#I MEAN FOR REAL I COULD WRITE AN ESSAY ON HOW AUTISTIC THIS MAN IS

[survivoirs]

me: woo. its good to finally start getting active on here again and getting to drafts and interactions.

me: *wanting to write this workaholic, absent minded professor type (absent af dad too whoops) autistic inventor witch so he can divorce his awful wife, focus more on his kids like they deserve and so he can get a boyfriend instead*

anyways ima add him on as a test muse and see if there are even people writing in this verse SOBS

[eros-vigilante]

issues w/ the octopath fandom, racism, and ableism

whats from the source

octopath does some racist bs quite frequently.

cotc (the mobile gacha) has an entire storyline filled with anti-indigenous and racist tropes.

the mainline octopath games have yet to design a traveler with curly hair, and frequently whitewashes the tan and dark-skinned characters in official artwork (compare these with the real ones; here's partitios official cotc splash art). ochette's hair especially is straight-as-a-ruler and silver. also worth considering eye colors. partitio is sad because his concept art had only one design where he's white and a couple even had dreadlocks, and yet his splash art refuses to match his sprite colors.

the beastlings... i'm white and have done more research on the tropes in cotc since i play it more, so while i did have thoughts of my own while playing, here is a better post i found that lists off all the bad choices about them.

also worth mentioning kaldena. one of the few dark-skinned characters in the game is a villain (and also has straight silver hair). other people have also broken down what choices in temenos' story around this were bad better than i could. i can't find a post with a quick search so if you want to reblog this to talk about it i will reblog/link it.

ableism. while i am a big fan of the autism-coding in the franchise, it's still true that there are a lot of jokes made in the games at the expense of osvald and cyrus (moreso cyrus). it's setting accurate for people to be mean to autistic people, but you're still supposed to laugh at "i guess cyrus isn't actually that smart!" which pushes the idea that autism affects intelligence and maturity. i think overall the autism representation is great (pspsps my essay) but it's definitely the source of some awful shit i've had to read people say about cyrus and osvald.

edit 1: friend reminded me of something i forgot that i only learned after talking to it about it a while ago: therion's story is actually really really weird in how it tries to frame cornelia and especially heathcote as helping therion when what they did is enslave him.

whats from the fandom

fanart whitewashing. there is a lot of fanart of therion and partitio with pale skin tones. there is fanart of olberic and ochette with significantly lighter/barely tan skin tones. i'm not going to find any to link because harassment and arguing is not the point of this post, but if you've looked through fanart you've seen it.

here's their skin tones blended. even with the highlights included, they're not white. i get it, their splash art is very ambiguous from the colorism, so if you weren't using the sprites: here's your new references.

ableism directed at cyrus and osvald. i've seen people complain about osvald's personality writing and then cite ptsd and autism symptoms, so many people call cyrus stupid, an idiot, or imply he is not mature. people assume/default hc that he is bad at adult activies. he is a thirty year old professor. it is his job to be mature, good with children, smart, etc. this is infantalization of an autistic character. it's a default assumption that the autistic man is below-average at adult functions.

infantalization of ochette. there are hcs and portrayals of ochette to be far less responsible and mature than she is in canon. she is the protector of her island, it is a theme of her story that she was forced to grow up more mature than everyone else. yes, she is funny, cheerful, energetic, but some fandom portrayals of her reduce her to just that, like she's a puppy. always being irresponsible, impulsive, etc. this matches to her dynamic with castti going from the sweet found family of their crossed path into "castti is the mother who needs to rein in this wild child"- and also consider how it looks to portray the only (consistently portrayed as) dark-skinned character as wild when she is responsible and mature in her story. similarly to cyrus, people tend to default to hcs that she would be bad at normal adult activities just because she has 'childish' traits.

what do you want me to do about it

eyedrop skintones from sprites or go darker for the guys who aren't white. consider changing their hair up, like using the concept art design for partitio. drawing characters of color differently from canon doesn't solve the racism in the game industry, but it is good practice for drawing poc and representing them more accurately.

don't... insult the autistic characters. there are things cyrus is canonically bad at that have nothing to do with his autism, like singing, but don't act like he's bad at everything that's not part of his interests. real people act how osvald does due to trauma. neither of them are two-dimensional in personality, they're written with nuance and a range of emotions outside of Being Autistic.

respect ochette more. are you portraying her as only silly or the savior of her home, or both? would someone who hasn't played ot2 know that ochette has overcome challenges based on your portrayal of her, or would they think she's a comedy relief?

learn about racism. learning about what kind of racist tropes are common in media and games helps a lot with recognizing it in other places, like the beastlings or kaldena. and most of all, learning about racist stereotypes and tropes makes you less likely to perpetuate them unintentionally.

putting the cotc racism essay down here so i can say that it has spoilers for Bestower of Power if you're a cotc player. it's different from the post i linked at the start; way more focused on just the anti-indig stereotypes in the villain's design.

the last thing i want to say is oh my god i love talking about this stuff so much. if you are confused about ANYTHING i talked about or want to talk about it more, or add your own experiences, or ask for recommendations, i love that shit. i made this because i believe most people who are really active in this fandom don't do this kind of stuff maliciously, and would benefit from just having a chance to talk about it. for some reason i am very into explaining/taking apart bigoted language, where it comes from, what it means etc. Please

[verdemoun]

I wonder, how's Kieran doing, from the side of his neurodivergency? Was it diagnosed? Does he get support? An AAC perhaps, seeing as the poor guy's semi-verbal? How'd the rest of the gang accept it? I'M JUST SO CURIOUS ABOUT HIM I AM HOLDING HIM I AM SHAKING HIM LIKE A TOY HOW IS HE HANDLING HIS NEURODIVERGENCY

I am so normal about Kieran

You come into my house, the certified kieran duffy hyperfixation page, ask about my blorbo, my boy, the sole reason why RDR2 has infected my brain and completely changed my ability to engage with any other form of media, while also addressing my special interest of neurodivergence as a fellow brain wonk and career disability support worker all while finishing with the line 'I am so normal about Kieran'? Like shit I mean can I take you out for dinner?? Marry me maybe??

I am also so normal about Kieran

kieran duffy is autistic thank you goodnight!

no i will write a 2k word essay. kieran is pretty mid-spectrum (brief pause to acknowledge spectrum language lowkey outdated and problematic but no universally accepted alternative) he has chronic anxiety and mild aversion to eye contact, misses a lot of social cues, is hyper fixation central, but executive function-wise if he had spent his whole life in any one time period he would have been a-okay at being independent with some adaptive strategies

side tangent literally the first conversation he has with mary beth is so autistic he completely misses a rhetorical question, happily answers it, and then jumps straight into 'you're very pretty'. he apologizes for being forward he can and does acknowledge social conventions but just autistic brain does not understand why. is aware his brain is not wonking in the same direction as other people's brains.

but so. many. common sensory issues are a direct result of advances in technology. sure in 1899 wanting to cover your ears during a gunfight is a minor disadvantage but you know what isn't?? having every instinct in your body tell you to run away from the overwhelming loud noises. it took more effort to go into a city than to avoid them. going from horses, campfires and comfortably worn in clothing to the constant noise of cars, searing of artificial lights and synthetic fabric with clothes tags? bad time. Bad Time.

the real big issue for kieran in timewarp au is the c-ptsd autism combo meal. in general, buddy's got trauma. very clearly articulates how bad being an o'driscoll was physically and mentally. his intro is literally colm grabbing his collar and slapping him. gets starved and threatened with genital mutilation and still begs to stay with the VDLs because he hates colm. talks about the absolute power and control colm has. anxious whimpers telling arthur he saw o'driscolls riding around. it ain't just hate he is terrified of colm. you ever have a hypothetical anxiety situation become real and feel that knot of dread as your skin turns cold? knowing your literal worst nightmare was unfolding. and in this case, worse than he imagined. yeah. that's what it would've been like when kieran got taken at shady belle. immediately knowing he wasn't going to survive. only thing he could do is make sure he protected the VDLs and he instead he talked. it's canon kieran talked, whether tortured or manipulated into talking he did. first people to treat him decent, people he considered friends, and he died feeling like he betrayed them.

timewarp means dying. memories of dying. personally hc eye gauging was first but even - being beheaded. intentional deliberate time taken to make a show of it and inflict maximum psychological torment knowing what's going to happen opposed to the immediate bang and bullet of being shot. already autistic chronic anxiety man helpless to stop what's about to happen. i wonder if he thought the VDLs would care enough to try to rescue him and tried to hold onto that faint belief or if he immediately knew he meant so little they wouldn't? he died as he lived - alone.

