#But I'm so psyched that there are parallels to other languages I know

[salvadorbonaparte]

I couldn't find any German Croatian textbooks that I liked so I got the Teach Yourself one and it's quite good but the funniest thing is that I forgot that English people don't have cases or genders and need those things explained

[arabian-bloodstream]

The Object of Your Ire, Take 2

OK, so I've been reading posts on HOTD this season but been quiet, but after this last episode, I had to come out of hiding, because, yeah, I just can't. I called this after season 1, and I think I'm pretty sure where we're headed now. I genuinely do not believe that Daemon is being written out of character, or that this is coming out of nowhere, or that this makes no sense, or that Daemyra are being destroyed. Truly, just be patient. I think we're gonna be good.

I wrote this on October 21, 2022: The Object of Your Ire

And, yeah, I was almost 99% right there, so I've got a pretty good read on the thought process they got going. So, here's my take.

First, let's assess the situation.

Viserys dies. The throne is usurped. Daemon wants to go to war. He has no problem crowning her because they are both fire and blood. However, like Viserys, Rhaenyra cautions temperance. Because of this, Daemon fears she is weak like his brother. Luke is killed and Rhaenyra is enraged, and Daemon thinks now she will be on the same page as him. They will go to war and wipe out the traitors. They will indeed burn together. Instead, due to the Jaehaerys "mistake," Rhaenyra is once more urging caution, and Daemon's not here for that. Rhaenyra finally calls him out on the fact that Viserys didn't trust him, and now she knows that she can't either, not in this very volatile climate.

Daemon is proud and stubborn, and just as he didn't believe that Viserys didn't trust him but it was rather a case of jealousy and his own ego at play cannot see that it truly was the fact that his own intemperate actions pushed Viserys, and now Rhaenyra to this point. So he storms off. Now, in Harrenhal, these visions he is having are bringing home his guilt, parallels to moments in his life with Rhaenyra that pertain to her as heir and him not.

1) The camera work when he "killed" young!Rhaenyra was identical to when Viserys had him on the floor in S1EP4 and Viserys told him he didn't want Rhaenyra he wanted the crown 2) Rhaenyra on the Iron Throne as he walked towards her paralleled when we first saw him and Rhaenyra in the first episode but it was Daemon on the throne 3) Young!Rhaenyra was wearing the same dress that Rhaenyra was wearing when she mentioned Aegon's prophecy to her, the same when he choked her

(Also, someone pointed out that in the actual scene in the 1st episode, Daemon and Rhaenyra spoke Valyrian to each other. In this haunting vision, only young!Rhaenyra is doing so. Daemon is speaking the Common Tongue. He does not want to engage in their "secret language" in this version of young!Rhaenyra because she is not the real Rhaenyra and he knows that.)

So, why? Why is he having these visions? And why did he have the vision of having sex with his mother? Because Daemon has deep-seated issues of guilt and ego, and mommy and daddy-issues. Because Daemon feels like he should have been the one on the throne. That HE was better than Viserys. That HE would have been a better king than Viserys. That he would have been the favored son. But remember… these aren't JUST Daemon's visions, he's also almost assuredly being slipped something from Alys Rivers to hallucinate things. So, there is that. Basically, we're having a deep character dive into Daemon to deal with his guilt over some of the fucked-up things he's done, his issues that are even too much for him, and Alys's woowooaaahh! is pushing that along its way.

Oh, and BTW, that woman in Daemon's hallucination wasn't ACTUALLY Alyssa Targaryen. So, people saying, oh noes, they've ruined Alyssa Targaryen, no, no, they have not. We haven't met the real Alyssa Targaryen. That was some fucked-up concoction of Daemon's deranged psyche, not the real woman. Not by a long shot. Daemon desperately misses his wife, but he messed that up, and can't admit that he messed up. He's not there yet. He can't admit that. He also can't admit that he would make a lousy king. Last we heard him say, he's still saying that he should be king, and Rhaenyra his queen, by his side. Ah, ah, ah, ah, but I think the reason for this arc is to deal with that once and for all….

And there's good news on that front.

I know I'm kinda all over the place here, and I apologize, but there's a crap-ton to unravel. Look, Daemon is a fucking mess. But the first two episodes set this up perfectly to get us where we are and lead us, I believe, to where I think we're going. I could be wrong, absolutely, but I really did nail the whole Daemon/Viserys/Rhaenyra lack of trust/heir messed up in the head thing. I really did. So, I'm kinda trusting my gut here.

So, first couple of episodes, Daemon is itching to do things his way. He can't as he's waiting for the queen's go-ahead, but she's off looking for proof of Luke's death. She finally comes back and gives him that go-ahead. YAY! He thinks, but then he makes a "mistake," and she tears into him, telling him some very hard truths that he is just not willing to hear. So he storms off on his dragon. That's our set-up.

Then the next three episodes have been at first, he's working on getting the army for her, but then it starts to become about well, she's not doing this how I would, and I would be better so I should be the king and she can be my queen, so it should be my army, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Except it hasn't been as black and white as that because:

He's having all of these visions that are wrecking him, reminding him of how he was not the chosen heir at one point, it was Rhaenyra. (Natch, just like in the real world, Aegon/Alicent were getting that same dose of reality.)

He's stomping all over the Riverlands trying to force people to do his bidding as he would if he were king. First he tells the young Tully heir to kill his grandfather (nope, won't do, the kid loves his grandsire), then he threatens to kill the Brackens (or Blackwoods, I forget which, LOL) with dragonfire (nope, they'd rather die), then he's all do war crimes, but not in my name (they do the war crimes, under the Targ flag). In other words, Daemon does everything wrong. He kinda shows that Viserys was right.

We have that lovely final shot of him, head bent as he leans against the fireplace that flows directly into from the opposite side --> Rhaenyra leaning against the fireplace, head bent. SOULMATES!

