#(since I'm really not that bothered about others being able to parse it)

[wr0ngwarp]

some refs for my jet set radio explorers of death joke au (that sure is a sentence) because i wanted to put them on art fight (..mostly for warehouse leapusverse lore reasons)

beat and yoyo seemed like they needed refs most urgently cuz beat has a bunch of designs on account of being squirtle and yoyo's design was just hard to parse in the pics he appeared in. yeagh

art fight bio under the cut for ppl who don't have an art fight account

based on PMD: Explorers of Death by sparklingdemon, HIGHLY recommended reading to get a grasp on what in the goddamn is going on here oh this is incredibly silly. so basically a while ago there was an in-joke about jsr and eod in a pokepasta discord i'm in, and i have a bad habit of taking jokes too far. so, of course, i took the joke WAY WAY WAY too far! the entire joke is the idea that Corn in Future retconned og JSR Beat as leader/founder of the GGs, so Corn and Beat are the Myras. no it’s not a joke funny enough to justify how many hours i sunk into drawing these. no attempt was made to change the setting, assign most of the other cast, or otherwise make this au hold up to ANY amount of scrutiny.

---- the base concept (aka reskinned eod plot) is that the og JSR timeline was getting, like, temporally retconned into the Future timeline, but Beat (in the role of Squirtle) refused to accept the changeover so he tried to hold onto his own fading timeline, trapping it (and himself) in a state of perpetual decay until he can take back the timeline. basically everybodys a grayscale rotting zombie it's miserable. also if you think "hey, isn't EOD!Beat less justified than Squirtle because the situation WASN'T life or death until he MADE IT that way" you would be right lmao JSRF Corn (as Myra), being the leader of the GGs in Future, shows up (overwriting the preexisting version of Tab ig) to try to put the dying timeline out of its misery so it can actually be reborn into the Future timeline. for some reason his spraypaint can make the zombies pass on. don't question it. he and Beat are kind of trying to take each other down so one timeline can take precedent here. Gum (as Shadow) is kind of torn between the two of them, with two overlapping contradicting sets of memories and also the most disastrous way to possibly combine her JSR and JSRF designs LMAO. her loyalties are kind of torn as a result and also she understandably isnt a big fan of all the murder going on here ... ...also, because this is a joke au that i did not bother to try to make sense, they're in the goddamn Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers for no real reason. i also tend to call Beat and Corn "Meat and Mourn" though i dont have a nickname for Gum :(. and they have some level of meta awareness that they're in a poorly crafted joke AU based on an existing creepypasta, and yet this knowledge of how inane it all is doesn't stop them from riding it out to its horrific conclusion. ...ha ha? also Yoyo is Bidoof he's just here to be the first to die dont worry about him

---- also because there's something profoundly wrong with me i have the main trio + Yoyo in me and my sibling's joke multi-crossover RP. Corn is MIA right now, Gum is in the Garage with the setting's regular version of the GGs (they are confused and concerned. esp normal!Gum)... ...and, uh... Beat and Yoyo are in the Warehouse. (Pauein 9696 is just kind of there too.) they're... friends? i think......???? they are trapped in there and dont know Warehouse Yoyo is actually the goddamn building theyre trapped in

in the warehouse, eod!yoyo is kind of... barely coherent, only aware a fraction of the time, and not really able to do a whole lot since he's in such bad condition. he's just kind of taking anything as it happens at this point bc he can't do anything about it, but internally he's very pessimistic both about the idea that Beat can fix anything OR that there's any chance they'll escape the warehouse. eod!beat is... sort of kind of friends with the Warehouse but it's a very fragile friendship prone to arguments since he is trying VERY hard to leave (esp cuz he has UNFINISHED BUSINESS with killing corn and MAKING THINGS RIGHT) but Warehouse Yoyo is manipulatively trying to keep him without letting on that's what he's doing. both of these guys are fucked in the head tbh. at least nobody's judging each other for being walking corpses with weird metafiction elements.

[lorbanery]

I finally got to watch Skinamarink and I have Thoughts

They're not BAD thoughts, for the record. I don't think I came away with the same deep love for it that I've seen from other spooky spectrum horror fans, but I did APPRECIATE it.

Spoilers under the cut

CW: Horror content, VERY small children left alone in a dangerous situation, child harm, and discussing the use of film techniques to alter the viewer's perspective.

I'm ... probably never going to watch Skinamarink again. Not because there's anything particularly wrong with it, I don't think it was poorly written, poorly conceived, or poorly executed. I wouldn't even say it's just not my bag the way I would to explain why I haven't bothered to watch any given slasher movie.