only to immediately be thrown into modern era. fending for himself for approx a month before the gang stumble across him. with those memories being recent. with the overstimulation of suddenly being thrown into modern era saint denis. he is a homeless autistic man with no idea where he is what's happening what is a car why are they so loud why are street lights so bright and he just went through literally dying. having all his anxieties and the memories of the pain of whatever he went through with the o'driscolls. and the guilt? he is so terrified of the consequences of talking and betraying the gang that he literally runs from lenny and hosea when they first find him in timewarp. a month of starving, surviving on loose change and corner store coffee and occasional apple he may have picked out of a bin and still chooses to run because he's so completely traumatized by being taken/betraying the gang.

it's a lot more ptsd and that anxiety around 'i talked' that lead to semi-verbalism with autism reinforcing it opposed to the other way around. it only takes a few days of gentle encouragement + food + safe warm place to sleep (first time since long before even riding with the o'driscolls) for kieran to get comfortable with nods or the occasional one word response and most of the gang are happy to leave it there because they get he's been through a Lot. lenny and hosea saw what happened to him. hosea carried his decapitated head to his grave. they're all struggling and learning to adapt to modern era. kieran locking himself in a room for a week, flinching at any noise or touch like he's been scalded just seems reasonable after what he's gone through.

except despite being stray dog starved he's still picking at meals obviously only eating the meat and veggies which he has always done so they don't really think to mention it. and he doesn't really start settling in. he just. sits in room. might tremble into the kitchen like a wee lamb at 2am when he thinks everyone's asleep, grab an apple and vanish back to his room. gang increasingly confused because kieran is completely avoiding eye contact but clearly listening, answering questions as he stares in horror at the dishwasher no matter how many times they've explained it and let him like try to figure it out realise it isn't some sort of torture device. but maybe he was always like that how many actually talked to him??

resident tech lad lenny tries showing him a basic AAC app but having to remember to 1. charge phone 2. use phone 3. open app 4. scroll until finding image that probably means what he wants because he can't read 5. click button until gang charades out whole sentence is a lot of steps compared to just fidgeting/staring until someone asks the right question. it gets frustrating because he knows the complete sentence is 'hi sean what's the deal with you always bringing home pizzas also is there any way you could please bring home the one that's plain cheese again??' but he can't read so it's just guessing based on images 'sean why pizza? please pizza cheese' when he uses the AAC. instead he can eat his cheesy pizza, make a point of getting sean's attention, point at pizza, nod and get the point of 'i really like cheesy pizza please can you get more' across all while still chewing.

bessie, who is a history professor and absolutely talks to autistic people on a daily basis is embarrassed how long it takes her to realize hey wait kieran is a) only leaving his room at times where sensory load is reduced b) stimming to soothe when confronted with something new or higher anxiety than usual and c) only has multiple syllable conversations about horses and fishing. he went from terrified rabbit to genuinely excited to be talking about those things only to shut down immediately again when the conversation shifted or something happened that spooked him. she introduces him to noise cancelling headphones, slowly, gently explaining what they are, giving him multiple options to say no because still a new weird sensation but the relief is instant. kieran looked around, realized he couldn't hear damned buzzing and cars and just beamed leg bouncing in sheer excited relieved joy.

it's a lot more figuring out what works for kieran through trial and error because the gang have not heard of autism and don't really get it despite bessie's best efforts to explain. sean absolutely hit her with the 'wouldn't that make everyone autistic??' and she snapped back 'wOuLDn'T tHaT mAKe EveRYoNe iRiSH'. but they're all going through adapting to modern era and can empathize pretty well with how overwhelming a lot of the modern era is. electricity does have a noise most people get used to but every single one of the timewarpers went through a phase of looking over their shoulder in mild irritation because it's constant until their brains learned to filter the sound. kieran won't and wears headphones to cope with it? sure thing that makes sense!

trauma brain is desperate for assurances of safety by avoiding triggers (loud or new noises, green clothing, strangers, anything unfamiliar=dangerous) while autism brain is screaming safety is found in routine so that becomes a very important thing. with no horses to look after his routine is very much watch tv, do gardening, help out around house because feeling helpful is a dopamine hit for him. it's a lot of letting him do things at his own pace because he is a people pleaser and will do anything if he thinks he is being useful even at his own expense. but 'being helpful' goal setting a really easy way to gently expand his comfort zone. grocery shopping was withdrawn meltdown inducing but the second he has a job like being asked to push the trolley he will merrily shop for hours because he's just focusing on one task. brain suddenly content ignoring things that would otherwise be overwhelming, and once all the neurodivergency in his brain decides grocery shopping is not a potentially fatal experience he's suddenly wandering aisles picking up things they forgot or content going to the grocery store alone because he wanted a specific thing.

after catching kieran self-medicating anxiety with alcohol they do go through the process of at least getting him on SSRIs which is a lot easier than going through the process of a full diagnosis of adult autism but it's already a footnote in his medical file because it's pretty clear to anyone with an ounce of neurodivergent awareness that he is textbook autistic. and honestly modern era for kieran: it's not better or worse than canon for his particular brand of autism but definitely different. he's actually more comfortable around people in general because the odds of running into someone who has committed murder is a lot lower than it was in outlaw circles. because of supports like noise-cancelling and sensory toys he's more curious about things that would have made him want to tear his flesh off his bones in the past. genuinely enjoys when the gang decide to catch the train somewhere vs the heart attack the idea would've been in 1899. instead of needing to retreat and stim and be alone he will catch himself getting distressed over something (it's sean putting away dishes with reckless abandon) and pull on a weighted blanket and be at peace again. still would rather be in 1899 taking care of horses because there was less things to get used to but he can get comfortable with new things and actually find new things he enjoys

plus the gang do genuinely care about him. it started as crippling guilt of not realizing he was taken by the o'driscolls until horsemen apocalypses but they almost all come around to him being a really pleasant guy and are more than glad to support whenever he needs it. like hosea will merrily encourage an infodump because he also really enjoys fishing. in a sad but wholesome way the gang don't really notice how neurodivergent he is because they just didn't pay enough attention to him in canon era to see how the manifestations of autism have changed. just yeah there's duffy he don't talk a whole lot but do not ask him about seasonal fishing unless you have 3 hours to spare. do not go into his room that is his space he has hosea's permission to react violently to people messing with his things and the whole posse will rain hellfire upon anyone who takes his snacks without replacing them.

with it being clear kieran is not the biggest fan of the AAC lenny learns and helps teach kieran basic ASL so on less verbal days he can still ask for things and join in instead of getting frustrated with himself. most of the people he regularly hangs out with know enough words for it to be insanely helpful. his most used 'sign' is flipping people off. the gang's whiplash actually getting to know more of his personality as he feels safer around them than he ever did in 1899?? he might be a gentle buffoon but he is also a sass gremlin. arthur complains once about it being the 17th time kieran has watched spirit stallion of the cimarron and kieran sweetly threatens to reverse saving his life if arthur tries to reach for the remote again. he'll join in making fun of lenny and sean for how obviously they are simping for each other.

[cooking-mama-meshi]

(Sorry in advance op I ment to write a small response to the comments/tags of this funny post and ended up writing abit of an essay)

Man the Shuro hate I’m seeing here is really unfortunate- and is kinda rubbing me the wrong way. I’m not even a huge Shuro fan, but I feel like there is some simplification and reduction happening here.

Obviously ppl are allowed to like and dislike characters as they please- I’m not policing anyone’s personal opinion on a fictional character. However it feels like a lot of ppl are demonizing him, therefore ignoring one of the main themes of the entire story. There are no “bad guys” and “good guys” in dungeon meshi. Most ppl don’t deliberately want to harm others. Even the main antagonist, the Winged Lion, is simply acting on the base desire of *hunger*. However it’s by persuing their desires, people are put in positions of conflict. They have to make difficult choices, and miscommunication happens.

Over all, miscommunication is a very difficult trope to pull off in writing, and can often be very frustrating for an audience if not done well. But when miscommunication and misunderstanding happens in Dungeon Meshi, it’s my favorite parts. Because it feels so human.

The way Ryoko Kui writes makes the world of dungeon meshi feel *incredibly* life like and relatable in a way not many pieces of media are able to capture. I feel like it is a disservice to Ryoko Kui’s effective and deliberate writing to reduce Shuro to “Neurotypical + bad.”

