As much as people hate to admit it. Alot of these new rappers essentially get praised for what kid buu was doing.

I did little quick render of scarlet on the full resolution of my new monitor. Sorry if the colors may be fucked I'm still trying to calibrate it. #StellarBlade #VirtualPhotography

Happy for you! And cute kitty

Best compliment

After 7 years of service my monitor is showing this dark shade thing across the screen. Damn its really showing its age.

Cute

So cute

I prefer no lofic. I think its more natural. But then again I come from an era where cameras were allowed to be a little dark or a bit too bright

Me too man

Not to mention these lenses can't really resolve 200mp anyway. Whats even more funny in order for these to perform at its best they have to super bin it down to 12 megapixels anyway. Not to mention if you have to crop the sensor beyond the native focal length you lose resolution as well which another reason the AI gets so aggressive.

Your original position was basically that she was 100% the victim, that people relentlessly harassed her until she snapped, and that her later hostility was mostly her returning the energy. My point has been that this reverses a lot of the cause and effect. A significant amount of the backlash toward her came after her own public comments about trans people, and she continued escalating that rhetoric afterward. We agree that actual harassment, threats, stalking, malicious reporting, etc. are wrong. Where we still disagree is treating criticism, blocking, declining commissions, or communities deciding they don’t want her around as if those are all part of the same persecution. They aren’t. And saying her consequences shouldn’t be as big as they are still assumes every community owes her some proportional punishment system. If an LGBTQ space sees her repeatedly saying she doesn’t respect trans identities, calling LGBTQ related things disgusting or propaganda, and posting imagery like her model ripping a trans flag, they’re allowed to decide they simply don’t want her there. That’s not automatically harassment or an excessive punishment, that’s them exercising the same freedom of association she expects for herself. So yeah, we agree harassment is wrong. But I still disagree with the broader narrative that she was basically an innocent person who got pushed into all of this and that the backlash largely came first.

Then I think we mostly agree on the actual point I was making. I’ve never argued that she should be endlessly insulted, harassed, or threatened. I’ve repeatedly said the opposite. My point is that her rhetoric has foreseeable social consequences, and criticism, blocking, declining to work with her, or removing her from a community are not automatically harassment. If you agree both sides are free to make those choices and deal with the consequences, then that’s basically what I’ve been saying this entire time.

Whether you personally like the word “transphobe” has nothing to do with whether criticism, blocking, refusing a commission, or removing someone from a community automatically constitutes harassment. Also, phobia in terms like homophobia, xenophobia, and transphobia doesn’t exclusively mean literal fear it can refer to aversion or hostility. My argument still hasn’t changed, she is free to express those beliefs, and other people are free to view them negatively and disassociate from her. Actual harassment is wrong, but you keep treating ordinary negative reactions to her deliberate rhetoric as though they’re all harassment, and that’s the distinction I’ve been making this entire time.

But you’ve basically just agreed with what I’ve been saying. You acknowledge that her refusal is deliberate, that she doesn’t view their identities as legitimate, and that communities have the right to remove her over it. That’s not somebody being punished for an accidental “error.” I also don’t know where no compromise comes into this. Nobody has to compromise their beliefs. She can refuse someone’s pronouns, and those people can decide that’s disrespectful and refuse to associate with her. The freedom works both ways. What I disagree with is jumping from that to “they’re the ones doing all of the harassment.” Criticism, blocking someone, declining their commission, or removing them from a community is not automatically harassment. If someone genuinely harasses her, condemn that person for it. But treating every negative consequence of her own deliberate rhetoric as harassment is exactly the double standard I’ve been pointing out.

We're not talking about somebody accidentally using the wrong pronoun and getting attacked for a mistake. She explicitly said she would refuse to use someone’s pronouns because she doesn’t believe their gender is legitimate. That is a deliberate choice, not an “error.” And even if you personally think that refusal is fair, other people are equally free to react negatively to it, refuse to associate with her, decline her commissions, or remove her from their communities. That’s the double standard I keep pointing out, her boundaries are treated as legitimate, while everybody else’s boundaries toward her are treated as persecution. None of this means harassment is justified. It means her reputation and the ordinary backlash toward her did not just appear from nowhere.

