#FOR THE SAKE OF theoretical organization

[samthecookielord]

Who even is this guy whats up with him

[unproduciblesmackdown]

also quite the illustration in wags being like "'not asking permission' - wags" and plowing through someone expressing a physical boundary but he was already intending to use physical violence & violation & assumed corresponding distress as a tool to get his way....amidst the typicality, "correctness," permissibility of all that around here like five times an hour

[paper-mario-wiki]

Could you explain how Ambrosia is able to come back after dying?

1

Sure yeah, I'll give it a shot.

[Fursona Lore/ Mild Existential Horror presented in charmingly primitive MS Paint style under the cut]

2

[At the top of the panel there is the label "conceptual space (currently being created. The middle is labeled "THE UNIVERSE, REALITY (the other)". The bottom is labeled "CONSCIOUSNESS, REFLECTION (the self). The very bottom of the panel reads "OTHER, FREAKIER BUT LESS IMPORTANT STUFF" ]

To keep it brief, a person is when a certain amount of consciousness slips upwards into reality. Consciousness is, like the laws of thermo dynamics [sic], a fundamental property of the universe.

3

I'm sure you've heard of the sticking-a-pencil-through-paper metaphor for theoretical wormhole travel, right? Staying within that visual metaphor, imagine the moisture in the air around that "piece of paper" as what consciousness is. It creates tiny, imperceivable changes in the surface and makeup of the paper. Imagine a microscopic rain cloud making a tiny fraction of the paper a little bit soggy. That's what you are in the universe. A tiny soggy fraction of a massive piece of paper. (That's why you feel so small btw).

Of course, putting it into that metaphor IS greatly simplifying it, since in real life things like time and space sorta overlap, ya know? Because they're entirely separate dimensions of measurement. Consciousness is the same, it is everywhere in the universe all at once, but only after it seeps in from a place that is exactly where we are, but elsewhere. 4D stuff is complicated sorry if that's not super clear ha ha.

4

Normal people happen when a bunch of that stray potential-consciousness starts stacking more and more layers of reality on top of itself. Sort of like those pastries that you fold butter into and then fold it like 10 times and that makes it so theres like a billion layers of butter and dough and butter and dough and butter and dough and on and on and on. But with, uh. The other stuff. Consiousness and matter from the universe.

Speaking semantically, that's all the little tiny organisms that work really hard to make you alive. Like the biome in your gut, or the bacteria in your tissue and blood cells. Look it up, 43% of the human body is made of bacteria. Like, that's just on google.

Anyway, all their effort culminates in an increasingly complex meat shell that constitutes a person.

5

For the sake of practicality, we can imagine the way consciousness "seeps in" to the universe is like heat coming off the sun. The two overlapping infinite planes radiate into each other like heat radiates off the sun.

That clear? Heat from the sun. Remember that, it's important for the next part.

6

I'm sort of like a solar flare.

My consciousness, in its raw form, was so concentrated that it was like a tiny shooting star straight from the source.

Also kind of like a kidney stone, I guess.

7

Since my consciousness (which, to be clear, is approximately the same "amount" of consciouessness as anyone else, just all smooshed together into a single clump) is smooshed together into a single clump, the shell forms naturally as "reality" settles onto it. The "shape" the consciousness takes is basically the same as your body or anyone else's since the framework of both entities are the "same" on the "outside". Thus the "shells" turn out "similar" too.

Sorry for all the quotation marks, it's hard to talk about concepts outside of the third dimension in third dimensional terms, and like. I also am not super sure about this stuff either. I'm only relaying what I've learned from the scientists but some of it goes over my head.

I like to think I'm clever but like. I'm not a genius.

8

So here's the part where me and you are different: When your shell breaks apart (when you die) it's because the consciouessness had been escaping your shell, like air from a balloon, and the physical structure can't support itself anymore. Or, like, maybe you just fall over and hit your head on the concrete one day and pop the balloon all together.

Either way, the consciousness escapes from the pressure, and either goes back "down" where it came from, or goes upward into conceptual space, which is sorta being constituted through forces exerted in the physical universe. Well, I mean, really it's more of a product of a reaction between consciousness and physical space. Whatever I'm getting off topic.

The point is the shell breaks cuz the balloon pops. I think that was my point.

9

Now that you get all that, you can probably deduce on your own how and why I'm able to keep "coming back".

It's cuz I'm not really "coming back", I'm still here! The shell representing me here was just lost.

10

And while the facade may not look precisely the same every single time...

11

I remain the same.

[apas-95]

I want you to take this as politely as possible, I genuinely mean no criticism

I understand that siding with Imperial Core ‘Leftist’ Progressives is painful, but I think that if we want to make any real progress for Palestine, we’re going to have to unfortunately suck it up and hold our noses

I do also think that it’s a good idea to try and alienate them as little as possible, to try and sway them over to actual leftist thought

My worry is that by continuing to hurt their feelings, however deserved it may be, we’re going end up with dozens of people thinking ‘Marxism bad, the online ones were mean to me :(‘

I don’t know, I just wanted to hear your opinion, maybe my way of thinking isn’t working here

Unite with real friends to fight real enemies - alliances should be made on the basis of common concrete goals in the concrete situation, not on the basis of any sort of theoretical agreement or disagreement over principles.

In our practice as communists, if we share a common interest with non-Marxist groups, we will happily work together towards that common interest. A national united front against imperialist invasion, for instance, is carried out arm in arm with the national borgeoisie. On the other hand, those same bourgeois organs become real enemies once they and ourselves inevitably come into conflict. Should a 'left' group that supposes to work towards the same aims as ourselves actually be hindering our goals, actually be behaving in a reactionary manner, we would similarly come into conflict with them.