But it's very very uncomfortable.

And let me be clear: I'm pretty sure that's the point!

Like, without looking it up, what I got out of this was that they thought to themselves, "What would be the scariest thing about being in a spooky horror movie?" and the answer was, "Being the little kid who has no idea what's going on." And rather than just try to tell a story from the perspective of a kid in a haunted house, they attempted to recreate that experience for the audience.

There is a story happening, but we don't see it because the filmmakers have assigned us the role of one of the tiny children. So we see what they think is important, and what they think is important are each other and the images of their parents and the voices telling them things and the cartoons and the toys and a few particular parts of the house. We understand what they understand, and what they understand is that mom and dad are gone and so are the doors and there's something scary upstairs and when a grownup tells you to do something you're supposed to do it and when you get hurt you're supposed to call 911. We see the things that they see, which are an extension of what they think is important, hence the focus on the cartoons and the toys.

I think the choice to use the old filming equipment (or at least heavily filter the footage and sound to appear as such) also heavily leans into this framework. The sound quality is so bad that you can't always understand or even hear what's being said by the other entity/entities in the house; which would track with the language skills of the kids. We know that one is four years old, I didn't catch the other one's specific age, but it seemed pretty clear that she was around the same age. Kids that age don't always understand what the adults around them are saying. They also have adults talking around them all the time so don't bother listening to everything they're saying.

The extreme graininess of the film lends itself to the way small children don't really understand everything in their world. They don't have the life experience or the mental space to be able to look at any given object or creature and parse what it is or who it is. So the audience sometimes just sees blurry figures while the toys are in perfect, crystal clarity.

In addition to that, the graininess of the film also lent itself to some of the creepiness of the sequences with visible people — notably the "mother" and the face near the end. Because the grain acts like static where the individual dots flicker, it creates an illusion of movement. This was especially creepy with the mother in particular, since you could see her from the waist up (from the back) and there were times when it seemed like she was squirming ever-so-slightly, ever-so-slowly, in a very unnatural way. It just added to the sense that this was wrong, that this isn't Mom, it's something else.

I liked it.

I like it more on a metatextual level, and that's fine, that's not a complaint or a flaw in the movie. Though I can also understand why a lot of people didn't like it.

I've come away satisfied with the experience and satisfied with it being a one time experience, especially because I just cannot sit through that knife dialogue again.

[cesium-sheep]

@crippled-sheep​ I don’t know that I feel up to an actual back-and-forth so it may require further revisiting, but I did want to more clearly explain my actual point of disagreement from the other day while I have the (many, many) words for it.

so first a point of clarification, I strongly strongly prefer the term “neurodivergent” over “neurodiverse”. I know they’re nearly identical and probably come from the same linguistic root but neurodivergent pairs much more clearly with neurotypical, and “neurodiverse” has “handicapable” vibes to it for me. neurodivergent (or neuroatypical, which is harder to parse and less ideal) also still has a connotation of Weird, divergence rather than diversity.* my primary issue with broadening “the neurodivergent/neurodiverse community” to cover the entire mental illness community is that “the neurodivergent community” already meant something specific. the term is already in use. and it’s really really valuable for autistic/adhd folks (and folks with other closely related disorders by internal experience, not by behavior, behaviorists can kiss my grits) to be able to find each other easily. we’re not being offered a replacement term and there wasn’t one already in use, so as an autistic person who required access to community in order to figure myself out, it feels very much like nt mentally ill folks going “mm, no, ours now” and actively taking something away. (also see how useful a quick recognizable distinction is even in this sentence.)

if we had a replacement term in common use it really wouldn’t bother me that much! I’d still have some qualms with it** but I probably wouldn’t bother raising a fuss directly when other people used it.

it’s kinda like how the nonbinary community has moved away from using “nb” as a shorthand for ourselves, because we were told that the black community had already been using nb to mean non-black presumably longer than we’d been using it to mean nonbinary, so our use was causing unnecessary confusion and potential distress.*** broadening “neurodivergent” to mean the whole mental illness community and its offshoots/relatives causes unnecessary confusion and distress, as it was already being used to mean something more specific and losing that specificity breaks up community and muddles meaning (which distresses me lol).