Then she has her little talk with Lord Alfred, sending him to Harrenhal to find out what are Daemon's intentions. And there are three very interesting things of note in this scene. 1) That she knows Daemon well enough to know that he might be considering raising a host in his name. Yeah, it's awful of Daemon to even be considering that, but the fact that Rhaenyra knows him THAT WELL, yeah, you go, Rhae-rhae!, 2) Lord Alfred immediately was all like: "His intentions? But, but, but… Prince Daemon would never!" Loved that. Because you know it did not come from a place of Daemon Targaryen is just known for being SUCH a loyal guy, but rather because they know he loves his wife. Uh huh! And 3) Rhaenyra's message: That she wants to finish their conversation. Love, love, love that. Girl is like, babe, we gonna hash this out!

Furthermore, we also had Jace (sweet, beautiful, perfect Jace, Iluvusomuch!) having Daemon's back when talking to the Freys, but straight up just expecting Daemon to be there for Rhaenyra because that's just what's been up for so long, and then he cut himself off because of their, erm, "marital spat, but still, yeah, he just, that's his expectation about Daemon when it comes to Rhaenyra, and that just made my heart go SQUEE!

On another Jace note with regards to Daemon and the Riverlands, so ya got Daemon there failing spectacularly in his attempt to gain a host, while Jace--using tactics learned from his mother's school of politicking--got a big swath of Riverlands mileage they can use. So, Daemon's whole 'your way sucks, my way is better' isn't quite working which brings me back to eps 1-2 set-up, and what eps 3-5 have been doing for us.

Rhaenyra asked Daemon "Do you accept me as your queen and ruler?" We didn't get an answer. I believe--and I totes, totes could be wrong, but I believe that we are heading toward the moment when Daemon can answer Rhaenyra because he has exorcised enough of his demons that he can finally say yes. He can say yes because he realizes that his way isn't the way. That Viserys didn't trust him because of Daemon's actions, not because of jealousy on his brother's part. And that Rhaenyra following suit wasn't her lack of faith, but Daemon's lack of control. And that is his arc, gaining that realization, and that control, restoring her faith in him.

I think.

[archivalofsins]

Eyyyyy new Deco song-

Sooooo many good Mahiru third cover song options what a dilemma-

"Ack the dilemma is enorma, help me out, come on doctor, my emotion's a sticky glitter bomb."

"Mon-mon-monstrously in love in love. A monstrous dilemma!!!"

"The ever looming problem of "never enough"."

"Oh, snap, this melancholic mind awakened from its slumber- BAD Miss Disaster, party night."

22/01/17 (Mahiru’s Birthday) Mahiru: My birthday…… the day I was born…… But was there really any reason for me being born? Lately I’ve started to wonder that. Do you ever think about stuff like that, Yuno-chan? Yuno: Eh? Not really. I mean, Mahiru-san, you’re really the romantic type, right? Not that I have anything against that. But isn’t it a bit much to think that everything in life has a meaning? If it makes you happy to think like that then go ahead, but if it doesn’t, then isn’t that in itself meaningless? Mahiru: : ……you might be right. I’ve always just lived my life like this, so I don’t really know. Yuno: We’ve all just gone through a bunch of things in life that happened to lead us here. It’s nothing more than a coincidence. Definitely not fate or anything. Probably. Even if there isn’t a meaning, you can still be happy that it’s your birthday. That sort of thing’s all you need in life really. So happy birthday, Mahiru-san.

"My emotions are out of control, that’s inconvenient? I don’t care! Tell me, oh tell me why, won’t you just accept me?" - "Tell me, oh tell me why, can’t I just do it right."

"My emotion on rotation, like the daily special, here's a plate of my emotions champuru."

"My emotions are out of control, that’s inconvenient? I don’t care!"

"Gotta push again, don't you see? I've got no option but to push- This see-saw won't see-saw because my love's too heavy."

"Kiss good-bye to this feeling cuz it’s too heavy? I can’t, no way no way no way!"- "My love, it scored an own goal, destroyed my love and me with its weight. Tell me, oh tell me why, can’t I just do it right?"

"Ack, the dilemma is enorma, help me out, come on doctor, disappointment being born in the form of a glitter bomb. My head's on fire."

"Push down my feelings and take a moment to make you feel like "Hmmm, I want more". Adulting at a balance is what's called for, apparently. Like, "I'm so busy", psych! "Sorry, I was sleeping", psych! I just get so hopelessly confused ugh, RIP to me, seriously..."

"Even when I test you, even the times we do the breakup ritual is because I love you." - "I pretended to be a good girl, I don’t want to be “ok”."

"Is this A-OK-o?"

Do you really think you know what love is? If you do, let’s just overheat together!

"Giving you love to the point of pulling you down. It’s just because I still get worried, please forgive me." - "I just love you so much!"

"My heads on FIRE, Ha-ha-Hao of a love trifecta! Can you please give me the things you wanna do too?"

"I hate you, hate you so much, is that what you're thinking?"

"No way, Ha-ha-hao of a love trifecta what I'm coveting is to be oh so loved!"

"The things that I only want to say to you, and the things that I want from you is love."

And even a possible cute callback to her second interrogation answer?

Q.04 Can you speak any languages other than Japanese?

Mahiru: I picked Chinese as an elective subject at university but, well, I don’t think I can really say I speak it.

Well, It's a nice passing thought but I guess we'll see when we see. That's if she even makes it to her third trial though. Who knows what could happen.

Forgot because I was starving that it would also be fun for her to get this because it would parallel well with Futa getting Salamander this trial. in a Plus highlight the similarities between them in how they feel love and are heavily attracted to extreme emotions/ black and white framings. They're both either all in or out sometimes. I don't think it's a coincidence they've shown them subtly getting closer over trial two. Futa and Mahiru actually have a great deal in common just as Mahiru does with Kotoko as well.

[captain-grammar]

Tagged by the AMAZING and double-y talented @goldheartedsky to participate in this writer's ask:

1) How many works do you have on AO3? 22. Because I'm excellent at thinking up ideas and then scaring myself out of writing them. 2) What’s your total AO3 word count? 89,347. Again, I'm AMAZING at psyching myself out of projects.

3) What fandoms do you write for? The bulk of my paltry number of fics are The Old Guard focussed, but I have an ANCIENT, unfinished Stargate: Atlantis fic on there and a snippet of a LOTR/LOTRO piece that will never be completed.