Crucially, here, we must make two points: firstly, this is a matter of practice. This is relevant to the actual practice of a proletarian class organ, a proletarian vanguard party - there is no such thing as individual practice or individual policy, and, outside the context or an organised revolutionary party, all discussion is immaterial. Secondly, our theoretical understanding must never be sacrificed for the sake of temporary alliances. Even during an alliance, we can never cease our critique of our class enemies, we can never abandon our line. If we make a united front with the national bourgeoisie against imperialist invasion, we cannot for even a moment abandon the workers those bourgeoisie exploit, or we completely lose the basis of our strength, which is our genuine representation of the interests of the workers and revolutionary masses.

To be short: we only care about concrete, material reasons for any alliance; we never abandon our own line for the sake of others; and the actions of individual, disorganised people have no meaningful effect, politically. If there is a common enemy, communist parties will eagerly ally with non-Marxist progressives, but will not pretend they are anything other than what they are - and random people posting online aren't a political force in and of themselves, and their personal 'alliances' don't matter.

[drferox]

Monoclonal Antibodies

So I listened to a talk from a drug rep the other day who came into the clinic to promote Cytopoint, the anti-allergy injection for dogs.

It’s a great drug, overall. Super useful for many, literally life changing for a few, and now a mainstay of the allergy treatments we offer. But I had to laugh at something the rep said:

“It’s not really a drug. It’s a bio-mimicry molecule! It’s replicating normal molecules that would be found in the body and just providing more of them!”

And I’m sitting here thinking: that is still totally a drug. A drug is any substance which when given to a living organism produces a physiological effect. 10mg of lokivetmab is most definitely a drug.

But if you are going to argue that Cytopoint is not a drug because it mimics a natural molecule found in the body, then by that logic neither are insulin, thyroxine, cortisone or just about every single hormone.

For goodness sake. I have to wonder what planet marketers live on some days.

We also had a bit of a debate because we’re widely told that Cytopoint shouldn’t have any side effects. Partly this is because monoclonal antibodies aren’t well known in veterinary medicine and they haven’t been around that long.

They’re certainly much safer than the equivalent drugs in other classes, but they’re not ‘side effect free’. They’re a protein, so it’s theoretically possible to be allergic to it. Like the Kesimpta I take it seems likely that some dogs will be ‘off colour’ for a day or so. The most common side effect is being quiet the next say, so it is pretty mild for a typical dog and still worth it. But it’s not zero.

Having a headache for a day is much milder than having acute kidney failure, but I wonder if we’ll get more reports in the future of extremely sporadic weird side effects as we gain more experience with this class of medication.

Medical advancements are wonderful and exciting. But don’t let marketers do all the talking!

And remember to report side effects to the manufacturer.

[suzukiblu]

Day twenty-four of fic NaNoWriMo, obligatory sugar daddy Tim/sugar baby Kon.

“I’d say maybe a picnic in the park or something but that seems incredibly dangerous unless I can pre-verify that Ivy’s in Arkham,” Tim muses, smacking a few more goons upside the skull. The others are already scattering to bolt, and there’s not much point in chasing them down; they broke up the deal and sent the suppliers running, and that was the main concern. Now they can track down their source and go from there. “And even then it’s kinda fifty-fifty.” 

“Yeah, you never know what she’s left out there,” Dick agrees. “Plus sometimes the things she’s left out there cross-pollinate, and then no one knows what’s out there, including her.” 

“Don’t remind me,” Tim says with a grimace, having unpleasant flashbacks to the skunkweed thorns and pitcher plant trees. Ivy’s creative enough without any accidental cross-pollination happening. 

“So what does planning a date have to do with that YJ-related op?” Dick inquires casually as the last of the grunts either hit the ground or flee. Tim does not freeze, because he's not fucking new here. 

“Nothing,” he lies. “I’m cycling through the projects I have scheduled to work on this week. Next there’s a stakeout uptown and some reoptimization of my utility belt organization.” 

“Planning dates is in the same category as ops and stakeouts and equipment maintenance, huh?” Dick asks with a laugh, holstering his sticks and then reaching over to ruffle his hair. “Never change, baby bird.” 

Tim is absolutely going to, but again, hopefully not before thirty and ideally while bringing Dick along for the ride. Dick would be a terrible supervillain and also probably pout if Tim put Superman in a kryptonite death trap to sit and think about what he’s done, but Tim loves him and wants him to be happy and also wants to make this awful fucking world a better place, and you don’t do that by just ditching all your friends and co-workers; you plan ahead and work with them, flaws and all. 

Anyway, Barbara would be good at being a supervillain, and she’d be a lot likelier to come along for the ride if Dick did. So that’s also another reason to recruit him. 

They’d both probably like to kill the Joker, anyway. Maybe they could make the rusty crowbar and shrapnel bomb plan a group activity? That’d be nice. 

Look, Batman doesn’t kill, obviously, but Tim isn’t Batman, Dick and Babs are also not Batman, and none of them ever intend to be. So “Batman doesn’t kill” is, in fact, only Bruce’s problem. 

“So I know you’re going to laugh at me for this, but you know the circus is in town next week, right?” Dick says, sparing him a smirk. Tim considers tripping him with his bo staff. “You know, for this totally theoretical and generic one-size-fits-all date that you definitely don’t have anyone in mind for.” 

“While I appreciate the suggestion, the person I don’t have anything in mind for has terrible self-esteem and I promised her someplace ‘nice’ for this totally theoretical and generic one-size-fits-all date,” Tim says, because he is definitely still in the closet here and he is not giving a Bat the clue of saying “they” to obfuscate Kon’s gender. Might as well light the Bat signal with a pride flag filter over it, for fuck’s sake. “She might take fifteen-dollar tickets and sawdust floors the wrong way.” 