I absolutely do think there should be a destigmatized umbrella term available for the broader community! which I did say even in my initial dissent. but I don’t think it should be chosen by actively taking away from a subcommunity, and I also don’t think a word change will magically fix any prejudice against mental illness. based on my own experiences as an ad hoc practitioner, a mentally ill person, and an advocate, I feel efforts are much better directed at destigmatization of existing community terms rather than finding (appropriating) one that might be more mainstream palatable and pouring effort into widespread adoption while leaving the subcommunity it was appropriated from in the lurch.****

tl;dr: the only actual point of disagreement I have is over recent appropriation of This Specific Preexisting Term as the umbrella term due to the additional harm I see from it compared to using the preexisting umbrella term of “mental illness/disorder”. everything else you said about community and subcommunity and representation I genuinely totally agree with.*****

I hope that makes things a little clearer, even if we still disagree about the relative levels of harm between the two.

---

* (and I don’t think using “neurodivergent” for one and “neurodiverse” for the other would work, as others will definitely struggle to parse the distinction. to the point where I genuinely couldn’t remember which one you used in the original context until I scrolled back to look. you were using “neurodiverse” and I was using “neurodivergent” and we both proceeded as if it was the same word.)

** (mostly demedicalization of some genuine potentially medical concerns to a degree that smells suspiciously like unexamined internalized ableism, which will significantly negatively impact people’s willingness to seek proper support and potential treatment at a time when we already have tiktok folks going “oh there’s nothing wrong with you you’re just a ~star child~” or whatever to audiences of millions. “oh I wouldn’t benefit from medication or therapy or other forms of treatment/support for mental illness I’m just ~neurodiverse~” yknow? which to be fair in my current usage of nd isn’t generally the case, we’re very big on medication and other supports for folks who would benefit from it even though there’s a very strong push for total demedicalization of autism in particular.****** I just feel that’s how I often see it used by people outside that subcommunity.)

*** (altho there is an even older use as a shorthand for “nota bene” often used to highlight important context, which I’ve picked up from friends that have done academic writing and very nearly used a couple times when writing this :v still think the black community wins custody of that one through a combination of both precedent and priority, especially given the “nota bene” use is generally very distinct contextually and not in direct connotative competition.)

**** (like how the disabled community as a whole is pretty firm about using the term disabled, or the chronically ill community is pretty firm about yes really I am Sick.)

***** (I think, to clarify the original original point of contention, the reason most people use “neurodiverse” to mean “autism and adhd” is because. that’s already the subcommunity term that was in use. we’re focusing on our subcommunity because that’s always been what we mean when we say neurodivergent. and the fact that usage is actively in flux seems to be causing distress and confusion for those who mean the broader usage as much as it is for those who mean the more specific usage. there absolutely should be community and resources for the broader usage gathered under an umbrella term, but I just would really prefer it if a different term could be used, such as the preexisting “mental illness/disorder” umbrella. because while I don’t think the specific usage has any distinct priority over the broader usage, it absolutely has precedent, and ignoring the precedent causes harm in excess of the harm I see in deferring to precedent.)

****** (but not the common secondary disorders that can come from existing as an autistic, importantly - I think the distinction is mostly just “treatment” for autism is generally far more harm than good, with some exceptions that are focused on functioning in a neurotypical world rather than actually treating symptoms. which is generally not the case outside of autism, at least for modern outpatient treatment of the mental disorders I’m familiar with as an ad hoc practitioner. also I’m so sorry for putting a footnote in a footnote lol I just have Many Opinions and A Very Large Character Limit)

[wingsyliveblogs]

The thing that bothered me about the misunderstanding is that the detention kids where basically doing the same thing that they got upset over- getting Luz out of the class for something better. They knew she shouldn't be in there, that's why they didn't stay in there themselves and were getting her out.

(Context.)

I'm finding it a bit difficult to parse your message here, but I think what you're saying is that you were bothered by the troublemaker trio being upset with Luz for wanting to break out of detention when they snuck her out of detention themselves?

I'd say that's kind of the root of the misunderstanding to begin with: they were coming at the situation from different angles to begin with. Luz didn't want to be in detention at first because she thought she wouldn't be able to learn anything in there, but once she realised her fellow detentioners were in the same boat as her and that they could study anything they wanted using the shortcut room, her opinion changed.

But the trio had thought she was on the same page as them the whole time, and they didn't know why she wanted to break out of detention at first, or about her internal change of heart, so they jumped to the worst possible conclusion (likely based off prior experience). In a sense, they themselves never actually broke out of detention entirely, since no one knew about the shortcut room and they clearly hadn't been caught before. Presumably, they tended to stay put in the detention classroom as long as anyone else was around, and snuck out only when it was safe, which is a little bit different from getting out of the place entirely.

I get the feeling they took pride in being the "troublemakers" who insisted on doing things their own way... otherwise, well, they could have done the same thing Willow and Gus wanted to do for Luz and talked to Principal Bump about getting out of detention! Since they knew about the shortcut room already, they could totally have pretended they were going to be good students who would stick to a single track while studying other magic secretly on the side, and given Principal Bump's prior record of leniency, he probably would have let them off the hook if they promised not to make any more trouble.