I understand the impulse, especially as someone who is Neurodivergent. The big fight between Shuro and Laios hit very close to home and is very relatable as someone who was often on Laios’s side of the argument. But it’s also probably one of my favorite moments in the entire series. Because it’s written *so* well. While yes, Shuro should’ve voiced his growing frustration with Laois before it boiled over- it’s hard to communicate!! Especially when you know said person isnt trying to be rude (and racist)! Especially if that person is ur coworker! Especially if that person is the brother of the girl you love! And *especially* if you’ve been raised in a royal court where every interaction has more weight and meaning. It’s hard!!! It’s a very real and human interaction and to call Shuro a bad person because of it is kinda reductive.

Next, I want to discuss shuro’s proposal to Falin. A lot of ppl in the tags dislike him for proposing/ “getting in the way” of Farcille. I am a huge farcille shipper, I love their dynamic- I could write a book about those lesbians. BUT, I actually really like that Shuro proposed to Falin. It shows how different his culture is, compared to the Toudens. It also is an example of how Falin’s autistic traits are seen by others vs Laios’s traits. It’s really interesting!! Plus he’s not getting ‘in the way’ of farcille, because Falin literally isn’t interested in the slightest. And I love that! I think it’s a really interesting story beat for Falin, who is a huge people pleaser, being put in a position where she has to voice her own wants!!

TLDR; I just think there is a lot more depth to Shuro than general fandom wants to acknowledge- and every character Ryoko Kui writes.

The funniest part about seeing a bunch of Marcille x Falin on tumblr and then reading the manga is you get absolutely whiplashed by the fact that apparently there's a man who's desperately in love with Falin and is also trying to rescue her. A man that literally no one in the fandom ever mentions lol

[straycatboogie]

2023/08/01 English

BGM: Ryuichi Sakamoto - War & Peace (Cornelius Remix)

I'm still thinking about the troubles about the movies "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer". Indeed, I need to do so with trying to seek for the truth to learn again like a journalist. Therefore I should accept that I am saying my "incomplete" and "rare" opinion at this moment. But I have to say that I have found some opinions as "We Japanese should say that 'We can't allow any atomic bombs' clearly". In this situation, I feel a kind of Devil start whispering as "Really?" or "Is that true?" in me. I think that some Japanese would say that "That atomic bombs were what we needed" or "We should have done that decision to finish that war". Is this a kind of terrible "relativism" or "cynicism"? You would say that "Then, how do YOU think?". I want to say that "No more HIROSHIMAS". It's from the same reason that I can't allow any terrorism or massacre which can kill a lot of innocent people. But, that Devil's whisper comes me as some uncool, but critical replies as "Then, How could we finish that war sooner? Could you suggest any alternative solution?" and "How do you think not to increase victims?". TBH, I am always fighting this kind of whispers every day.

I guess that at that war time their "common sense" or "ethics" had not been updated as now. Indeed, I am just saying from my imagination so I need your alternative opinion, but I guess the concept "peace" couldn't be sublime as now at that time. The era that "war" could be a way of solution for the problems, therefore not be a prohibited thing… But I have to say that this is just a silly speculation. In other words, I am stepping into a silly conspiracy. Now, we know how terrible Auschwitz was. Or Dachau, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki… we can also read "Man's Search For Meaning" (in Japan, we can read "Wildfire"). From them, I can learn that wars must be irrational "physically". But at that time, they couldn't see that the wars must kill weak people meaninglessly as bugs. Could the weak people be "visible"?

But, I also don't want to say that "We Japanese must allow them because they must do that decision to finish the war. Atomic bombs must be needed". Yes, I am really wishy-washy. I am moved so easily by wind's currency. But, even though I try to understand that limit at that time, I think that to criticize that period's primitive common sense from the current time, by the current common sense. To look at that past with keen and critical eyes would mean to look at our footsteps to the current place. How have we walked our way to here (it means the "history"). Accepting "they reached their limit" and "They couldn't choose alternative, better way" with realistic attitude, but returning to the principle of "But, we have to save the dignities of victims. Be human". I believe that is possible. So I don't want to deny the revisionist's old good logic as "Fascists had done good works" or "Hitler had helped some people". Of course, I won't allow the holocaust and also Eugenic thought (I am autistic therefore this thought would hurt me/us). I want to make my logic for the revisionists or cynical people. How can I be real/actual to make my opinion? That's what I am thinking.

Today I worked early. This afternoon, I wrote my poem as usual. This evening, I had time so I read Hisaki Matsuura's essays. I started thinking my proses (in particular, I want to write "essays" or "columns") about the poetry. But I have been writing a journal at every morning and also a poem at every afternoon. This means I have been doing too much output everyday therefore I have to face the lack of inputting. To stop this journal could be a solution… Reading Hisaki Matsuura, I started thinking if I would read his novels and proses more. Write as you think, as you want… Hisaki taught me that truth (by quoting his favorite critic, Roland Barthes). This year, I want to read Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" (Indeed, I would never be able to read it completely). I am also interested in Louis Carroll's poetry… If I have a certain free time, I want to watch great movies about Hiroshima or The Pacific War itself.

Departure at Dusk

A sunset time I enjoyed Lloyd Cole's "No Blue Skies" I remembered the days I had read the novel "High Rise" At that time I had already had two drunken eyes People said what they should, but I believed I must be wise

In Japanese, we write dusk as "the time he can't be seen" The time a owl start flying… Yes, it's what Hegel would mean I had adored to be a writer a long time ago, since I was 14 Troubles happened… but I tried to keep on saving my eyes keen Since this summer of 48, I started this creation series with Muse I am single with no kids, therefore I have nothing to lose Like this creating process, I've enjoyed a private, spiritual cruise

A pen, a notebook, and a smartphone. These are what I need I just keep on living this life passionately, and keep this slow speed I'm now at the dusk time of my life… But I just try to keep my creed

[nonbinarygerard]

sorry for my gerard and grant morrison autism rant but i need to talk about them. so the theme of gender through out gerard’s lyrics it really reminds me of grant morrison’s comics specifically doom patrol and the invisibles, some of my favorite pieces of art ever.

if you haven't read doom patrol its about a group of outsiders who are superheros and as grant said in their forward (im kind of paraphrasing but this is the vibe) this comic is for all the weird kids who relate more to robot men and people in bandages than actual people. so the autistics lmao. if you ever read doom patrol they just all read as autistic (soz but they do) and either trans coded or explicitly non cis or trans like rebis, essentially nonbinary (both male and female) god like superhero or danny the street a trans gay sentient street. im so obsessed. it has a lot of representation of the gay and transfem community. grant puts so much of themselves into their work they said if they haven't experienced they wont write about it and also gerard writes metaphorical stories but you know they are about real shit they went through. but i dont think they both realised, or maybe they did, how much their art is about not only the abstract idea of gender but their gender and using it as a space to experiment. but its not like doom patrol is about overtly the gender struggle or being nonbinary, (grant is out as nonbinary if you dont know) its about this superhero squad right but reading in 2022 god its quite obvious it is. like revenge is about a man who makes a deal with the devil to get make his female lover, but obviously its so much more about than just that.

when grant wrote a transfem character, lord fanny, into the invisibles they were like well i have to do drag now to know what its like! and the way gerard said they used their persona on stage to explore and express their femininity, perhaps not to full extent they wanted until the cheerleader outfit though i assume they would like to do more. but i just love thinking about how their art both gave them a space to explore who they were and their gender in a way they never thought they could really do in their lives before.

imagine gerard reading doom patrol and the invisibles as the issues were coming out and how much it must have meant to them as mcr means to us. i want to emphases how explicit the lgbt representation is and how its such a massive element of the comics you cant just make the characters cis and you wouldnt notice, you cant just make the gays straight by changing their pronouns. many characters are plots are about the lgbt experience, so may different experiences. i feel like no one recognizes them for the amazing lgbt fiction they are, and despite some of the language being a bit of date, the exploration of the queer themes still hold up today and honestly is better than a lot of mainstream representation we get (sorry but im kind of right).

i just have so many grant and gerard thoughts sorry i yet again could write so many essays about them i love them both so much.

[soundsfaebutokay]

So I've recc'd this video before, but it deserves its own post because it's one of my favorite things on youtube. It's a Tedx Talk by comics writer, editor, and journalist Jay Edidin, and I really think that it will connect with a lot of people here.

If you live and breathe stories of all kinds, you might like this.

If you care about media representation, you might like this.

If you're neurodivergent, you might like this.

If you're interested in a gender transition story that veers from the norm, you might like this.

If you love the original Leverage and especially Parker, and understand how important it is that a character like her exists, you will definitely like this.