“That just means she lacks taste, baby bird,” Dick hums easily, putting his hands on his hips and tapping a foot in consideration. “Hm. Well, Zatanna also happens to be in town next week.” 

Tim considers what it’d do to his self-esteem to watch Kon spend an hour-long show drooling over a gorgeous older woman in fishnets, spanks, and a sexy tuxedo jacket and decides not to go there. Also, there’s the issue of Zatanna potentially recognizing him, and also potentially recognizing Kon, who he doesn’t think she’s ever met but is both terrible at secret identities and a teen heartthrob superhero whose face is all over the place and also looks exactly like Superman’s on top of that. And Zatanna has definitely met Superman.

So yeah, that seems unlikely to end well either way. 

“Maybe,” he says, finally retracting his staff and putting it away. “I don’t know if she likes going to any kind of shows, honestly. Like–I just don’t know her that well yet. Theoretically, obviously.” 

“Obviously,” Dick agrees with a laugh, pulling out his grappling gun and wagging it at him. “Race you back to the Cave? Winner gets tips on how to charm a totally normal civilian who definitely doesn’t fight crime in a cheerleader skirt.” 

Tim has no idea how he feels about the fact Dick is so certain Cissie is the one he’s trying to plan a date for. Then again, Cissie is the one who yelled at half the Justice League. So maybe he sort of understands the assumption. 

Kon looks better in a crop top, though, Tim privately promises himself to never actually say out loud. Like, he definitely does look better, in Tim’s opinion, but a) Cissie would shoot him for said opinion and b) Kon would be unbearably smug about said opinion. And unfortunately, Tim finds Kon’s preening smugness increasingly charming, so he really can’t be doing that to himself. 

He was so damn proud of himself about the fucking crop top, the bastard. Tim should burn it. Or buy him twenty more. One or the other. 

The shorts he’s just not going to think about right now. Like. Ever again. 

He’s pretty sure they’d work better with a thong than boxer briefs, though. Or just going commando outright, maybe. Tactile telekinesis probably makes chafing less of a concern, Tim figures. 

Not that he’s thought about that. At all. In any way. Ever. 

Definitely not. 

Dick fires his grapple and takes off. Tim pretends to be extremely heterosexual about Cissie and not even slightly gay about Kon, though he has very little idea how to actually do that, and rushes after him. There’s basically no way he’s actually going to beat Dick unless criminal activity interferes or Dick just lets him beat him, of course, because Dick’s been flying all his life and flying in specifically Gotham since he was literally prepubescent, and Tim has just been sneaking around random rooftops and alleyways and only actually known how to do a basic somersault for a couple of years, much less any real acrobatics or aerial work. So like, there’s definitely a skill gap there. 

Might as well chuck a flying fish at a hummingbird and see who comes out ahead, really. 

Technically, though, Dick mostly works out of Bludhaven these days, so technically . . . 

Look, Tim just so happens to know about certain construction-related shortcuts that may or may not be currently relevant thanks to some surprise rogue attacks last week, and even if he weren’t pretending to be heterosexual about Cissie he’d be trying to beat Dick back to get first dibs on Alfred’s jaffa cakes, so . . . 

The jaffa cakes are delicious, though the dating advice is unfortunately irrelevant. 

Tim appreciates the thought, at least.

[ghelgheli]

In the 1860s, when he consciously distanced himself from his earlier technocratic productivism, Marx was compelled to rethink his optimistic view of history and to reflect more seriously upon its negative implications. This self-critical reflection took place as he investigated the material aspect of the production process unique to capitalist production, especially how material world — human and non-human — is reorganized by capital's initiative in favour of its own accumulation. This is because the increase of productive forces subordinate workers to command of capital more effectively. If so, 'relations of production' and 'productive forces' cannot be simply separated as assumed in the traditional view of historical materialism. The development of productive forces of capital is dependent upon the thorough reorganization of human metabolism with nature in the form of cooperation, division of labour and machinery. In this sense, the 'mode of production' expresses a particular social arrangement of the material elements of production. That is why in the preface to Capital, Marx set himself the task of examining 'the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production... that correspond to it' instead of treating 'productive forces' as an independent variable as was the case in the preface to A Contribution.

This change concerning the 'mode of production' might be discounted as a minor philological quibble, but its theoretical significance should not be underestimated because it has to do with the transformation of Marx's vision of post-capitalism. When the development of productive forces is not purely formal and quantitative, but is deeply rooted into the transformation and reorganization of the labour process, one can no longer assume that a socialist revolution could simply replace the relations of production with other ones after reaching a certain level of productive forces. Since the 'productive forces of capital' that emerge through the real subsumption are materialized and crystalized in the capitalist mode of production, they disappear together with the capitalist mode of production. In this sense, we need to radically reverse the traditional historical materialist view about the actual relationship between productive forces and relations of production: 'Relations of production determine productive forces' (Tairako 1991).

This is how the establishment of the concepts of 'productive forces of capital' and 'real subsumption' compelled Marx to abandon his earlier formulation of historical materialism in the preface to A Contribution. Since both aspects of Form and Stoff are closely entangled with each other due to the real subsumption of the labour process it is not possible to change one without simultaneously changing the other. This complexity would not occur if the productive forces of capital were simply dependent upon machines. They could be utilized in socialism as before. However, the productive forces developed under capitalism are tightly connected to the uniquely capitalist way of organizing the collaborative, cooperative and other social aspects of labour. If so, the transcendence of the capitalist mode of production must be a much more radical and thoroughgoing one than the mere abolition of private property and exploitation through the re-appropriation of the means of production by the working class. It requires the radical reorganization of the relations of production for the sake of freedom and autonomy among associated producers, so that the productive forces of capital disappear. Otherwise, despotic and ecologically destructive forms of production will continue in post-capitalist society. Yet when the productive forces of capital disappear, the productive forces of social labour are diminished as well.