I feel like you’re narrowing the argument more and more instead of addressing what I’m actually saying. I’m not arguing that the isolated sentence is automatically antagonistic in every possible context. I’m talking about the broader pattern which is refusing trans people’s pronouns, framing Pride/gender diverse representation as something being forced on people, calling it disgusting, posting imagery of a trans flag being ripped apart, and then acting confused when LGBTQ+ people see that as hostile. Dysphoria being a mental condition doesn’t mean being trans itself is a mental illness, and an 18+ stream doesn’t make criticism of what was said somehow invalid. “People don’t have to watch” is irrelevant to whether people can react to public statements afterward. And I never said anyone was harassing the artist. My point was the opposite, the artist quietly declined the commission, and Mia was the one who publicized it and called them unprofessional for exercising the exact same freedom of association she expects for herself. The original claim was that her hostility came from being harassed first. I challenged that with the chronology and examples, and now the argument has shifted to defending individual sentences in isolation. That still doesn’t establish that the backlash came first or that her broader rhetoric isn’t inflammatory.

That doesn't really address what I said though. The artist declined the transaction. Mia then publicized it and even made shit up about being unprofessional. The artist wasn't demanding her money and then complaining when she withheld it. They actively turned her money down. You can't make one person's ideological boundary legitimate and then characterize the other person's equivalent boundary as a defect. And also dehumanizing and inflammatory are not the same thing. Her rhetoric repeatedly antagonizes LGBTQ+ people, and it is therefore unsurprising that many LGBTQ+ people and spaces react negatively to her. So even if its said in a "civil" tone because civil is a descriptor of a tone. Someone can calmly and politely say things that are deliberately antagonistic toward a group. This wasn't limited to something mild like “I personally have questions about gender.” She rejects trans identities/pronouns, describing transition as people harming their bodies, treating Pride/gender diverse representation as something being forced onto people, reacting to Pride representation with “this is disgusting,” and even using imagery of her model ripping a trans flag. That is pretty obviously going to be perceived as hostile by trans people whether she puts swear words in the sentence or not. And all this goes back to the end of my previous statement. Earlier its she's hostile to that group because they harassed her, but the moment that claim gets challenged chronological examples and now the defense is that she's been "civil" which I think is a weak claim in itself if you take one look at her tweets. Even if both of those latter things were true, they wouldn't establish that the hostility toward her appeared first and caused her rhetoric.

I just got an idea

The backlash didn’t just appear randomly and then cause all of her rhetoric. A huge amount of attention toward her came after her own inflammatory comments about trans people went viral, and she continued making similar posts afterward. That doesn’t justify harassment, but it does explain why her reputation became what it is. And I really don’t understand blaming the artist here. They didn’t attack her, they politely declined a commission because they didn’t want to work with someone whose values conflicted with theirs. That’s their boundary to set. She was the one who turned around and publicly mocked them for losing money. This is what I meant earlier, you can’t defend her freedom to disassociate from people she disagrees with while criticizing an artist for exercising that exact same freedom. I don't get why her hostility is always explained away by what other people did to her, but everyone else’s hostility is treated as if it appeared out of thin air. And obviously that doesn’t mean anything people do back is justified. It just means you can’t keep saying that what she does is okay because she was "provoked" while leaving out the part that people react that way because of the consistent targeting or insults.

I do agree that some people take it way too far, but the hostility toward her clearly doesn’t come out of nowhere. She repeatedly makes inflammatory remarks, then either frames the backlash as completely unprovoked harassment or ends up being blatantly hypocritical about it. She demands the freedom to disassociate herself from people whose values she disagrees with, but then gets angry when other people exercise that exact same freedom toward her. She even publicly called out an artist and mocked them for “losing money” simply because they chose not to accept her as a client. And then you look at the broader pattern of her posts: she repeatedly characterizes trans identities, Pride representation, and gender diversity as disgusting, harmful, or something being “forced” onto people. At that point, it really shouldn’t be surprising when LGBTQ+ communities or just individuals in general develop a negative opinion of her or decide they don’t want her around. That’s a completely foreseeable consequence of how she presents herself publicly. Inclusion does not mean a community is obligated to indefinitely accommodate someone who is openly hostile toward the very people or values that bring that community together.