Transcript below the cut:

You Are Here: The Cartography of Stories

by Jay Edidin

I am autistic. And what this means in practice is that there are some things that are easier for me than they are for most people, and a great many things that are somewhat harder, and these affect my life in more or less overt ways. As it goes, I'm pretty lucky. I've been able to build a career around special interests and granular obsession. My main gig at the moment is explaining superhero comics continuity and publishing history for which work I am somehow paid in actual legal currency—which is both a triumph of the frivolous in an era of the frantically pragmatic, and a job that's really singularly suited to my strengths and also to my idiosyncrasies.

I like comics. I like stories in general, because they make sense to me in ways that the rest of the world and my own mind often don't. Self-knowledge is not an intuitive thing for me. What sense of self I have, I've built gradually and laboriously and mostly through long-term pattern recognition. For decades, I didn't even really have a self-image. If you'd asked me to draw myself, I would eventually have given you a pair of glasses and maybe a very messy scribble of hair, and that would've been about it. But what I do know—backwards, forwards, and in pretty much every way that matters—are stories. I know how they work. I understand their language, their complex inner clockwork, and I can use those things to extrapolate a sort of external compass that picks up where my internal one falls short. Stories—their forms, their structure, the sense of order inherent to them—give me the means to navigate what otherwise, at least for me, would be an impassable storm of unparsable data. Or stories are a periscope, angled to access the parts of myself I can't intuitively see. Or stories are a series of mirrors by which I can assemble a composite sketch of an identity I rarely recognize whole...which is how I worked out that I was transgender, in my early thirties, by way of a television show.

This is my story. And it's about narrative cartography, and representation, and why those things matter. It's about autism and it's about gender and it's about how they intersect. And it's about the kinds of people we know how to see, and the kinds of people we don't. It's not the kind of story that gets told a lot, you might hear a lot, because the narrative around gender transition and dysphoria in our culture is really, really prescriptive. It's basically the story of the kid who has known for their whole life that they're this and not that, and that story demands the kind of intuitive self-knowledge that I can't really do, and a kind of relationship to gender that I don't really have—which is part of why it took me so long to figure my own stuff out.

So, to what extent this story, my story has a beginning, it begins early in 2014 when I published an essay titled, "I See Your Value Now: Asperger's and the Art of Allegory." And it explored, among other things, the ways that I use narrative and narrative structures to navigate real life. And it got picked up in a number of fairly prominent places that got linked, and I casually followed the ensuing discussion. And I was surprised to discover that readers were fairly consistently assuming I was a man. Now, that in itself wasn't a new experience for me, even though at the time I was writing under a very unambiguously female byline. It had happened in the letter columns of comics I'd edited. It had happened when a parody Twitter account I'd created went viral. When I was on staff at Wired, I budgeted for fancy scotch by putting a dollar in a box every time a reader responded in a way that made it clear they were assuming I was a man in response to an article where my name was clearly visible, and then I had to stop doing that because it happened so often I couldn't afford to keep it up. But in all of those cases, the context, you know, the reasons were pretty obvious. The fields I'd worked in, the beats I covered, they were places where women had had to fight disproportionally hard for visibility and recognition. We live in a culture that assumes a male default, so given a neutral voice and a character limit, most readers will assume a male author.

But this was different, because this wasn't just a book I'd edited, it wasn't a story I'd reported—it was me, it was my story. And it made me uncomfortable, got under my skin in ways that the other stuff really hadn't. And so I did what I do when that happens, and I tried to sort of reverse-engineer it to look at the conclusions and peel them back to see the narratives behind them and the stories that made them tick. And I started this, I started this by going back to the text of the essay, and you know, examining it every way I could think of: looking at craft, looking at content. And in doing so, I was surprised to realize that while I had written about a number of characters with whom I identified closely, that every single one of those characters I'd written about was male. And that surprised me even more than the responses to the essay had, because I've spent my career writing and talking and thinking about gender and representation in popular media. In 2014, I'd been the feminist gadfly of an editorial department and multiple mastheads. I'd been a founding board member of an organization that existed to advocate for more and better representation of women and girls in comics characters and creators. And most of my favorite characters, the ones I'd actively seek out and follow, were women. Just not, apparently, the characters I saw myself in.

Now I still didn't realize it was me at this point. Remember: self-knowledge, not very intuitive for me. And while I had spent a lot of time thinking about gender, I'd never really bothered to think much about my own. I knew academically that the way other people read and interpreted my gender affected and had influenced a lifetime of social and professional interactions, and that those in turn had informed the person I'd grown up into during that time. But I really believed, like I just sort of had in the back of my head, that if you peeled away all of that social conditioning, you'd basically end up with what I got when I tried to draw a self-portrait. So: a pair of glasses, messy scribble of hair, and in this case, maybe also some very strong opinions about the X-Men. I mean, I knew something was off. I'd always known something was off, that my relationship to gender was messy and uncomfortable, but gender itself struck me as messy and uncomfortable, and it had never been a large enough part of how I defined myself to really feel like something that merited further study, and I had deadlines, and...so it was always on the back burner. So, I looked, I looked at what I had, at this improbable group of exclusively male characters. And I looked and I figured that if this wasn't me, then it had to be a result of the stories I had access to, to choose from, and the entertainment landscape I was looking at. And the funny thing is, I wasn't wrong, exactly. I just wasn't right either.

See, the characters I'd written about had one other significant trait in common aside from their gender, which is that they were all more or less explicitly, more or less heavily coded as autistic. And I thought, "Ah, yes. This explains it. This is under representation in fiction echoing under representation in life and vice versa." Because the characteristics that I'd honed in on, that I particularly identified with in these guys, were things like emotional unavailability and social awkwardness and granular obsession, and all of those are characteristics that are seen as unsympathetic and therefore unmarketable in female characters. Which is also why readers were assuming that I was a man.

Because, you see, here's the thing. I'm not the only one who uses stories to navigate the world. I'm just a little more deliberate about it. For humans, stories formed the bridge between data and understanding. They're where we look when we need to contextualize something new, or to recognize something we're pretty sure we've seen before. They're how we identify ourselves; they're how we locate ourselves and each other in the larger world. There were no fictional women like me; there weren't representations of women like me in media, and so readers were primed not to recognize women like me in real life either.

Now by this point, I had started writing a follow-up essay, and this one was also about autism and narratives, but specifically focused on how they intersected with gender and representation in media. And in context of this essay, I went about looking to see if I could find even one female character who had that cluster of traits I'd been looking for, and I was asking around in autistic communities. And I got a few more or less useful one-off suggestions, and some really, really splendid arguments about semantics and standards, and um...then I got one answer over and over and over in community after community after community. "Leverage," people told me. "You have to watch Leverage."

So I watched Leverage. Leverage is five seasons of ensemble heist drama. It's about a team of very skilled con artists who take down corrupt and powerful plutocrats and the like, and it's a lot of fun, and it's very clever, and it's clever enough that it doesn't really matter that it's pretty formulaic, and I enjoyed it a lot. But what's most important, what Leverage has is Parker.

Parker is a master thief, and she is the best of the best of the best in ways that all of Leverage's characters are the best of the best. And superficially, she looks like the kind of woman you see on TV. So she's young, and she's slender, and she's blonde, and she's attractive but in a sort of approachable way. And all of that familiarity is brilliant misdirection, because the thing is, there are no other women like Parker on TV. Because Parker—even if it's never explicitly stated in the show—Parker is coded incredibly clearly as autistic. Parker is socially awkward. Her speech tends to have limited inflection; what inflection it does have is repetitive and sounds rehearsed a lot of the time. She's not emotionally literate; she struggles with it, and the social skills she develops over the series, she learns by rote, like they're just another grift. When she's not scaling skyscrapers or cartwheeling through laser grids, she wears her body like an ill-fitting suit. Parker moves like me. And Parker, Parker was a revelation—she was a revolution unto herself. In a media landscape where unempathetic women usually exist to either be punished or "loved whole," Parker got to play the crabby savant. And she wasn't emotionally intuitive but it was never ever played as the product of abuse or trauma even though she had survived both of those—it was just part of her, as much as were her hands or her eyes. And she had a genuine character arc. My god, she had a genuine romantic arc, even. And none of that required her to turn into anything other than what she was. And in Parker I recognized a thousand tics and details of my life and my personality...but. I didn't recognize myself.