Kohei Saito, Marx In The Anthropocene

[fairuzfan]

also for the last anon its insane to say that a historical claim from thousands of years ago holds up today, which is why it was fine to organize and then ethnically cleanse the people who had been living there for centuries past the time your own had not. having a connection previous does not fucking entitle you in the present, and it isnt somehow unfair to point out the ridiculousness of this logic! palestinians have been there in OUR modern present. that should be the focus - that a long since past historical claim is being used as justification for genocide. its completely neutral to acknowledge this too, since its. a fucking fact. sorry to yell in your inbox but people oh so politely tiptoeing around this very obvious thing because it will offend ‘liberal zionists’ is getting to me. if you think in anyway this ‘connection’ entitled them to colonialism man do i have some news about the structural instability of your own moral prerogatives.

I mean like at this point who cares about "connection" to the land, you're a colonist. You've given up "connection" (which is like a flimsy work when people have been using it recently) for the sake of imperialism. I guess now I'm stating it outright but like you guys need to define "connection" and what it means to you because I guarantee you that Palestinians have a different definition. otherwise it just is really theoretical and detached from modern politics.

And like again. Palestinian Jewish people exist and have existed. There was no... denial of entry into Palestine for people in a general sense. There was denial of entry of an explicitly colonial project. You cannot say anything about connection in that context. It doesn't matter about whatever you have to say about religious connection or ethnic ties or just whatever. Israel cannot exist. Should not exist. Whatever reason you provide is secondary to the fact that it first and foremost is a colonial project intent on homogenizing people and erasing others for the sake of USAmerican interests and nothing else.

People just really are ridiculous in their claims of "connection" at this point. What the hell do you think indigeniety is. I really don't care about your perceived ties to a land when people are expelled and murdered for you to solidify those ties.

[canmom]

i probably would call myself a consequentialist, but not a utilitarian. my objection to utilitarianism is similar to my objection to the absolutist Bayesianism practiced in That Subculture: it's a philosophy that claims to be based around a certain computation, but actually performing that computation is completely intractable. there's no way to actually update your probability assignments of all possible statements in response to new information, any more than it's possible to aggregate the total happiness/suffering/whatever across the entire future for each imaginable course of action.

so this calculation is entirely notional. what you're actually doing is coming up with verbal arguments and vague heuristics for how you think this notional calculation would work. perhaps it's as good an entry point as any. but the supposed mathematical rigour is just rhetoric! you can talk about utilons this and QALYs that, but there is no way to calculate this shit, it's just a mathematical coat of paint.

the second objection is the 'seeing like a state' objection (or seeing like a company/NGO): the 'utility function' is a construct used to make economic models. it doesn't model humans particularly well, who have a variety of competing impulses that don't lend themselves to nice formalisms. and to demand that you should live according to a utility function is accordingly to strip the world of its complexity to make it more tractable. instead of specific people with specific desires and needs and relationships into which you fit, which aren't necessarily commensurable, you have abstract fungible units of pleasure or suffering or whatever else you're trying to optimise.

this worldview appealed to me as a teenager. I imagined that you could model an agent as a some kind of surface between it and the world - a sphere, perhaps, inside your head; the course of your life would be the movement of particles in and out of this sphere, and theoretically there would be a pattern for every instant of time that would lead to the best possible impact on the world, solving 'life' much like a tool assisted speedrun solves a game. the goal would be then to approximate this optimal run as much as possible. then I'd think of problems with this model: couldn't you just spawn high energy photons on the sphere to melt shit like a laser? we'd have to put some restrictions on it, obviously. what if the optimal run was really close to a harmful run, so a small mistake would lead to disaster? perhaps you'd be better to find a stable local maximum instead. and so on.

I'm not sure what good it did me to imagine this funny (or if you prefer, terminally STEM-brained) thought experiment, but it was very nice and mathematical-looking, and back then I really wanted my philosophy to be impossibly demanding for some reason. some weird combo of depression and autism and a self image very much dependent on being told i was good?

these days my feeling is that the pretense of mathematical rigour where it doesn't exist is untrustworthy, and particularly where people are concerned, abstracting too much loses important information. I'm not a court of law where strict consistency matters for the sake of stability or whatever, nor a government trying to figure out which levers to pull to create the ideal society - I'm an organism embedded in a bewilderingly complex system, and I can take each situation as it comes. treating the people I interact with well is important to me. I still sometimes think along utilitarianish lines sometimes - particularly 'this person could use this money more than me' - but I make no pretense to rigour or optimisation with it.

[alpinelogy]

Mutuals only, I have about three spare copies of each of the graphics that I got printed at 5 x 7 inches size, so theoretically if any of y’all would be interested lmk. I’ve looked into it, it would be sent as a normal letter in a B4 envelope tho I’d reinforce it with cardboard or chipboard to try and prevent any bending and I’m willing to eat the postage costs.

First come first serve for the sake of organization, no limit to the amount but please be courteous to everyone haha, most of yall are mutuals as well :DD

Non mutuals (and people who would like better quality ones and would not mind paying) I am running an interest check for potentially opening preorders for a small scale print run of my graphics

(Alternatively for those mutuals who live in the same city as me — you know who you are — and are down to meet up I’m free for the last week of July and first week of August so we can arrange something :3c)

[read-marx-and-lenin]

If someone identifies as a leftist and is not willing to die and/or kill for the cause, does that make them not a leftist?

Okay, let's try to break this down.