4) What are your top 5 fics by kudos? Codeword Blue, For The First Time, The Slowest Burn, Lost in Translation and Close. Which is kind of amazing because the ship-focus for these is, arguably, not necessarily 'mainstream' in the TOG fan space so I massively appreciate that people rate them!

5) Do you respond to comments? I do! Or I used to, back when I posted something new/regularly. I haven't posted anything for a VERY long time now, and so actively avoid reading any new comments because then I'll feel guilty for not writing, or feel like a fraud.

6) What is the fic you wrote with the angstiest ending? I don't really go for angsty, because I tend to just want happy endings for all. I have an unsatisfying cliff-hanger ending to what was supposed to be a two-parter fic (Homewrecker) so I supposed in a parallel universe where people are dying for me to finish it, the fact that it's resolutely NOT complete might be causing some angst?

7) What’s the fic you wrote with the happiest ending? They all have happy endings in one form or another but I think the one that might have the most "aaawwh" factor is maybe I Won't Let You Sink. Any excuse for my boy Booker to get a hug, really.

8) Do you get hate on fics? I don't think so? At least none that I'm aware of! Nobody's leaving me comments or hitting up my DMs, put it that way.

9) Do you write smut? I do. With varying degrees of success, admittedly, but still...

10) Do you write crossovers? If so, what’s the craziest one you’ve written? Many moons ago, perhaps, on a long-forgotten fanfiction.net account but nothing I can remember!

11) Have you ever had a fic stolen? Darling, I don't want my fics half the time. Why the hell would anyone else?!

12) have you ever had a fic translated? I have not!

13) have you ever cowritten a fic before? I think I've made plans to with a few people but not followed through. I'm scared of not living up to the hype and letting them down!

14) What’s your all time favorite ship? Honestly? The Ongoing LOTRO Fic I'll Never Finish, featuring my OC and Lothrandir. That Ranger needs a hug, a break and therapy in that order and my elf will give him that.

15) What’s a WIP you want to finish but doubt you ever will? BITCH, THROW A DART AT ANY OF THE 40-ODD DRAFTS IN MY FOLDER AND YOU'RE A WINNER.

16) What are your writing strengths? I'm almost annoyingly descriptive. I can't draw for shit so I'll use words to try and conjure up an image that I could never in a million years manage with a paintbrush.

17) what are your writing weaknesses? My lack of self-belief...

18) thoughts on writing dialogue in another language in fic? I'm for it! As I'm not fluent in any other language, I'll keep it to short little snippets, italicised, that I'm confident aren't terrible and won't cause an international incident! I think it can be a nice nod to a character's past, who they are and their heritage.

19) First fandom you wrote for? Again, MANY moons ago and long-forgotten, but Stargate: SG-1 when I was maybe 13?

20) Favorite fic you’ve written? Probably Bloom. I just really like the idea that Booker and Joe's relationship is deep and probably has evolved and developed and fluctuated a LOT over the years and had fun exploring that! (And Goldie's art for it was just phenomenal!)

TAGGING: I honestly don't know who else may have been tagged in something like this already so hey, if you write fic and want to participate, by all means fill your boots!

[terrencerex8]

Are We Being "Brainwashed?"

I know now politics is my greatest vice. The more I want to stereotype one side is "good" and another "bad," the more my beliefs are disproven by witnessing contrary behavior both good and bI know now politics is my greatest vice. The more I want to stereotype one side is "good" and another "bad," the more my beliefs are disproven by witnessing contrary behavior both good and badI know now politics is my greatest vice. The more I want to stereotype one side is "good" and another "bad," the more my beliefs are disproven by witnessing contrary behavior both good and bad. My preconceived judgments of others are consistently incorrect. In the past, I have chosen the safety of being a "moderate," but our parties have become so divergent, those in the middle find themselves in a deep chasm. That said, I have witnessed too many good people seduced by rhetoric, deceit, and emotional appeals. I feel I'm not being fair to myself and others to be silent. It all reminds me of the movie adaptation of Orwell's "1984" in the scene where Richard Burton is torturing John Hurt until he stops seeing four fingers after great torment and whose perception becomes clouded until he's earnestly not sure how many fingers he sees. I know from being a student of Social Sciences and Human Communication, that this phenomenon runs parallel to information given by former CIA Podcaster, Andrew Bustamante a.k.a "The Everyday Spy" https://andrewbustamante.org who speaks at length about brainwashing.

The most common "brainwashing" we see is in religious cults. The methodology is almost always the same. First, you separate the subject from friends and family. This is so the cult can control all the information you receive and block out any contrary reasoning to the cults vision of the "reality" they have framed. Perhaps you may know some true-life examples of this with demagogues and pundits that tell you all news media is false except for one or two sources. Next, you bombard the subject with concepts that create cognitive dissonance to break down traditional beliefs and customs to confuse him or her, until they question what they know, however tried, true, and factual. Your goal is to break down the persons belief system in order to implant your own beliefs that are generally to the benefit of only the leader, conveniently enough. These new "data sets" are then reinforced over and over again, in the same way, until they are set deep into the psyche.

Another tool in the manipulator's toolbox is "incrementalism." If you offer a radical belief system to someone all at once, you will likely be met with a strong backlash that may simply reinforce the antithesis of your coercive language. But if you slowly introduce reasonable data slowly, over a span of time, you can rebuild that person's belief system, without them even knowing they've been intellectually influenced. I wonder how many of us have been "brainwashed" by the constant deluge of ideological opinions we have been bombarded by? This is why I, and many others have become so skeptical and cynical about the government and politicians in general. It's not that we're pessimistic, or our beliefs have become "dystopian," it's just many of us are rightfully distrustful of data we are presented with. We are "dyed in the wool" critical thinkers. Our makeup is to question our perceptions and challenge our own beliefs. We know that our precious belief systems are like complex equations; one wrong factor, and the entire calculation could be wrong. We are open to new information, but critical of it. Our beliefs, like in scientific knowledge, can change depending on new and novel information that could change everything. I have mentioned Andrew Bustamonte, but I'd also like to address Edward Snowden.