Why? What difference was there in Parker, you know, between Parker and the other characters I'd written about? Those characters, they'd spanned ethnicities and backgrounds and different media and appearances and the only other characteristic they all had in common was their gender. So that was where I started to look next, and I thought, "Well, okay, maybe, maybe it's masculinity. Maybe if Parker were less feminine, she'd click with me the way those other characters had." So then I tried to imagine a Parker with short hair, who's explicitly butch, and...nothing. So okay, I extended it in what seems like the only logical direction to extend it. I said, "Well, if it's not masculinity, what if it's actual maleness? What if Parker were a man?" Ah. Yeah.

In the end, everything changed, and nothing changed, which is often the way that it goes for me. Add a landmark, no matter how slight, and the map is irrevocably altered. Add a landmark, and paths that were invisible before open wide. Add a landmark, and you may not have moved, but suddenly you know where you are and where you can go.

I wasn't going to tell this story when I started planning this talk. I was gonna tell a similar story, it was about stories, like this is, about narratives and the ways that they influence our culture and vice versa. And it centered around a group of women at NASA who had basically rewritten the narrative around space exploration, and it was a lot more fun, and I still think it was more interesting. But it's also a story you can probably work out for yourselves. In fact it's a story some of you probably have, if you follow that kind of thing, which you probably do given that you're here. And this is a story, my story is not a story that I like to tell. It's not a fun story to talk about because it's very personal and I am a very private person. And it's not universal. And it's not always relatable, and it's definitely not aspirational. And it's not the kind of story that you tend to encounter unless you're already part of it...which is why I'm telling it now. Because the thing is, I'm not the only person who uses stories to parse the world and navigate it. I'm just a little more deliberate. Because I'm tired of having to rely on composite sketches.

Open your maps. Add a landmark. Reroute accordingly.

[pinkelotjeart]

I can’t get behind this take at all? First of all it feels like you’re comparing two completely different characters.

Futaba is a kid dealing with agoraphobia and incredible guilt from her mothers death. Her character arc is about over coming those fears. I and many find this a relatable arc as she’s also very autistic coded, I could write a whole essay on how she perfectly encapsulates the autistic experience.

I honestly don’t apreciate the “she’s a bitch ass cry baby who hides in her room”. she’s a 15 year old girl, with actually real world mental illnesses . Her mental struggles aren’t gone immediately, she has a panic attack in a store after not interacting with the outside world in a while because that’s a realistic thing to happen to someone who’s recovering from agoraphobia or social anxiety.

Comparing futaba to Vincent and saying because Vincent exist futaba has no reason to is so weird to me? They are very different even when they share commonalities in being slightly cowardly, but their fears are different.

Vincent is a man who has a consistently struggles with communicating within his relationships by being non confrontational. He has a inferiority complex that makes him scared to speak his own mind. this anxiety gives him a freeze response in situations he deems stressfull.

His story mainly focuses on relationships of the romantic kind. It’s about what it means to be in a relationship, how much of that is tied in traditional values, the compromises that come with being ‘tied down’, and wether that’s even necessary.

That’s thematically COMPLETELY different from a 15 year old processing her trauma and slowly learning how to deal with her mental illness.

Both are great characters with anxiety, but have complete different themes and presentations of that anxiety.

The smt if poll was great! I have a follow up bonus poll idea, but I fear it’s a bit stupider

I don’t think the entire game would be an honorary persona game, we would all agree on that, so I’ll ask…

I mean there are so many reasons either one could be chosen that I’m not 100% sure how this one will go

[dana-chan-the-control-brain]

12.what headcanon will you keep implementing in your fics, even if canon ends up contradicting it?

Oh there are plenty that I keep on the back burner.

Membrane’s Grandparents were poor and/or farmers. 

I know in the latest issue it showed scientist parents... But I like to think the smartest man in the world had a more humble upbringing and his Dad had a very strong work ethic. 

The only thing I don’t really like about the Scientist parent idea that the comics showed really DOES mean that they KNEW what Uranium 238 was, knew that their son asked for it, and gave him a never-ending avalanche of socks for Christmas anyways and said it was from “Santa”

Like.... I assume so, Membrane...

Even then, When my parents personally did the Santa thing, Santa would give me the cool gifts, and then the lame gifts like socks were from the parents... 

I can’t help but view the gift of a sock-avalanche from SCIENTIST PARENTS as nothing but an act of mal-intent, even if the issue doesn’t frame it that way.

There’s also the issue of Membrane inheriting Membrane Labs from his parents when their faces are nowhere to be seen if Membrane just took the reigns of an already established company... Sure, maybe his parents made their son the face of their company like some sort of Wendys situation... but Membrane’s ADULT face is what the face of Membrane labs is...  Wouldn’t his parents use his cute child face for a brand? Even if the company had no branding or merch until Membrane took over the company it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I MUCH PREFER the idea that Membrane built Membrane labs as a company from the ground up based entirely on tenacity, spite and his intelligence. 

The idea that the smartest man in the world just was BORN INTO this lifestyle of science puts a VERY sour taste in my mouth..

ESPECIALLY with the other characters in Invader Zim and in Johnen Vasquez work in general. Characters like Zim and Dib always work hard to get to where they want to be... and I like the idea that Membrane is the RESULT of putting in that hard work, but he completely neglected himself on a social and interpersonal relationship level. 

I’m sure the Scientist parents were meant as a joke to further compare to how Membrane and Dib are alike... and the generational cycle of abuse... and the mean-spirited joke of his parents gifting him socks does fit the IZ world... but I don’t like it.

If his parents were POOR or Farmers, or just didn’t have access to or couldn’t afford Uranium 238, THAT MAKES WAY MORE SENSE to me. 

Then it would seem like his parents did it more as a 

“He won’t ask for anything else.”  or “Naughty children only get socks” thing 

rather than a:

“Yeah, we know exactly what that is and have access to it... but our kid could blow his face off, so have a bunch of socks instead ya gremlin” 

I just like to think Membrane’s childhood was fairly humble, and he was a feral scientist child and really bright and his parents didn’t know how to handle him, and He was an extreme Mama’s boy. Also the Poor upbringing would explain his workaholic tendencies without having the Scientist parents. 

Sorry Eric Trueheart, you can pry “Poor upbringing” Membrane from my cold dead hands.

I will take those character designs and that Grandpa Membrane smoked a pipe though. Those are amazing. 

Zim’s Computer (and all other irken Computers) AI Brains used to be living Irkens before getting culled. 

I made an analysis about it on my old account, but I can’t find it cause Tumblr really screwed up the search engine on that account. But anyways... in two more chapters in Tech Support, we’ll get to find out Computer’s “tragic backstory” (tm) Like that chapter is coming after the current one I’m writing. 

Irken blood is Pink

I don’t care if Dark Green blood makes sense from a biological standpoint... I just need Vaperwave and Cyberpunk auestetics. It’s more of a visual thing.

I think Dib has the potential to grow into a real caring young man if he’s properly nurtured and learns how to grow and I possess a strong dislike “loser” Adult Dib.

I’m sure you know what I mean... Crackhead Adult Dib, Feral Adult Dib, Miserable adult Dib...

Nothing against those Dibs... It’s been shown on the record that Dib having a miserable adult future is probably what Johnen wants for his character. (The doodles and streams I’ve seen Johnen draw of his characters as adults as drug addicts or just working dead-end jobs wasn’t enough) 

I even like asshole kid Dib, and asshole teen Dib, but I really want to believe Dib will mellow out a lot when he gets older and learn how to be considerate. 

Maybe I’m being too unrealistic, and I know there is a MAJOR market for Rat-man Miserable Dib in this fandom... I’ve seen like so many versions of him. But it’s not for me.

I think it’s partially because Dib is exactly how I was as a kid, and I grew up to be a pretty mellow and caring person. (for the most part) 

I just want to see Dib to grow up to be chill and mostly happy. 

Zim is the most defective Irken in the history of the Irken Empire. HOWEVER: By human standards, Zim is fairly average, just neurodivergent. 

I know that I’ve seen some analysis on how Zim, “Almost works” and while I do agree, I still think that Zim is the most defective of his species. 

He’s the only one who caused the Control Brains on Judgementia to go insane and he tends to be a pariah and a liability to everyone around him. Caused the death of two Almighty Tallest and a majority of other things that take place throughout the show, comics and deleted episodes alike. The Comics even mentioned that Zim is completely delusional and has some core memory issues.

(I’ve never even explained how Zim perceives the Judgementia arc in my au yet simply cause he doesn’t want to talk about or mention it yet... ) 

But a lot of Zim’s issues or “insane”-ness as the Irken empire sees it are fairly Normal issues for humans. Zim is just marked as the “most” defective simply because a lot of his “symptoms” are actually just very normal autistic or borderline/bipolar things. And that’s probably what he’d get diagnosed with by human standards.