"Leftist" is nothing more than a vague political position. It's possible to "identify as a leftist" and be all sorts of contradictory things. It doesn't mean much. For the sake of this answer, let's limit this to "revolutionary communist" instead, as it's more relevant to my blog.

Let's start with "unwilling to kill". In the strongest sense, this could mean a moral pacifist who is unwilling to engage in violence even in self-defense. Could this person still be a revolutionary communist? Theoretically, yes, but historically pacifist communes who refuse to take up arms have not fared well. An unwillingness to defend oneself if it means engaging in violence is simply a bad strategy for survival, let alone revolution.

Now, if "unwilling to kill" means "unwilling to murder", if you are morally against assassinations and executions but not against armed resistance, then that's more reasonable. Certainly there have been many such events in the history of communism, however that doesn't mean there were no alternatives. I'm against the death penalty myself, even if I still defend those revolutionary states and organizations that have executed people. And I'm not going to mourn Mussolini or the Tzar just because I believe execution is unnecessary.

Finally, if "unwilling to kill" just means "I don't want to be a soldier myself", then there's plenty of ways you can be a revolutionary without being a soldier. The revolution is not built with guns alone.

As for "unwilling to die", then that also depends on what you mean. If it's again just that you can't or don't want to be a soldier, then that doesn't mean there's nothing else you can do. An army needs more than soldiers. But if it's "unwilling to participate during times of crisis" then that's a lot more severe. If at the first sign of trouble you'd rather run away or defect out of fear, then it's best for you not to join at all. Not everyone has to be a revolutionary in the first place. As long as you're not a counter-revolutionary, as long as you're not getting in the way or actively opposing the revolution, then I don't think anyone would judge you for just being a regular civilian. There's always been plenty of those in every revolution, even if many of them had found it necessary to take up arms eventually.

Ultimately, nobody wakes up one day and goes "boy I sure would love to kill and/or die for the cause!" That's something that happens as a result of the oppression and destruction brought upon us by capitalists and imperialists. Resistance is not a matter of what you choose, it's something you do because you have no other choice. The capitalists and imperialists have the choice to stop oppressing us if they really wanted to. But why would they if we didn't resist them?

[titleknown]

...On the voting discourse going on, I have a few thoughts I may as well articulate.

Like, firstly... witholding votes as a way of "punishing" the Dems or getting people to engage with alternate political systems hasn't worked. Like, ever.

If anything they've seen it as carte-blanche to go further right while ignoring the reasons why their "base" is disengaging due to the awful Skeksis running the party.

Granted an organized "boycott" of the Dems could theoretically work, but if we had an org powerful enough to do that (Which we don't at the moment), we could probably spend our time way more productively in other ways.

Like, I do not get why we think that "vote shaming" will work for us when it works for the Dems...

...But that's not to say I have many nice things to say about the whole "Vote for the lesser evil" dynamic either. Because "telling people not to vote doesn't work" and "telling people to vote for the lesser evil doesn't work" are statements that can very much coexist!

Like, even beyond the burnout as things still keep getting worse, there's people who the US state has never done a decent thing for, and of course people who's families overseas Biden is currently paying for the bombing thereof.

Like,from talking to them, the "read Settlers" sort of leftists often have very good reasons from their personal lives for being as pessimistic about voting's capacity to change things as they are. Especially those who're marginalized and living in the South, they have every right to be disillusioned and angry with the society of the racist; bigoted monsters they're surrounded by.

To hold that wonkish realpolitik "hold your nose" as a cudgel those people is not only more than a little ghoulish, but more relevantly ineffective. You're not going to get past trauma with Facts and Logic (TM)

Like, for all that Trump's Project 2025 is fucking terrifying and (full disclosure) I think voting for the sake of avoiding that is warranted, I also think vote-shaming to that end is also Not Helping, and we're going to need to put our organizational energy elsewhere if we want to get out of the deathloop of voting for DemSkex or RepubliSkex.

Like, relating to @mostlysignssomeportents idea of activism, if activism is an ant moving forward on its legs against the flood, and one of the legs can't go any further, they should probably try to find where the other legs can go without the other one going into the drink.

So, fuck "Vote Blue, no matter who," or "Fuck voting" it should be "Either way, join the DSA," at least IMO...

[demystifiedstardust]

Researching Constelic

Cw subjective opinions.

⚠️ This is intended to be an analysis of what I've been able to dig up concerning the topic of constelic identity, and how it exclusively applies to myself. I have no intention of invalidating anyone's constelic experience. This piece contains both positive and negative opinions on stelling exclusively as a framework, and is not meant as commentary on people who use constelic terminology for themselves. Still, I understand that a person very attached to stelling may take this analysis personally when no offense is meant. Use your best judgment on if this piece is appropriate for you. ⚠️

While searching for fresh ideas, I stumbled upon the constelic community. It seemed promising at a glance, except for an important detail...

...is there a community?

I can find lots of flag and coining blogs, but actual constels are nowhere to be seen. I can't find anyone talking about the experience of stelling at the time of this writing, save for an anonymous submission blog (and during my research, I hit the bottom of #actually constelic, wow).

Well, that and... from what scant information I can find about the subculture to begin with, it seems less about experience to begin with, and more about label hoarding.

I'd like to say right now that there's nothing inherently Wrong or Bad about hoarding labels. Some people find meaning in doing so. That being said, I am not one of those people. Label hoarding isn't what I'm looking for in a potential identity-centric community.

Hoarding constels feels like... the aesthetic of an identity, without actually exploring an identity? I don't see the appeal of not engaging with your own identity. I wouldn't have made this blog at all if I didn't feel strongly about that. I don't have a desire to curate and grow a list for the sake of keeping a list. While there's nothing inherently wrong with aesthetics either, for me, the list is secondary to the experience itself.