Snowden, who some see as a social justice warrior, and others an enemy of the state, still made it clear about the very real and literally stated purpose of the CIA, sans the tinfoil hats, and, I'm paraphrasing here but "the purpose of the CIA is 'National Security,' and the collection of intelligence from foreign entities, sometimes referred to as 'assets' if they are complicit in giving up useful information. It is not the job of the CIA to protect American citizens, it is their job to protect the interests of the 'State.'" Although the agency officially states its concentration is on foreign threats, information has already been made public about the CIA's involvement in experimentation with citizens in the "MK-Ultra" mind control project in the 70's. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/06760269

Another subject I’d like to address is a tactic employed in public influence and rhetoric, and that is a term coined "Doublespeak" by William Lutz, a linguist. In his novel by the same name he expands on the way language is used to manipulate our perceptions. Said "doublespeak" has been popularized by the phrase "Politically Correct" Which spawned a popular show by Phill Marr, the humorist and social commentator we all know, and I hope, respect, as he has the ability to address the "B.S." we are so often fed by both parties, and has no problem "tongue lashing" each and doing it in a way that both informs, and makes us laugh at subject matter that can be controversial. To demonstrate "doublespeak" I will "verbally redecorate" (doublespeak) a common term we mostly associate with negative connotations, the very term "brainwashing." Suppose I was to instead call it something like "cognitive retraining" or "intellectual restyling." Now, it doesn't sound so bad. In this way, "taxes" became "revenue enhancement" and taxes that didn't go directly down the drain, became known as "value added taxes."

Perhaps one the most influential figures in public discourse is the "polymath" linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and political activist, Noam Chomsky, and his book "Manufacturing Consent." Without doing a deep dive into his research, I will give you a simplified model of "manufacturing of consent:" suppose you are given the choice of two options by an authority figure, but neither choice is in your own personal best interest. Say for instance, we are given the choice of "death" or "taxes." Colloquially known as our only sure things in life. But perhaps we might have other options? What if the "aging gene" was cracked, or a good accountant could write off our taxes? Either way, we consent to the choice, which would almost invariably be paying taxes, and even though we are not really given a proper selection of choices, we do not feel an injustice has been done since we were actually given a choice instead of either negative outcome being forced.

Finally, as Jean-Paul Sartre once stated: “We are our choices.” Given that many of these choices may have been influenced, we must ask ourselves how much our makeup, our “essence” is of our free will and what has been formed by our environment—by greater authority? If this is so, have these factors formed our perceptions in a way that benefits us, or exploits us?. My preconceived judgments of others are consistently incorrect. In the past, I have chosen the safety of being a "moderate," but our parties have become so divergent, those in the middle find themselves in a deep chasm. That said, I have witnessed too many good people seduced by rhetoric, deceit, and emotional appeals. I feel I'm not being fair to myself and others to be silent. It all reminds me of the movie adaptation of Orwell's "1984" in the scene where Richard Burton is torturing John Hurt until he stops seeing four fingers after great torment and whose perception becomes clouded until he's earnestly not sure how many fingers he sees. I know from being a student of Social Sciences and Human Communication, that this phenomenon runs parallel to information given by former CIA Podcaster, Andrew Bustamante a.k.a "The Everyday Spy" https://andrewbustamante.org who speaks at length about brainwashing.

The most common "brainwashing" we see is in religious cults. The methodology is almost always the same. First, you separate the subject from friends and family. This is so the cult can control all the information you receive and block out any contrary reasoning to the cults vision of the "reality" they have framed. Perhaps you may know some true-life examples of this with demagogues and pundits that tell you all news media is false except for one or two sources. Next, you bombard the subject with concepts that create cognitive dissonance to break down traditional beliefs and customs to confuse him or her, until they question what they know, however tried, true, and factual. Your goal is to break down the persons belief system in order to implant your own beliefs that are generally to the benefit of only the leader, conveniently enough. These new "data sets" are then reinforced over and over again, in the same way, until they are set deep into the psyche.

Another tool in the manipulator's toolbox is "incrementalism." If you offer a radical belief system to someone all at once, you will likely be met with a strong backlash that may simply reinforce the antithesis of your coercive language. But if you slowly introduce reasonable data slowly, over a span of time, you can rebuild that person's belief system, without them even knowing they've been intellectually influenced. I wonder how many of us have been "brainwashed" by the constant deluge of ideological opinions we have been bombarded by? This is why I, and many others have become so skeptical and cynical about the government and politicians in general. It's not that we're pessimistic, or our beliefs have become "dystopian," it's just many of us are rightfully distrustful of data we are presented with. We are "dyed in the wool" critical thinkers. Our makeup is to question our perceptions and challenge our own beliefs. We know that our precious belief systems are like complex equations; one wrong factor, and the entire calculation could be wrong. We are open to new information, but critical of it. Our beliefs, like in scientific knowledge, can change depending on new and novel information that could change everything. I have mentioned Andrew Bustamonte, but I'd also like to address Edward Snowden.

Snowden, who some see as a social justice warrior, and others an enemy of the state, still made it clear about the very real and literally stated purpose of the CIA, sans the tinfoil hats, and, I'm paraphrasing here but "the purpose of the CIA is 'National Security,' and the collection of intelligence from foreign entities, sometimes referred to as 'assets' if they are complicit in giving up useful information. It is not the job of the CIA to protect American citizens, it is their job to protect the interests of the 'State.'" Although the agency officially states its concentration is on foreign threats, information has already been made public about the CIA's involvement in experimentation with citizens in the "MK-Ultra" mind control project in the 70's. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/06760269

Another subject I’d like to address is a tactic employed in public influence and rhetoric, and that is a term coined "Doublespeak" by William Lutz, a linguist. In his novel by the same name he expands on the way language is used to manipulate our perceptions. Said "doublespeak" has been popularized by the phrase "Politically Correct" Which spawned a popular show by Phill Marr, the humorist and social commentator we all know, and I hope, respect, as he has the ability to address the "B.S." we are so often fed by both parties, and has no problem "tongue lashing" each and doing it in a way that both informs, and makes us laugh at subject matter that can be controversial. To demonstrate "doublespeak" I will "verbally redecorate" (doublespeak) a common term we mostly associate with negative connotations, the very term "brainwashing." Suppose I was to instead call it something like "cognitive retraining" or "intellectual restyling." Now, it doesn't sound so bad. In this way, "taxes" became "revenue enhancement" and taxes that didn't go directly down the drain, became known as "value added taxes."

