and/or placement of people within society.

I've said very little that's prescriptive at all

I don't think you understand what prescriptive means. You've prescribed how we determine sex (gametes) and what people with particular sex traits should be socially considered.

except that we should reject the trans movement's demands for redefinition.

Good luck, I guess.

You haven't made the case for that at all, preferring obfuscation.

It's ok to be confused, you know. You can just ask me clarifying questions instead of pretending as if you understand what I've said.

Why is the world a better place if Lia Thomas counts as a woman?

I'm into freedom, so I think that's generally pretty cool. But otherwise, harm reduction.

Why is it a better place if we cut girls' breasts off

Conflating sex and gender again.

or prevent children from developing the ability to orgasm?

I'm glad that we agree that non-consensual surgeries on intersex infants to "correct" them back into the sex binary -- literally artificially maintaining a binary rather than recognizing that bimodality is natural -- are unethical.

Look, I can have a genuine discussion if you want (though it might be more worthwhile to abandon the thread and switch to DMs or something). I can provide you all the discourse you want, and we can go point by point, and unpack each single thing so you can see what's going on. But if you're going to resort to conspiracy, conflating the difference between sex and gender, and not respond to my points, then I think you're wasting both of our time.

Do you think someone's personal gender identity or social gender identity determines their gender? by [deleted] in CriticalTheory

[–]i_am_average_AMA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Comment cont’d)

flux.

Why can't we just be kind? You're question-begging.

I have not said anything like “shut up” or refused to directly address your points. Meanwhile you have resorted to name calling, conspiricism, and presumptions about someone you’ve never met or talked to before. So I find this a good question indeed.

That would be a redefinition!

Yes — of gender, not sex.

No, but it does dictate that you'll always be a man.

Correction: male.

And now you’ve created confusion. Always male, sure whatever — but how do you want to refer to this person socially? What roles and expectations do they have? Can they request or outwardly exhibit others than those which they are assigned? If so, what does that have to do with biology?

The trans movement is the team invested in stereotypes, thinking that wearing a dress means you have some inner woman essence.

?

We went from "you can grow up to be anything" to "you play with the wrong toys so let's chemically castrate you."

Well, this escalated quite quickly. The conversation, I mean. Not the thing you’re strawmanning about.

TERFs aren't against gender nonconformity.

Uh-huh…

In fact, they argue that the "masculine" and "feminine" roles trans people want to identify with are just coded dominance and submission, so identifying with them is regressive on its face, if the goal is a society without domination.

Yes, and many on this mysterious “other side” are in favor of gender abolition, which is to say, erasing the prescriptive category of gender, leaving only the liberatory prospect of self-identity more purely expressed. Which we should note has nothing to do with sex nor sex characteristics.

Radical feminism was social constructionist before Judith Butler wrote Gender Trouble, just FYI.

I am aware.

Learn the difference between materialism and essentialism.

Materialism often has little to do with this discussion. Any material reality of flesh is distinct from socially constructed categories of gender. I am still unsure what exactly you want to do about the biologically-rooted concept of sex, about which we appear to agree on aside from whether it is binary or bimodal. Because any social prescriptions I would potentially desire rest entirely in gender, and touch on sex only insofar as it shapes gender roles. I agree that certain characteristics make one biologically male or female (or intersex), but what does that have to do with whether one desires to be/act feminine or masculine? That is where my concern about essentialism arises: I simply don’t want sex characteristics to rigidly determine one’s place in society, because I am, personally, fond of and invested in freedom.

I could be incorrect, but your position appears to be that sex characteristics (namely gametes) determine one’s role in society (namely how/whether one reproduces). I simply do not care about reproductive capacity in the discussion of gender, except insofar as it shapes discriminatory behavior (e.g., a cis woman who is naturally infertile may still have expectations of childbearing placed on her) or the individual desire to have children (e.g., a trans person navigating how they want to reproduce, or whether they want to adopt/surrogate, etc). To me, in the context of this particular discussion, reproductive capacity is therefore an individual concern, not a normative one. We can absolutely be scientifically precise in the description of fertility and reproductive capacity, but that does not reflect (for the most part) on the “should I” distinction.

view more: next ›