Zim just feels things too strongly and has a terrible delusional memory and obsessively lies to himself to try to fit the mold of what a perfect irken soilder should be (in his mind) 

I have a feeling some of Zim’s PAK errors can be things as simple as: “can’t sit still.” “first words: I love you” , “short attention span” “overly emotional” and that’s marked as major concern to the empire.

But there are more serious ones like “Corrupted Memory drive.” “destructive” “delusional” etc...

But a majority of the list of what makes Zim, Zim are VERY common autism traits...

so if you give him that human diagnosis and then just examine Zim under HUMAN standards....

He’s not that bad at all.... 

Irkens can purr, chitter, and make a variety of sounds very similar to ants chittering combined with a cat. But typically, only defective Irkens seem to make these noises, and my Zim makes more of these noises and reverts to more primitive irken behaviors when he feels he doesn’t need to keep up appearances to be “NORMAL” anymore. In Irken Standards or Human standards. 

Zim is a weird Irken and sometimes things he does is not indicative to how other irkens act or behave, even though Dib uses it as a framework for a lot of his research, but a majority of it is just wrong because it’s Zim. 

THE COMPUTER IS A CHARACTER TOO! LET HIM DO THINGS! EVEN IN THE BACKGROUND OR A SUPPORTING CAST MEMBER... PLEASE... (I will die on this hill) 

GIR is smart and extremely perceptive. Also a hill I die on. I got into this fandom writing a thousand word essay on GIR and I still stand by all those points. GIR is smart... he’s just feral. And GIR can tend to notice things other characters don’t just cause his world-view is so simple. Zim and Dib think like one of those Pipe Windows screen savers... While GIR thinks in a straight line. 

Zim would rather create a maze to go through to get the cheese, rather than GIR who would just not bother with the maze and eat the cheese. 

GIR has great moments of clarity throughout the show, such as in Plauge of Babies and Walk of Doom

“Dib’s seen us before and he knows where we live”

“But if the big splody goes fast, won’t it get all bad?” 

Anyways... I think that’s it... I probably have a whole lot more. But those are my main ones. 

[ardellian]

I. Am very ANGRY.

For all the trans people who read this - you are amazing, you are brave, and fuck everyone who dares to tell you how you are allowed to express who you are.

Anyway I went through JKRs essay on trans issues and tried to deconstruct it because a prominent Swedish political figure just supported it and these are EXACTLY the kind of arguments I have had to counter and it SUCKS. I will have to sit through this shit being thrown at me again not far from now. So this is... venting, I guess. 

This is going to be long and if you want to understand it I guess you should read what she’s written; it’s on her homepage. But also don’t read it because it will probably make you sad and angry. It’s transphobic and ignorant, and just, please, stay away from it if you know that will make you feel like shit. I’m also going to be quoting her in the text below, so I’m putting it under a cut. 

M’kay. 

First, what even is she trying to say with this essay? She says she’s worried about the “new trans activism.” What exactly is worrying with this new activism? Well, she doesn’t say it outright, but it seems to be that she believes it’s getting too easy to transition. That the “rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation” is being eroded, and this is bad.

Through the essay I can find two main arguments she has to support this claim.

1. Cis youth (in particular cis girls) will be fooled into to thinking they’re trans. 

The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers. 

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

She also supports this idea by sharing a personal history of being uncomfortable with gender roles, and confusing that with gender dysphoria: 

“The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.” 

“Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.” 

3. A concern that fake trans women invading women’s spaces would make “natal women” less safe:

“A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.”

“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

Okay. 

Let me make an observation here before I try to counter these points. She’s having very different problems with the ease of transitioning for trans women and trans men. If it’s too easy for trans women to transition, men will use this as an opportunity to prey on women. If it’s too easy for trans men to transition, young girls will be in danger of forsaking their womanhood. She clearly identifies with the young afab people who question their gender, but not with trans women who want to be recognized as such. Let that sit with you for a bit and I’ll see if I come back to it. 

Let’s see if I can argue against these two points first. 

1.  Cis youth (in particular cis girls) will be fooled into to thinking they’re trans.

Her statistics aren’t wrong. There has been a huge increase in trans youth. This increase is especially prevalent in neurodivergent afab people. Trans health care, at least where I live, is struggling with how to deal with this. Those diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders often have difficulties with feeling comfortable in their bodies and the language used around that can be similar to the language used around gender dysphoria. Many people are concerned, as JKR obviously is, that these people might think that transitioning would get rid of these symptoms, when in fact they stem from something completely different. These people may transition and still have these symptoms. They may be disappointed. 

The conclusion you’re implicitly supposed to draw from these statements, and those like what I quoted above, that these young trans people aren’t really trans. That they’re somehow being tricked by trans activists. You have to believe two other things for that: that young neurodivirgent people can’t interpret their own lived experience in a correct way, and that transitioning is harmful. 

Because why would it be a problem if a young person questions their gender, identifies as trans, transitions, and then changes their mind? Who cares if they have an autism diagnosis? It is only a problem if transitioning is bad for you. And the part that people like JKR seems to think is harmful is that they might have “altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility”. But the unaltered body holds no moral superiority over the altered one. While fertility is something many people desire and something many who lack it grieve, it is not something that inherently gives your life more value. To JKR, the inherent harm of transitioning can only be justified if the person is really trans.

The tendency of a specific group to display a higher prevalence of identifying as trans is then used to cast doubt on their experiences. It’s a “social contagion” - they’re not really trans. But why does any of that matter? So what if a person identifies as trans because they see themselves in another’s story and go - that’s true for me too? Why can’t you believe them? 

Well. Because you don’t really believe trans people are real. You believe that when young people speak of dysphoria, they are referring to the experience you had when you were young. And you’re happy with being a woman now. So surely they just need to accept themselves for what they are and they won’t be trans anymore. 

I get it. I recognize myself in what JKR writes here. I felt “mentally sexless.”  I also “found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians” and this reassured me. Find a woman who has not during a period of their life hated their body, I dare you. The world we live in does cause women to have strange relationships with their bodies. And it’s very easy from there to make the logical leap to the idea that young trans men are just girls who never found that reassurance! I might have also thought so, if I hadn’t connected with trans men in my teens, and actually tried to understand their experience, and realized that my negative feelings about my body not living up to some standard of beauty, about not being woman enough in some way, and not wanting to be “pink and frilly”, was not the same as their experience. I mean - I didn’t like my body because I thought it should look like a beautiful woman’s body, but they felt bad about their bodies because they thought they shouldn’t look like women at all!  Young boys don’t find reassurance in texts about womanhood. Because they’re not women.

So I feel a bit sorry for her. Because I think that she sees herself in these young people, and it terrifies her - what if I could have turned out to be trans? But that would only be a problem if you think being trans is a problem. So maybe you could have been trans, JKR. Why does that bother you?

And god, if you want to talk about things that pressure young people into irrevocably altering their bodies, how about the  “rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation“ that tries over and over again to make sure, double sure, triple sure, that you really are what you say you are. Trans people who want access to gender-affirming care have to show no weakness - if you slip up and say that you might not want surgeries, that can be used against you and you get nothing. Trans people repeatedly say they have to perform their gender to the extreme in order for health care providers to believe them. They’re being questioned and doubted and pushed and to get through that, you have to dig in and fight. This is not a process that encourages careful consideration and doubts - it’s a system that says: all or nothing, hesitate and you’re out. 

So we get to her second argument:

3. A concern that fake trans women invading women’s spaces would make “natal women” less safe:

Here she draws a line between real trans women, who have passed through some rigorous testing process, and men who fake it. She uses her history of abuse as a cause to be worried about the safety of women if the gender binary were relaxed. The only argument she makes here is the one I already copied up there: 

When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. 

Let’s be charitable and say that she means men who would fake being women when she writes “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman“, and not trans women who just don’t perform womanhood according to her standards. But still the question remains - why oh why are you so scared of seeing a body that doesn’t agree with your ideas of a woman in a changing room? If that “fake trans woman” is there, and doing nothing wrong, then why are you so bothered about it? Why? Is the sight of male secondary sex characteristics inherently harmful to women? No! Are you afraid that someone might experience sexual attraction when looking at your body? Then do you think lesbians should also have separate changing rooms? No, you obviously don’t! Sexual harassment is never acceptable, and just because you have a same-sex space doesn’t make that space immune to it. Opening it up to non-conforming bodies does not make sexual harassment somehow acceptable. Those who enter spaces with sexual harassment in mind should be dealt with - but the presence of non-normative bodies is not sexual harassment. 