Perhaps one the most influential figures in public discourse is the "polymath" linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and political activist, Noam Chomsky, and his book "Manufacturing Consent." Without doing a deep dive into his research, I will give you a simplified model of "manufacturing of consent:" suppose you are given the choice of two options by an authority figure, but neither choice is in your own personal best interest. Say for instance, we are given the choice of "death" or "taxes." Colloquially known as our only sure things in life. But perhaps we might have other options? What if the "aging gene" was cracked, or a good accountant could write off our taxes? Either way, we consent to the choice, which would almost invariably be paying taxes, and even though we are not really given a proper selection of choices, we do not feel an injustice has been done since we were actually given a choice instead of either negative outcome being forced.

Finally, as Jean-Paul Sartre once stated: “We are our choices.” Given that many of these choices may have been influenced, we must ask ourselves how much our makeup, our “essence” is of our free will and what has been formed by our environment—by greater authority? If this is so, have these factors formed our perceptions in a way that benefits us, or exploits us?adI know now politics is my greatest vice. The more I want to stereotype one side is "good" and another "bad," the more my beliefs are disproven by witnessing contrary behavior both good and bad. My preconceived judgments of others are consistently incorrect. In the past, I have chosen the safety of being a "moderate," but our parties have become so divergent, those in the middle find themselves in a deep chasm. That said, I have witnessed too many good people seduced by rhetoric, deceit, and emotional appeals. I feel I'm not being fair to myself and others to be silent. It all reminds me of the movie adaptation of Orwell's "1984" in the scene where Richard Burton is torturing John Hurt until he stops seeing four fingers after great torment and whose perception becomes clouded until he's earnestly not sure how many fingers he sees. I know from being a student of Social Sciences and Human Communication, that this phenomenon runs parallel to information given by former CIA Podcaster, Andrew Bustamante a.k.a "The Everyday Spy" https://andrewbustamante.org who speaks at length about brainwashing.

The most common "brainwashing" we see is in religious cults. The methodology is almost always the same. First, you separate the subject from friends and family. This is so the cult can control all the information you receive and block out any contrary reasoning to the cults vision of the "reality" they have framed. Perhaps you may know some true-life examples of this with demagogues and pundits that tell you all news media is false except for one or two sources. Next, you bombard the subject with concepts that create cognitive dissonance to break down traditional beliefs and customs to confuse him or her, until they question what they know, however tried, true, and factual. Your goal is to break down the persons belief system in order to implant your own beliefs that are generally to the benefit of only the leader, conveniently enough. These new "data sets" are then reinforced over and over again, in the same way, until they are set deep into the psyche.

Another tool in the manipulator's toolbox is "incrementalism." If you offer a radical belief system to someone all at once, you will likely be met with a strong backlash that may simply reinforce the antithesis of your coercive language. But if you slowly introduce reasonable data slowly, over a span of time, you can rebuild that person's belief system, without them even knowing they've been intellectually influenced. I wonder how many of us have been "brainwashed" by the constant deluge of ideological opinions we have been bombarded by? This is why I, and many others have become so skeptical and cynical about the government and politicians in general. It's not that we're pessimistic, or our beliefs have become "dystopian," it's just many of us are rightfully distrustful of data we are presented with. We are "dyed in the wool" critical thinkers. Our makeup is to question our perceptions and challenge our own beliefs. We know that our precious belief systems are like complex equations; one wrong factor, and the entire calculation could be wrong. We are open to new information, but critical of it. Our beliefs, like in scientific knowledge, can change depending on new and novel information that could change everything. I have mentioned Andrew Bustamonte, but I'd also like to address Edward Snowden.

Snowden, who some see as a social justice warrior, and others an enemy of the state, still made it clear about the very real and literally stated purpose of the CIA, sans the tinfoil hats, and, I'm paraphrasing here but "the purpose of the CIA is 'National Security,' and the collection of intelligence from foreign entities, sometimes referred to as 'assets' if they are complicit in giving up useful information. It is not the job of the CIA to protect American citizens, it is their job to protect the interests of the 'State.'" Although the agency officially states its concentration is on foreign threats, information has already been made public about the CIA's involvement in experimentation with citizens in the "MK-Ultra" mind control project in the 70's. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/06760269

Another subject I’d like to address is a tactic employed in public influence and rhetoric, and that is a term coined "Doublespeak" by William Lutz, a linguist. In his novel by the same name he expands on the way language is used to manipulate our perceptions. Said "doublespeak" has been popularized by the phrase "Politically Correct" Which spawned a popular show by Phill Marr, the humorist and social commentator we all know, and I hope, respect, as he has the ability to address the "B.S." we are so often fed by both parties, and has no problem "tongue lashing" each and doing it in a way that both informs, and makes us laugh at subject matter that can be controversial. To demonstrate "doublespeak" I will "verbally redecorate" (doublespeak) a common term we mostly associate with negative connotations, the very term "brainwashing." Suppose I was to instead call it something like "cognitive retraining" or "intellectual restyling." Now, it doesn't sound so bad. In this way, "taxes" became "revenue enhancement" and taxes that didn't go directly down the drain, became known as "value added taxes."

Perhaps one the most influential figures in public discourse is the "polymath" linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and political activist, Noam Chomsky, and his book "Manufacturing Consent." Without doing a deep dive into his research, I will give you a simplified model of "manufacturing of consent:" suppose you are given the choice of two options by an authority figure, but neither choice is in your own personal best interest. Say for instance, we are given the choice of "death" or "taxes." Colloquially known as our only sure things in life. But perhaps we might have other options? What if the "aging gene" was cracked, or a good accountant could write off our taxes? Either way, we consent to the choice, which would almost invariably be paying taxes, and even though we are not really given a proper selection of choices, we do not feel an injustice has been done since we were actually given a choice instead of either negative outcome being forced.