But they chose not to do that - either because it was easier to study what they wanted when they didn't have a pre-set schedule to follow, or because they were afraid that they'd be more likely to be caught mixing magic if they didn't stay where they were.

As a result, Luz wanting to leave the place entirely came across as a betrayal, and as a statement that she wasn't truly one of them. The phrasing Luz used when talking about detention does sound pretty bad without context, and the only context even we have for it is that we know she's not the kind of person to look down on others. The troublemaker trio, however, barely knew her at all, so they had no way of knowing what she meant. And so, they assumed the worst.

I think it does, in a way, come back to something I mentioned while watching the episode: while it seems like the detention trio really only have one another, Luz has several other friends in the school. She had reason to want to be out and about, while the trio were content where they were, which did mean that while she was in a very similar situation to them, and she definitely did understand them, they weren't quite the same. And I believe it was from this slight difference that the misunderstanding arose - especially given that it was Luz's friends themselves who inadvertently instigated it.

But regardless of how they felt at first, I'm pretty sure that they'll all be happier now that they're officially permitted to study what they want, so at least there's that!

[ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is]

Hi I’m the anon whose ask didn’t come through. I'm stuck between ENFP and ENTP and was hoping you could help me. I see lower Te in me whenever I'm stressed, like this morning, I had to drop my brother off at school and he was refusing to be quick and was running late as a result, I started steamrolling and becoming very micromanager-ish, going behind him for every little task, every few minutes. It happens in group projects as well, when it's closing in on the deadline and (1/5)

we don't have sufficient work done, I become someone who nags others till the work is done and up to standard. But my problem starts here; I don't see much Fi in me. I'm pretty lax with people and when I meet people whom I don't get along with, I prefer to stay neutral with them unless they really rub me the wrong way and after that it's really hard for me to change my opinion on them. But otherwise, I strive to find middle ground to get along. (2/5)

Another thing that really makes me feel I'm not Fi is the fact I really need to be appreciated by my family and friends for my achievements. I need to be told I'm good and get a nice ego stroking, otherwise I won't be able move on from it and I became upset. I also love to be seen as someone who is competent and well liked by others. I don't have any strong morals and think of myself to be very grey most of the time because I need to look at all the sides before coming to a conclusion (3/5)What I feel is evidence of Ti is my need for logic to solve problems by picking the easiest solution and how to get results even if it seems illogical to others. I find it hard to talk about my feelings and only do so when I feel everything is too much. I also can't identify what I feel all the time like a Fi user can, most of the time it's just indifference to the situation at hand. If I don't feel any attachments to causes, I can't be bothered to campaign just for the sake of it (4/5)

Whenever I get upset with someone, I kinda explode telling them why I'm upset and ice them after that until I feel okay again or they apologize (yes I know that's unhealthy). I'm quite prone to throwing temper tantrums when I feel I’m being ignored. When I’m at my lowest, I’m the most emotionally volatile person and I need to be listened to without being judged and without giving me solutions to my problems. Does this speak of any functions in particular? Thanks. (5/5)

------------------

Hi anon,

First part: this sounds more like you just do what you need to do to be on time. It might be Te but it might just be that you want to get things done.

Second: this could be Fi. Fi doesn’t mean you have a strong opinion on everyone or don’t want to get along - it means you have strong opinions on some people. In fact, enneagram 9 - the ‘just get along’ enneatype - is pretty common in high Fi users (not saying you’re a 9, just saying this isn’t incompatible high Fi behavior).

Third: Wanting attention from specific people is more tied to heart/shame core enneatypes than MBTI. Wanting to be seen as competent is often more a high Te thing than a tertiary Te thing.

I generally find it difficult to parse when people say they don’t have any strong morals since I think most reasonable people are not of a Javert-like “stealing bread is always wrong” mindset. People can handle ambiguity. I’m not saying everyone thinks that way, but it’s somewhat reductive to assume that it’s abnormal to want to get a lot of information before making a judgement call on moral stances - and it’s not tied to MBTI. Similarly, most people don’t act unless they feel an attachment to a cause - I mean, why would you? (I wrote an aside on this but it got long so I’m posting it separately).

What you say about your approach to logic and lack of awareness does sound like high Ti, so I would say given your initial choices of ENTP and ENFP, ENTP - probably with extremely unhealthy Fe if you throw temper tantrums as, I assume, a teenager - sounds more likely. The behaviors you thought could be Te sound more like perhaps being driven by your need to seem competent.