Trans women are women, JKR says, and I sympathize with them - but only if they display their womanhood in a way that agrees with my idea of it. And they’re not like me. Only if they have the right kind of bodies, have gone through medical procedures, want to do these surgeries, will I extend my pity.

And fuck that.  

Look, the kind of logic she presents here paints trans people into a corner where the only acceptable way of being is to subscribe to a certain kind of body. Which harms the very people she claims she wants to protect - young people questioning their gender. Especially non-binary people, whom she doesn’t even acknowledge. 

And now let’s stop being charitable - JKR doesn’t believe trans people exist. She believes that those who say they are trans are tragically confused and we should only accept their words because we are nice. We should accept their delusions because we pity them. She doesn’t understand her own opinions this way, I’m sure. But fuck her understanding. 

She’s upset because the idea of “womanhood” is moving away from her. She feels - I’ve felt this too! - that this push for increased inclusiveness is taking the focus from the real issues. Things that affect all women. But claiming that women have “unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class” is something that white women say. When anyone talks about “the real issues”, they usually mean “issues that affect me.”

I mean that’s privilege 101, people. 

Ugh.

In conclusion, I’m still angry. 

[khangowrites]

Is it a Complaint Essay or is the Workplace Unsuitable?

Ah, what am I writing today? Oh, well I suppose it’s almost 12am. Seems like a good a time as any. I wanted to just jot down a few re-occurring experiences I’ve had in the workplace and sometimes in other social spaces, and attempt to analyze them.

CW: mild mentions of abuse and bodily ailments.

A bit of forward: I tend to mask myself heavily whenever I am in any social situation; whether it be at work, at home, with friends or online (although I’m getting better at being myself on Discord at least. I owe a lot to my friends who accept me and whom I care so much about.) What this means is I often plan out what I’m needed to say in advance of a situation. I have an arsenal of about 5 minutes of small talk before I tank and several small greetings/placations I can cycle through on any given day if I’m not overloaded. I also limit my natural inclination to movement.

It’s called unprofessional/unsightly to sit with your legs folded under you, or to sway and shake your arms and legs back and forth in time to music in your head. But it’s okay if you tap your pencil. Everyone does that.

I have to wonder how noticeable my ‘masked’ self is. How real or fake it appears.

There have been a few trends I’ve seen with the way people treat me as an employee in the time I’ve been in the workforce. For clarity, I am a 23 year old 5’1” AFAB person with a face that looks like it stopped aging when I was 12. I’m non-binary, but I’ve seen that many have a hard time using a different pronoun for me because I look ‘so feminine’. I had one old man repeatedly tell me that my body was too pretty and that I shouldn’t hide it and ‘pretend’ to be something else. I was and still am quite unsettled and disgusted by that comment.

I haven’t used my full preferred pronouns at work simply based in fear of being fired or discriminated against further. Same thing at home- I haven’t told all my family out of fear. I may look back on this at some future date where I fully respect myself and I’m confident. I look forward to that day.

Oh, and I’m autistic.

Perhaps it is one of these things or all of them that cause people to treat me certain ways. I’d like to find out.

I worked outdoors at an Orchard for a season. They called me Cinderella because of the way I looked when I cleaned. They gave employees gloves and heaters. Only not me. When I asked, I was given a broken one and told to fix it. A coworker who had intellectual disabilities and poor eyesight was not offered a heater at all. I did not renew for the next season. Kim and I stayed in touch though.

I worked next at a gift shop at a historical site. I loved the history and the old buildings, but the cashier work was admittedly difficult. Most of the employees were kind, retired old ladies who treated me gently, like a child. Sometimes too much like a child. The assistant manager seemed wary of me, and she often avoided me. I don’t know why. I’m not good with eye contact, and I always fear that people will mistake my zoning out as being creepy or disrespectful; maybe it was that. She never brought her kids with her on days I worked.

The head manager was courteous, but always called me Special. We had an older man work in the last 2 years I was there who had a strong inclination to associate with the children at the shop, and in turn, me as well. He would always want a hug or pat me on the back, but ignored the other workers. I told the managers my uncomfortable feelings about him, but it went mostly unnoticed.

When it was found that I was decent with computers, I was tasked with entering jewelry into the system and creating labels with number associations. I enjoyed it, and they promised me a decent raise. My pay was raised a dollar several weeks later, and I found myself being tasked with more and more computer work, to the point of becoming an office manager myself, earning a grand total of 9 dollars an hour while my counterpart who started a year earlier owned a home on the same work.

I left that job after 4 years to be the music director at a local church. I love music and was excited. Maybe too excited. I developed acid re-flux and was hospitalized the week before my start day due to a panic attack. I realize now it was from stress. I also had an ovarian cyst removed a year later- it took up my entire pelvis and its formation was also attributed to stress. I’ve since been diagnosed with generalized anxiety, and I continue to have ever changing digestive issues, muscle problems and panic attacks.

After realizing I was autistic and also non-binary, so much of the stress of life started to make sense. The past few months I have been making life changes, and working towards finding a workplace that is accommodating and safe for me. My stress has lessened.

I worked at the church for 2 years. My last day is actually at the end of this month. As is the trend, I was not treated with respect when it came to my job. My pastor started choosing the hymns over me, and would make comments about me during services. His favorite was to say that my music made him fall asleep, and wait for laughter from the congregation. He had no musical knowledge, and forced me to play every song as fast as I possibly could. He didn’t believe I could do my job. Any attempts at mutual work failed to manifest. I unfortunately was groomed by a member of the hiring committee there as well, a type of abuse I didn’t even realize I had fallen into until several months after it was too late.

I currently work at a high school as a choir accompanist. I use she/they pronouns there, but no one uses they and I’m too worried to be fully they like I am outside of work. I am wary of soiling my relationship with the director further. She’s quite religious in the ‘gays don’t have rights’ way, so I have my fears.

The director is kind, but sees me as this innocent child that happens to have natural piano abilities, and the mutual respect that I’ve come to dream of just isn’t there again.

The director has the key to the doors and lets students in without fail, but conveniently forgets to let me in almost every day. At one time, I was in physical therapy and had a hard time standing and walking for any period of time. I almost went home because she didn’t answer any communication, class started 20 minutes previously, and it was 90 degrees outside and I needed to sit down because my legs were cramping. She plans the music weeks in advance, but doesn’t give them to me until the day the students get it, despite my repeated asking for time to prepare.

One day I was on zoom and she and the student teacher greeted me and then ignored my presence and played the piano herself for class. She struggled with the parts and commented to the choir that, “wow, Ms. Khango is actually pretty dang good at this- that little girl can play!”, but didn’t listen to me when I offered to play. I left the zoom after an hour.

The online students seemed to share my surprise at least, and I am grateful to them. They kept me grounded and reminded me that I matter and should have the same respect as everyone else in the room, zoom or not. They talk to me about not being heard and their chats not being read during class. It bothered me, too. The next week I brought it up to her in the form of making sure the zoom students were heard and she quickly dismissed it, like it was a puff of smoke. The students online now ask me questions directly and I relay them. It’s met with annoyance by the director.

They have voices too.

One of the scariest moments of my life was last week- I wore my ‘disability rights are human rights’ shirt to school. (Okay, maybe not scary to some, but it very much was for me.) After class, one of the students came to me and asked if I could help him find a way for his grandfather to get a seat at the concert, as he was disabled and he didn’t know how to proceed.

It filled me with joy to help him, and it filled me with rage when the teachers asked if his grandpa could just get out of the wheelchair instead.

My overall conclusion to all of these things is that people simply don’t understand, or don’t want to because it makes their lives harder.

Is discrimination and ignorance really easier than respecting people?

I’m not sure if this is all just one big complaint essay. I guess it is. What I needed to do was write it all out. All the things that make me uneasy or feel like lesser of a person. And I wanted to know why.

I note that at every job I am perceived as a child, or as someone naïve. I am not treated the same as another adult employee. I was ostracized for my way of moving and talking. Taken advantage of. My needs were not accommodated.

Even now, I feel guilt for writing this, like I’m just playing the victim for attention or something.

I want to be strong enough to stand up to it and ask to be treated with respect and have it follow through.

I want to unmask myself more and let myself move and talk naturally, and use my real pronouns.

My respect for myself and for others must become a powerful force.

My friends on discord- my real, genuine friends, have become monumental in my life. Most of my life I did not have true friends. Without them and their unconditional love and support, I would not be where I am right now. We are all equals. I want to embody that strong respect and bring it to others.

It’s getting late. 1 a.m. now. Well, I have tomorrow. Plenty of time for Star Trek.