Finally, as Jean-Paul Sartre once stated: “We are our choices.” Given that many of these choices may have been influenced, we must ask ourselves how much our makeup, our “essence” is of our free will and what has been formed by our environment—by greater authority? If this is so, have these factors formed our perceptions in a way that benefits us, or exploits us?. My preconceived judgments of others are consistently incorrect. In the past, I have chosen the safety of being a "moderate," but our parties have become so divergent, those in the middle find themselves in a deep chasm. That said, I have witnessed too many good people seduced by rhetoric, deceit, and emotional appeals. I feel I'm not being fair to myself and others to be silent. It all reminds me of the movie adaptation of Orwell's "1984" in the scene where Richard Burton is torturing John Hurt until he stops seeing four fingers after great torment and whose perception becomes clouded until he's earnestly not sure how many fingers he sees. I know from being a student of Social Sciences and Human Communication, that this phenomenon runs parallel to information given by former CIA Podcaster, Andrew Bustamante a.k.a "The Everyday Spy" https://andrewbustamante.org who speaks at length about brainwashing.

The most common "brainwashing" we see is in religious cults. The methodology is almost always the same. First, you separate the subject from friends and family. This is so the cult can control all the information you receive and block out any contrary reasoning to the cults vision of the "reality" they have framed. Perhaps you may know some true-life examples of this with demagogues and pundits that tell you all news media is false except for one or two sources. Next, you bombard the subject with concepts that create cognitive dissonance to break down traditional beliefs and customs to confuse him or her, until they question what they know, however tried, true, and factual. Your goal is to break down the persons belief system in order to implant your own beliefs that are generally to the benefit of only the leader, conveniently enough. These new "data sets" are then reinforced over and over again, in the same way, until they are set deep into the psyche.

Another tool in the manipulator's toolbox is "incrementalism." If you offer a radical belief system to someone all at once, you will likely be met with a strong backlash that may simply reinforce the antithesis of your coercive language. But if you slowly introduce reasonable data slowly, over a span of time, you can rebuild that person's belief system, without them even knowing they've been intellectually influenced. I wonder how many of us have been "brainwashed" by the constant deluge of ideological opinions we have been bombarded by? This is why I, and many others have become so skeptical and cynical about the government and politicians in general. It's not that we're pessimistic, or our beliefs have become "dystopian," it's just many of us are rightfully distrustful of data we are presented with. We are "dyed in the wool" critical thinkers. Our makeup is to question our perceptions and challenge our own beliefs. We know that our precious belief systems are like complex equations; one wrong factor, and the entire calculation could be wrong. We are open to new information, but critical of it. Our beliefs, like in scientific knowledge, can change depending on new and novel information that could change everything. I have mentioned Andrew Bustamonte, but I'd also like to address Edward Snowden.

Snowden, who some see as a social justice warrior, and others an enemy of the state, still made it clear about the very real and literally stated purpose of the CIA, sans the tinfoil hats, and, I'm paraphrasing here but "the purpose of the CIA is 'National Security,' and the collection of intelligence from foreign entities, sometimes referred to as 'assets' if they are complicit in giving up useful information. It is not the job of the CIA to protect American citizens, it is their job to protect the interests of the 'State.'" Although the agency officially states its concentration is on foreign threats, information has already been made public about the CIA's involvement in experimentation with citizens in the "MK-Ultra" mind control project in the 70's. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/06760269

Another subject I’d like to address is a tactic employed in public influence and rhetoric, and that is a term coined "Doublespeak" by William Lutz, a linguist. In his novel by the same name he expands on the way language is used to manipulate our perceptions. Said "doublespeak" has been popularized by the phrase "Politically Correct" Which spawned a popular show by Phill Marr, the humorist and social commentator we all know, and I hope, respect, as he has the ability to address the "B.S." we are so often fed by both parties, and has no problem "tongue lashing" each and doing it in a way that both informs, and makes us laugh at subject matter that can be controversial. To demonstrate "doublespeak" I will "verbally redecorate" (doublespeak) a common term we mostly associate with negative connotations, the very term "brainwashing." Suppose I was to instead call it something like "cognitive retraining" or "intellectual restyling." Now, it doesn't sound so bad. In this way, "taxes" became "revenue enhancement" and taxes that didn't go directly down the drain, became known as "value added taxes."

Perhaps one the most influential figures in public discourse is the "polymath" linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and political activist, Noam Chomsky, and his book "Manufacturing Consent." Without doing a deep dive into his research, I will give you a simplified model of "manufacturing of consent:" suppose you are given the choice of two options by an authority figure, but neither choice is in your own personal best interest. Say for instance, we are given the choice of "death" or "taxes." Colloquially known as our only sure things in life. But perhaps we might have other options? What if the "aging gene" was cracked, or a good accountant could write off our taxes? Either way, we consent to the choice, which would almost invariably be paying taxes, and even though we are not really given a proper selection of choices, we do not feel an injustice has been done since we were actually given a choice instead of either negative outcome being forced.

Finally, as Jean-Paul Sartre once stated: “We are our choices.” Given that many of these choices may have been influenced, we must ask ourselves how much our makeup, our “essence” is of our free will and what has been formed by our environment—by greater authority? If this is so, have these factors formed our perceptions in a way that benefits us, or exploits us?

[chasingfictions]

hiya hello i want to hear your thoughts about Lottie’s dream sequence in Saints and how it relates to the S1 finale of Buffy please and thank u <3

HELLO ok first of all i love this, this is my love language, is receiving this ask.

also props to @episode5s my beloved & their parallels post about this they truly started cracking the code

second of all!!!! ok this is to me so much about the subterranean! like, this shot to me feels so intentional this shot is like oh okay so they are calling back to buffy and they know it they mean it and the way!!! on buffy the subterranean is so specifically a metaphor for the subconscious, for the hidden, for the demon world and everything that represents — our shadows, our fears, our desires, the ancient world, magic, queerness. buffy is going into the cusp of the hellmouth and honestly lottie's imagery here feels like a play on that? except instead of being in the mouth of the underworld lottie is in the throat. which just, from a cannibalism standpoint, hello.

what's also really curious is this is basically the only time — that i can think of (my knowledge of yj isn't anywhere near as encyclopedic as for btvs so pls correct me if i'm wrong) — when we get something underground on yellowjackets? it's just this sewer. which feels SO intentional because like, they could have had lottie's vision take place anywhere but they specifically chose a sewer, specifically chose underground.