This aestheticization of identity permeates the various terminologies under the constelic umbrella. Orbiting, veiling, constel(ation)s, phases. Why is the core terminology celestial-body-based? Is there a reason, other than aesthetic? Everything not immediately celestial-based is a rebrand of existing kin words, right down to stellie as an alternative to kinnie. Why is all this hyperspecific vocabulary necessary for a concept that has yet to be adopted by a core base of users, if not for aesthetic?

The end result is something that feels derivative of kin, without the organic community and subcultural development of kin. I think it was meant to be a more inclusive alternative to kin, but in its current state it feels forced. That there are posts in the tags at all indicates an amount of success, but it still feels like a sterile environment, like the internet version of a staged home that's never meant to be actually lived in. The lack of discoverable experiences compounds this feeling. It's unfortunate, because there are aspects within the framework of stelling that deserve to be explored.

The lack of separation between "identify as" and "identity with" is the most attractive feature of stelling in my humble opinion, as these two concepts can become fuzzy and fluid between each other. This is something I experience with my relationship to vampires and deep water. I oscillate between both modalities, and while the oscillation itself causes me no discomfort, there isn't much in the way of community that can accommodate a fluid state of being such as my own.

This lack of distinction serves as both an affirmation of freedom of identity fluidity within the label, as well as an anti-gatekeeping measure. I also like the affirmation that a constel can be obtained and dropped at any point in a person's life, contrary to the heavy insinuation in kin spaces that identity is permanent and inherent. It theoretically creates an environment with comparatively less expectations and more wiggle room to parse out an identity without fear of mistakes.

The constelic symbol is also really logographic! I can't say the same about some other logos in the same vein, like the fic//tionkin keys symbol. Perhaps as expected from a framework heavily concerned with aesthetic, but it still should be noticed and appreciated. I'm a sucker for good graphic design. One more thing I like is the color scheme on the basic constellic flag. I hope the creator is proud of themselves, because they did a great job.

So as a concept, there are many things I really like about the constelic framework of identity. Unfortunately, the hoarding aspect of constels is incompatible with what I desire for myself. I want to understand the different aspects myself--how they influence me on a granular level, how they influence each other, how they paint the picture of "me". I want to play with my identity, and I want to be serious with my identity. Above all, I want to engage with my identity. This creates a conceptual disconnect between me and stelling.

In practice, the constelic community is barren and unpopulated. There's nothing of substance--no connections between other people, no posts to read except endless coinings that may or may not have a practical use. It's disappointing but not surprising, given the constelic framework's leaning toward identity hoarding and not engaging.

Ultimately, I don't have a use for stelling in my life, aside from comparing and contrasting it to my ideals. My march continues onward, but this was an interesting pitstop.

[pathokin]

Classifying Psychological 'Kin

Preface: I didn’t devise these classifications with the expectation of them becoming larger community terms. I just want to use them in my own writing for the sake of organizing ideas and concepts. Being able to quickly distinguish between the different psychological ‘kin categories is convenient. However, if you like them, feel free to use them as you wish. I’d be very flattered. :p

Additionally, a lot of the terms I use here (e.g., neurodevelopmental, pathodevelopmental, neuropathological) are already established and defined words in different contexts. Here, I use them in a strictly ‘kin-related context, and therefore there may be deviations in meaning.

“A ‘kin identity caused by or related to psychological phenomena.” This is along the lines of the generally accepted definition of psychological ‘kin. Before I continue, I’d like to share a description of psychological phenomena since it is helpful to understand what they are exactly as well as their nature:

[A psychological] phenomenon is a fundamental psychological process that has theoretically deduced antecedents and consequences and thereby helps explain [cognitions, feelings and behaviors]. … Psychological phenomena exist to a varying degree, with variation occurring between and within them. Some of them are stronger and more consistent in their appearance and influence across time, situations and groups than others. …' By their nature, psychological phenomena are subtle, elusive, and often brief in time. This is fundamentally due to conscious and non-conscious processing of cognitions and emotions. … People’s thinking varies from simple to complex, from what might be called simple main-effect thinking to complex interaction-effect thinking. As a result, the threshold for emergence of phenomena can vary substantially. The same phenomenon may readily exert its influence in one situation but not at all in slightly different circumstances. … Yet, the real world is multi-causal, with phenomena being influenced by many causal factors. As Meehl (1990, p. 123) stated in his “crud factor” principle, “everything is correlated with everything, more or less.” This, of course, means that the null hypothesis is never true. That “everything influences everything” also means that psychological phenomena do not represent stand-alone effects but rather, are related to other effects. … Finally, it should be noted that psychological phenomena and their influences also vary in the long term, often becoming more pronounced and enhanced with time. “Persons are continuously and irreversibly changing”. … They learn from and change with their experiences, becoming “enlightened” by them. (Iso-Ahola, 2017, pp. 2, 3, 4)

Here is my own definition of “psychological phenomenon”, derived from the text above: A fundamental process that explains cognitions, feelings, and behaviors. They are typically brief in nature, with longer-standing phenomena (such as the experience of psychological kinity) being more pronounced and influential to the individual.

These descriptions, both Iso-Ahola’s and my own, illustrate how all-encompassing our definition of psychological ‘kin is. This is wonderful from a community standpoint: it unites individuals with a variety of experiences and gives them a space to connect with those who are similar to them, even if they aren’t the exact same. It provides us with a lot of flexibility while being specific enough to bring ‘kin together. However, when I sit down to write about psychological ‘kin, I find myself digressing in order to describe the individual psychological experiences before getting to the point. Maybe that’s a me thing, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, but I wanted to come up with a means of being more concise, at least for my own purposes.