and this goes into a pet theory of mine? about how the symbol is (among other things) a map of the house?

where that little baby triangle made where the big triangle bisects the circle is the attic. and the main segment of the triangle, that lopsided trapezoid, is the main floor of the house. which leaves that bottom triangle, bisected by the line that's impaling the girl. a line with a hook in the bottom, a hook that looks suspiciously like the astrological symbol for lilith

from cafeastrology:

In your natal chart, where Lilith is by sign, house, and aspect is where you may have felt ashamed, shamed, ridiculed, stifled, deeply misunderstood, or repressed in some manner. For whatever reason, you are wary of expressing those traits or parts of your personality freely and unapologetically, and you can feel quite uncomfortable with people who are doing so.

and from astrodienst:

the Dark Moon describes our relationship to the absolute, to sacrifice as such, and shows how we let go. In transit, the Dark Moon indicates some form of castration or frustration, frequently in the areas of desire, a powerlessness of the psyche, or a general inhibition. On the other hand, it shows where we question ourselves, our lives, our jobs, and our beliefs. I feel this is important, since it gives us the opportunity to "let go" of something. The Dark Moon shows where we can let the Whole flow into our selves, without putting an "I" in the way, without putting up a wall in the form of ego. At the same time, it doesn't indicate passivity - on the contrary - it symbolizes the firm will to be open and trusting, to let the Greater World flow through one, relying entirely on the great laws of the universe, on that which we name God. To prepare us for this opening, the Dark Moon creates a necessary void."

like, the "basement" of the house then is hooked into the subconscious — or even if the house doesn't have a literal basement or cellar or anything, like, whatever lies under it. linked to the subconscious and the repressed just like the subterranean on btvs.

and like!!! both of these things are about shame and fear and repression for both of them!! buffy doesn't want to die. buffy has terror about her death. buffy is this frightened little girl, she looks so small and helpless here. and lottie too, lottie is scared of what is happening inside of her. they are both being claimed by these destinies they they didn't choose and don't have any control over and don't particularly want.

and then there's the matter of the just, physical similarities between their two drownings / baptisms?

they're both given a long, white, empire waistline dress by someone else, for a more explicitly "wholesome" purpose. laura lee dresses lottie in a nightgown that, to laura lee, evokes a classical christian baptism. joyce gives buffy a dress so she can go to the prom, engage in something youthful and carefree. there's serious death and the maiden energy here? im just on a death and the maiden kick but like, baptism is typically done for babies as far as I'm aware. buffy's mom is reading buffy's apprehension about the dance as a frivolous teenage concern. but both lottie and buffy can't just be the maiden, they both need to get in touch with something darker and hungrier.

they're also both physically led into their baptism/drowning by an innocent? buffy by the anointed one and lottie by laura lee

there's even a slight costuming similarity here as well? laura lee's cardigan is the same shape of garment as the anointed one's sweatjacket.

and also critically!!! this being calmly led in is so important compared to their terror!!! these baptisms are about shame they're about fear they're about the undercurrent of that thing inside you that you can't name and don't want to look at and it terrifies you because it is lurking under the surface and you can't stop it. it is coming to claim you.

but it's that both of these drownings are a CHOICE. lottie CHOOSES to embrace her spiritual ability and seek out laura lee's help, she chooses to be led into the water. (!! critically!! the same lake where they first spotted the house!! i truly do believe the house was signalling to them from the lake and like, she is returning to that place where the spirit first called to her). and buffy is CHOOSING to follow the anointed one, to embrace her destiny, to embrace her demise. they are both choosing to stop being the person they were, to allow themselves to die, metaphorically or literally, to transform into the person they must become.

and this is where we come back to the dark moon lilith of it all!!! letting go of the self, of the ego!!! accepting the powerlessness of the psyche and letting what we must become flow into us!!!! it's sacrifice!!! someone stop me before i start talking about the hanged man in the tarot except no i have to talk about it hi

literally it is about going willingly to your death, it is about giving up power, giving yourself up to a greater force you don't fully understand!! it's being upside down / entering into the subteranean / into the underworld, and because you are now below, now reversed, you can emerge with new knowledge !!!!! the halo of light around the hanged man's head!! the candles in both images!! the way lottie sees laura lee's head in a blaze of light in her vision!!

the hanged man also fits into the powerlessness of drowning specifically, being lost in the water. the way this works for lottie's drowning specifically!! the way that in her physical body lottie is being held up by laura lee the whole time, but in her mind's eye she is drowning, she is falling somewhere deep below, she is dying and being reborn!! she is the hanged man!! simultaneously suspended with no power and also being held and protected by the hands of laura lee / the ties binding the hanged man's feet to the tree

the fact that their being pulled up / revived also occurs from a trusted friend who is pure of heart and who loves them (laura lee & xander)

there's also the fact that both drownings connect to this primordial creature who very much seems like the lord of this place

the way yellowjackets is so consciously (imo) engaging with w*ndigo lore, the way the w*ndigo is linked to the stag, the way the stag is inhabiting and melding with lottie to make her the antler queen, is calling to her, engaging with her. the way the master is also animalistic, has batlike features. is linked to buffy in prophecy, physically needs to use her blood to escape his prison. the way slayers and vampires are two sides of the same physiological and mystical coin. the way the master now has buffy's blood inside of him. the way you could argue the force that is compelling the yellowjackets has lottie's blood now, from when she bashed her forehead against the window.

they both enter into this subterranean place and become more like this creature. buffy leaves having died, having this metaphysical similarity to vampires. lottie leaves with even stronger visions, having this metaphysical link to the force that haunts the woods.

there's also!! the religious aspect!!

the master is physically being imprisoned in an old gothic church. laura lee is using explicitly christian language to baptize lottie. but both lottie and buffy touch something older than christianity, they both are engaging with forces arguably much more pagan and ancient. buffy enters into a church and is fed on by a demon, arises from that church on some level undead, a new strength coursing through her, a strength she picked up in the underworld. lottie touches the divine in an intentionally christian ceremony. but it feels like the christianity is more like this tether, this stepping stone, that is letting her access something beyond herself. it's a ritual tool to gain access to the spirit world, and once she's there, the thing she's touching isn't christian at all. and she too emerges from the underworld with a new, ancient strength.

i can't actually tell what lottie's necklace is here (i'd be curious if anyone else has a better screencap of what the pendant is!) but still like, silver necklaces, christian context

you can even see it in their eyes, when they awake, return from the water, return from their trips to the underworld. they are not the girls they were and never will be again. their knowledge has changed them. they've entered into their literal or figurative subconsciouses, touched death, touched transformation. they've gone willingly into their deaths and awoken as something else !!!!

tl;dr — death and the maiden death and the maiden death and the maiden!!!!!!!! lottie and buffy enter into their subconsciouses, into the underworld, and die!! and emergy something new !!! all while existing specifically within the paradigm of girlhood and its powerlessness its purity its hunger its fear its youth!! death and the maiden!!!!!!!! death and the maiden!!!!!! persephone!!!!!!!!! death and the maiden death and the maiden!!!!!!!

[austennerdita2533]

Hello! know you're not a psychology major (unless I missed this fact) but i'm madly trying to understand why people ship the couples they do. As someone who just rewatched Gilmore Girls again I'm at a loss cause as much as i love jess and rory I can't let go of logan and rory either. I know there's obvious flaws with my choice but I suppose my question is why we all ship different couples in any TV universe? I love how articulate you are so figured you could explain it? Maybe? No pressure hehe.

Hey there, nonnie! 

You’re right in saying that wasn’t my major; it was English/Spanish. However, seeing as I’m a writer, a voracious reader, an inquisitive and introspective thinker (let’s be real: I get lost in my own head constantly; it’s ridiculous) as well as an unapologetic studier of literature and life, I have to admit that human psychology is a subject that’s always been of vast interest to me. I’m so endlessly fascinated by the multitude of things that make us who we are. From where we’re from, to the languages we speak, to what we know, what we hope to learn so we can grow, to the good or bad or plain weird experiences that shape us, to the things we like or dislike and whether or not we can articulate why, etc.--it’s such a complex and often contradictory thing. Like, how can I not want to sink into it with analytical teeth? Sifting through it all with a fine-toothed comb? IT’S IMPOSSIBLE. I’m always stuck in the throes of some psychological question.

The world is a well brimming over with such lovely distinction, with so much tangled singularity, that I feel like I’m stuck in this perpetual stasis of wonder, you know? Consciously I realize that I’ll never be privy to all the pieces of the puzzle but that doesn’t mean I don’t yearn to collect as many of them as I can find.

Idk. The point I‘m trying to make is that there’s nothing I love more than sitting down somewhere so I can observe nature, people, my surroundings. There’s such sweet satisfaction I derive from being able to ponder through questions - big, small, trivial, or existential - and it doesn’t matter a whit whether or not I decide to voice them out loud. Not to pun Pacey Witter here or anything but the simple act, the simple freedom, of giving myself leave to think and analyze is enough for me. 😂

To try and answer your question, I think the most concise all around cliché way would be to say that shipping is subjective. More specifically, though, I’d argue that our preferences for certain characters/ships tie into our own personal psychologies, and since, as humans, those are built into an elaborate tapestry that can parallel as much as they can oppose in our own psyche, then of course it would follow that it’d lead to intricacy in the shipping domain as well. None of us are wholly alike. None of us are simple, either. We can’t be because we all have our own individual thoughts, our own individual feelings, our own individual journeys. So while a point of relation may overlap in spots with another person’s, it’s only natural that it’ll diverge in a myriad of others just the same. And that’s totally okay! It’s why people are never boring. It’s why there’s no universal agreement over one ship, over one character vs. the other because we’re all responding to our own cues, our own histories, our own triggers or attractions. 

All of it is embedded in who we are, and sometimes, what we wish we could be if only we weren’t inhibited by other forces. There’s also a tendency to gravitate toward things/people we’d never want to encounter in our own day-to-day lives but are fun to imagine nonetheless. So why stop? Why not indulge our fancies? Let our imaginations run free! 

It’s more about the possibility than the reality anyway. They’re interesting to us BECAUSE we’re not like them, BECAUSE we’ll never experience that dynamic, BECAUSE it’s out of the ordinary. We want a “taste of the other side” without having to crossover ourselves. There’s as much of an allure to the unfamiliar as there is to the familiar. And fiction is a fantastic medium because it allows you to think about how it’d feel to shed your own skin, be someone else, do something different, all without needing to leave your seat or change who you already are. You just get to imagine. Wonder. Analyze all the nuances, all the subtleties. And that’s enough; it’s enough.

Mind you, I can’t speak for anyone but myself here.

I know that my relationship with fictional characters is juxtaposed. Messy. Downright illogical at times. There may be a character I love because she possesses qualities I have, recognize in myself, or flat-out lack; there may be another character I hate for the exact same reasons. Or vice versa. The same goes for ships. There are tropes that I return to again and again (friends-to-lovers, enemies-to-lovers, forbidden love, opposites attract, etc.) for a variety of reasons. Some of which are more subconscious than conscious. Or, you know, it might be as simple as me finding a pairing interesting because it’s so UNLIKE me, so unlike anything I’d ever want that I’m like “hey, let me zip up and try it on for size” because it’s cool to see things from a different point of view. 

We all do it. Imagination and creativity are at the bedrock of what make us human.

I also understand that my personal experiences and attributes play a big part in why I’m engaged by some storylines but disconnected from others, though it doesn’t add up to a perfect formula every time. Nor will it. I’m a complicated gal so my shipping preferences are bound to be complicated as well. Not to mention evolving...and evolving constantly.

I imagine it’s likely the same with everyone else.

Also, there’s no rule that says you have to let go of one ship in order to still love the other. You don’t have to choose between them. You don’t have to elevate one over the other, either. For me, it just so happens that Rory and Jess are OTP over Rory and Logan (though I do thoroughly ship/enjoy them as a couple); but that doesn’t mean it has to be the same for you. If you don’t want to let go, then don’t. Nobody has the right to try control what you do or think. We all have our own preferences because we have personal psychologies coming at them, attaching to the ships in our own subjective ways. Heck, we might not even know what they all are. Isn’t that great?

But, hey, who cares so long as we’re having a blast shipping our ships hard, right? ;)