So, what I’ve done is divided psychological ‘kin into four types: pathological, developmental, neurological, and undefined. Among those are subtypes that account for mixed explanations: pathodevelopmental, neurodevelopmental, neuropathological, and neuropathodevelopmental. Technically speaking–as far as I know–neurology does not fall under psychology, but (1) neurology and psychology are frequently paired together, and (2) neurological explanations have historically been accepted as psychological kinity, so there is no need to separate that group from the others.

Pathological kinity has its roots in psychiatric disorders and/or symptoms. The prefix “patho-” comes from the Greek páthos, meaning experience, misfortune, emotion, and condition. (Although, it should be noted that pathology is the study of disease and not suffering.) (“Pathos,” n.d.) As an example of pathological kinity, consider an identity based on delusions spurred by a condition such as bipolar disorder (BD) with psychotic features or schizophrenia. It’s of note that while these delusions may be motivated, i.e. delusions that play a defensive purpose by defusing negative emotions (Bortolotti, 2015), “motivated” does not mean “voluntary”. That is, a pathological ‘kin whose kintype provides psychological ease or support in some way is not the same as copinglinkers, who voluntarily identify with a character/species/etc. to cope.

The developmental ‘kin identity relates to the ways in which we grow, change, and adapt throughout our lifespan. Although significant emphasis is given to birth, childhood, and especially adolescence, I postulate that a developmental ‘kin identity can crystallize during any stage of life. I follow Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development while outlining said stages–individuals all go through eight developmental stages, with each being defined by a central psychosocial crisis. The resolution of these crises is reflected in the “alternative basic senses or attitudes” that develop as a result of each stage. In theory, said basic attitudes play a part in one’s psychosocial effectiveness and resulting personality development. (Munley, 1975) I will write more about developmental kinity in the future, as it deserves a dedicated post. 

The neurological ‘kin identity is based in the structure and function of the nervous system. Admittedly, I have not found any specific neurological bases of ‘kinity that aren’t somehow linked to pathology or development, but I’m sure there are individuals out there who would fall under this particular group. This label is one that I added somewhat tentatively due to my lack of an example outside of the subgroups, but I would be remiss if I didn’t represent a documented part of the psychological ‘kin community. If anybody would like to contribute here, please be my guest.

That brings us to the subgroups. This is getting a little long, so I will explain them in bullet points:

NEURODEVELOPMENTAL - A ‘kin identity based in the structure and function of the individual’s nervous system as it has been guided by psychosocial factors. Neurodevelopment itself is defined as “a term referring to the brain's development of neurological pathways that influence performance or functioning (e.g., intellectual functioning, reading ability, social skills, memory, attention or focus skills).” (What Is Neurodevelopment?, n.d.) Perhaps one example could be an individual who readily picks up behaviors similar to their kintype in the early phases of their life due to developmental neuroplasticity. This explanation would not occur to the same extent later on in life due to synaptic pruning.

PATHODEVELOPMENTAL - A ‘kin identity based in the development or onset of psychiatric conditions. One example would be kinity rooted in identity diffusion, a result of failure in one of Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages (identity vs. role confusion), with that identity diffusion relating to the individual’s borderline personality disorder (BPD). This is distinguishable from pathological kinity in that psychosocialelements have been introduced. The earlier example cited, delusions stemming from a disorder, does not inherently have any psychosocial elements, therefore it is simply pathological.

NEUROPATHOLOGICAL - A ‘kin identity based in the neuroanatomical deviations associated with psychiatric disorders. Imagine an individual who points to the “pronounced structural abnormalities of the prefrontal and temporal cortexes” (Tost et al., 2010) caused by BD as the source of delusions that form the basis of their identity. 

NEUROPATHODEVELOPMENTAL - A ‘kin identity based in deviations of the structure and function of the nervous system as they have been influenced by developmental (usually psychosocial) and pathological (psychiatric) factors.

With all of the other groups and subgroups out of the way, the undefined psychological ‘kin identity would be that of those who don’t wish to label their experiences or are unsure of their kinity’s origins. They most likely would want to simply label themselves as psychological ‘kin, and this should be respected. Given the sensitive nature of psychology, pushing someone towards introspection that they do not consent to can have severe consequences. 

I would also like to note that the usage of these labels, in many cases, would be subjective. For example, somebody might not feel that their kinity is based in the biology behind their psychiatric conditions (neuropathological), but rather the psychosocial factors that influenced their psychiatric conditions (pathodevelopmental), even though psychosocial and biological factors are both present.

I enjoy using these labels for myself even outside of writing, but I don’t want to force them on anyone else. Many are content with just being called psychological kin and that’s entirely understandable. It’s quick, it’s easy, it’s recognizable, and it’s well-established. 

If anybody has any input, feel free to chime in! I’d love to hear some feedback. Feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong and I will edit the post appropriately. Thanks for reading!

References:

Bortolotti, L. (2015, May). The epistemic innocence of motivated delusions. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.10.005

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (2017, June 2). Reproducibility in Psychological Science: When Do Psychological Phenomena Exist? Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00879

Munley, P. H. (1975, July). Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development and vocational behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(4), 314–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076749

pathos. (n.d.). In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathos

Tost, H., Ruf, M., Schmäl, C., Schulze, T. G., Knorr, C., Vollmert, C., Bößhenz, K., Ende, G., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Henn, F. A., & Rietschel, M. (2010, January). Prefrontal-temporal gray matter deficits in bipolar disorder patients with persecutory delusions. Journal of Affective Disorders, 120(1–3), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.04.009

What is Neurodevelopment? (n.d.). Brighton Center for Pediatric Neurodevelopment. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://www.bcpn.org/what-is-neurodevelopment-.html

[mkstrigidae]

WIP Game

Thank you @cellsshapedlikestars for tagging me!!! This has made me realize how many ridiculous things I have floating around in my fanfic writing folder and hopefully doing this will help jog my brain into writing mode because hoooooo boy has it not wanted to be there.

Rules: post the names of all the files in your WIP folder, regardless of how non-descriptive or ridiculous. Let people send you an ask with the title that most intrigues them and then post a little snippet or tell them something about it!

(Also I have a system I use where I save writing files with the original work title abbreviated, then the pairing name if clarification is needed, before the working title of fic so I just kept that in for clarity's sake- like this is not an exaggeration this is genuinely how I have to keep things organized to prevent complete digital anarchy on my laptop)

ACOTAR- Nesta Death Magic

ASOIAF/LOTR- Sansa Drops into Middle Earth

ASOIAF-Jonsa- Demon Librarian AU

ASOIAF- Drunk Shenanigans/Herpetology AU

ASOIAF-Jonsa- East of the Sun and West of the Moon

ASOIAF-Jonsa- Fae AU's

ASOIAF- Sansaery- Growing Strong

ASOIAF- Jonsa- Ice Planet Barbarians AU

ASOIAF- I'm not dead yet

ASOIAF-Jonsa- 24 hr Diner/Mob AU

ASOIAF-Jonsa Mermaid AU

ASOIAF-Jonsa- New Star Wars AU

ASOIAF-Jonsa- Nuclear Winter Wonderland AU

ASOIAF- Pacific Rim AU (Maelstrom Series)

ASOIAF- Jonsa Plague AU

ASOIAF- POTC AU

ASOIAF- Reincarnation AU

ASOIAF- Jonsa Roommates AU

ASOIAF/HMC- Sansa as Howl and Willas as Sophie

ASOIAF- Santa Clarita Diet AU

ASOIAF- Jonsa Soulmate Oneshot (Surgeon/Bodyguard)

ASOIAF- Star Wars AU (Luminous Beings)

ASOIAF- Jonsa- The one where Jon dies (but not at the end)

ASOIAF- Jonsa Titanic AU

ASOIAF- Jonsa Wolf Shifter AU

ATLA- Katara Character Study

FMA- Royai Howl's Moving Castle

Fringe- Hogwarts AU

HP- Dramione- Hermione obliviates her parents before fifth year AU

HP- Hermione and Luna

Labyrinth- Jareth Vanishes and Sarah Returns

MCU- DarcyNat- New girl in town

Naruto- Criminal minds AU

Star Wars- The Blacklist AU

Extra Treat below the cut if you aren't completely bored:

The names of all my APWH specific WIP files (They're organized into arcs rather than chapters- Mild spoilers possibly) (I swear to god I'm not making any of these up)

APWH- CH 17-18-19 Draft

APWH- Aftermath/Finale

APWH- Ages/Time Zone/location Reference Points

APWH- Baelish Defense

APWH Bits and Pieces

APWH- C10H8N2O6 Notes

APWH- Ending Bonanza- Get WRECKED Petyr

APWH- Lysa's Prequel

APWH- Drunken meeting AU

APWH- Bits and pieces- Ch 16 onward

APWH- Ch ?- Shit hits the fan

APWH- Ch 16 New Draft

APWH- O & D's Current Case Notes/Investigation into Alys' Disappearance

APWH- Sansa goes back to school

APWH- Sansa Talks to the Media?

APWH- Sansa's summer tour

APWH- the Lakehouse (theoretically)

APWH- The Trial

I'll tag @rabidbehemoth, @mouseymightymarvellous, @woodswit, and anyone else who wants to give this a shot!

[hegrowth]

@vanishinq liked for a sims build [always accepting !]

me, realizing too late that you had a pinterest and a spotify I could have been using to inspire me for this build instead of just riffing. anyway, too late to go back now, have this. I know like. very little about your muse. but I got a vibe based off stuff I've seen you post to the dash, and that's what inspired this. sorry.

my idea was casper having a trophy room. stolen items, forgeries, antiques and treasures. I wanted both a very artful, modern feel but also like. cluttered. like I feel like the con artist has a very specific aesthetic and I kind of catered to that ? but casper also strikes me as the kind of person who has like. adhd and so maybe isn't the most organized, which kinda bellies the typical concept of an art thief having this museum-esque trophy room. like there's structure for arts sake, and then there's structure for purpose, and I feel like while casper may excel with the first he kind suffers with the second.

speaking of adhd. I put some records up on top of the aquarium because I was like. idk casper just strikes me as the kind of person who would be like "I don't have anywhere to put this.... so I'm going to put this in this unconventional spot and totally remember later" but then doesn't remember obviously. aka an experience I had myself recently lmao so how long have they been up there ? who knows ? has he realized they're up there yet ? does he care ? idk.

anyway. tried to put a lot of artful and antique looking stuff in the room, i.e. the statues and jewelry and vases. included some books, as well as a record player because casper seems like the person who would collect obscure vinyl records. I also figured that he may be worldly, at least theoretically (as in, hasn't traveled but knows a lot) so I tried to include some different cultural stuff as well. maybe not all are worth something monetarily, but have some sort of personal value to him.

I enjoyed the idea of casper not being a big drinker but having "acquired" multiple crates of some vintage that just kinda sits there. as well as a whole ass british telephone booth and a greek statue ??

also ngl the colors were based off your blog aesthetic.

lastly just want to say, I fucking love the wall console. I've never done that kind of thing before but kept seeing it in builds on youtube so was like. I'm gonna do the thing ! populating the shelves and figuring out the lighting was tons of fun. plus who doesn't love an accent wall ?

anyway ! hope you like it <3 sorry it's a riff more than anything.