[arcticdementor]

There are three kinds of dissidents: (a) anons, (b) pundits who still care what people think, and (c) outsiders who DGAF. All these groups are great; real greatness can be achieved in any of them; and good friends I have in each. But each has its problems.

…

The problem with (b) is that you are always policing yourself. Not only do your readers never really know what you really believe—you never really know yourself. In practice, it is much easier to police your own thoughts than your own words. When choosing between two ideas, the temptation to prefer the safer one is almost irresistible. This is a source of cognitive distortion which the anons and outsiders do not experience. (Though anons do suffer something of the opposite, a reflex to provoke.)

As a pundit, you sense this stress in every bone of your body; you can never show it to your readers. This creates a deep dishonesty in the parasocial relationship between writer and reader—like a marriage that can never escape some foolish first-date fib. The falsity, like the blue in blue cheese, flows through and flavors every particle of your content. Neither you nor your readers can ever be sure whether you are speaking the truth, lying to them, or lying to yourself—but you are constantly doing all three. You may still be very entertaining—enlightening, even. All your work is ephemeral, and once you die only your relatives will remember you. And it’s not even your fault.

…

From my perspective, both the anonymous and official dissidents exhibit a kind of unserious frivolity, but a very different kind. The frivolity of the anon is imaginative, surreal and playful at best, merely puerile at worst. The frivolity of the pundit has no upside; in every paragraph he is breaking Koestler’s rule, and he knows it; the best he can do is to shut up selectively about the things he cannot write about.

And his mens rea, too, is awful. He is selling hope. He is selling answers. Pity the man whose life has brought him to the position of selling answers in which he does not believe, or which he is forced to believe, or which he must force himself to believe. However sophisticated and erudite he may be, he is just a high-end grifter. His little magazine is a Macedonian troll-farm with a PhD. He is lucky if his eloquent essays about the common good don’t appear above a popup bar peddling penis pills—and in fact, I know more than one brilliant scholar in precisely this bathetic position. The frame defines the picture; the context sets the price of the text. Sad!

Worst still must be the reality that bad punditry is worse than useless—since useless strategies for escaping from a real problem are traps. When you lead your readers toward an attractive but ineffective solution, you lead them away from the opposite.

You got into this business to change the world for the better. You cannot avoid the realization that you are changing it for the worse—because your objective function is that of Chaim Rumkowski, the Lodz Ghetto’s “King of the Jews.”

You exist to convince your own followers that they neither can nor should do anything effective. The easiest way to do this is to convince them that ineffective strategies are effective. And this, as we’ll see, is exactly what you cannot avoid doing, dear pundit.

Moreover, from our present position of profound unreality, where the official narrative shared and studied by all normal intelligent people and all prestigious institutions can only be described as a state of venomous delirium, the opportunities to play Judas goat are almost unlimited. Cows, remember: there does not have to be only one Judas goat.

…

A particular favorite of the pundit is the error that AI philosophers call the “first-step fallacy.” It turns out that the first monkey to climb to the top of a tree was taking the first step toward landing on the moon:

First-step thinking has the idea of a successful last step built in. Limited early success, however, is not a valid basis for predicting the ultimate success of one’s project. Climbing a hill should not give one any assurance that if he keeps going he will reach the sky.

When a vendor sells you the moon and ships you a rope-ladder, you’ve been defrauded. Time for that one-star review.

…

Today we’ll chart the edges of the legitimate possible by looking at three recent pundit essays which have done a fine job of exploring those edges, and maybe even expanding them: Richard Hanania’s “Why is Everything Liberal?”, Scott Alexander’s “The New Sultan”, and Tanner Greer’s “The Problem of the New Right.”

…

After reading Hanania’s essay, a fourth pundit (who is out as a radical conservative) asked me: why does the right always lose? “Narcissistic delusions,” I replied.

Which was far from what he expected to hear, or what most readers will take from the essay. All three of these essays are good and true; but their inability to go far enough leaves them pointing their audience in precisely the wrong direction.

Most readers will emerge feeling that conservatives need more and better narcissistic delusions. Indeed, both pundit and politician are right there with just such a product. This meretricious frivolity, posing as seriousness, is too egregious to leave unmocked; yet the right reason to mock it is to challenge it to assume its final, truly-serious form.

Richard Hanania and the loser right

Hanania’s true point—backed up with a ream of unnecessary, PhD-worthy evidence—is that the libs always win because they just care more:

…

Since the rebirth of conservatism after the revolutionary monoculture of World War II, all conservative punditry has consisted of attempts to create more excitement around policies and values which effectively resist the power of the prestigious institutions—giving “normal people” as much to care about as their fanatical, aristocratic enemies.

Sensibly, this tends to involve raising “issues” which actually seem to affect their lives, but which also run counter to aristocratic power. Over decades, the substance of these issues changes and even reverses; the opposite stance becomes the useful stance; and “conservative values” have no choice but to change to reflect this. (If this seems like a liberal way to rag on conservatives—the cons learned it from the libs.)

…

“New Right” is not Greer’s term, but as a label I can barely imagine a worse self-own. It promises something ephemeral and irrelevant. So far as I can tell, this same cursed label has been used in every generation of conservatism to mean something different. When it inevitably fails and dies, people forget about it, and the next generation, stuck in the eternal present of a Korsakoff-syndrome movement, can reinvent it.

Who reads the conservative pundits of the ‘80s? Even those who remember them have to throw them under the bus. Every generation of National Review twinks, solemnly intoning what they conceive to be the immortal philosophy of our hallowed founders, is horrified by its predecessor, and horrifies its successor—a truly bathetic spectacle. And of course, each such generation would utterly horrify the actual founders.

…

Greer then goes deep into David Hackett Fischer territory to explain the obvious, yet important, fact that this “New Right” consists of upper-class intellectuals (inherently the heirs of the Puritans, since America’s upper-class tradition is the Puritan tradition) trying to lead middle-class yokels (the heirs of the Scotch-Irish crackers, and (though Greer does not mention this) Irish, Slavs, and other post-Albionic “white ethnic” trash, today even including many Hispanics. He even gives us a clever historical bon mot:

Pity the Whig who wishes to lead the Jackson masses!

Uh, yeah, dude, that would be called “Abraham Lincoln.”

But the point stands. Not just the “New Right” with its new statist ideology, but the whole postwar American Right, is a weird army with a general staff of philosophers and a fighting infantry of ignorant yokels. How can this stay together? How can the philosophers bring forth a mythology that creates passionate intensity in the yokels?

…

There is wisdom in this madness, of course—the problem is caused by aristocrats whose minds are wholly given over to narcissistic delusions. Doesn’t it take fire to fight fire? Doesn’t it take passionate intensity? Isn’t passionate intensity generated only by myths, dreams, poems and religions, not autistic formulas for tax policy? So the answer is clear: we need more and better narcissistic delusions. Ie, shams.

After all, any “founding mythology” is a narcissistic delusion. The flintlock farmers and mechanic mobs of the 1770s, and the Plymouth Puritans of the 1620s, have one thing in common: none of these people even remotely resembles the megachurch grill-and-minivan conservative of the 2020s. None of them even remotely resembles you.

They did live in the same places, and speak sort of the same language. Otherwise you probably have more in common with the average Indonesian housewife—at least she watches the same superhero movies.

To Narcissus, everything is a mirror; in everything and everyone, he sees himself. No field is riper for narcissism than history, since the dead past cannot even laugh at the present’s appropriations of a human reality it could not even start to comprehend.

And fighting fire with fire is one thing, but fighting the shark in the water is another. For the aristocrat, transcending reality is a core competence. The essence of leftism—always and everywhere an aristocratic trope, however vast its ignorant serf-armies—is James Spader in Pretty in Pink: “If I cared about money, would I treat my father’s house this way?” Mere peasants can never develop this kind of wild energy: that’s the point.

Yet Hanania remains right about the amount of energy that a rational, Kantian agenda for productive collective action motivated by collective self-interest, or even collective self-defense, can generate. The grill-American suburbicon is like Maistre’s Frenchman under the late Jacobins: he has defined deviancy down to rock-bottom. “He feels that he is well-governed, so long as he himself is not being killed.”

O, what to do? When you are solving an engineering problem and see the answer at last, it hits you like a thunderbolt. The conservatives, the normal people, the grill-Americans, must accept their own low energy. They must cease their futile reaching for passionate intensity, whether achieved through Kantian collective realism or Jaffaite founding mythology. They must fight the shark on land.

Conservatives don’t care—at least not enough. Yet they want to matter. Yet they live in a political system where mattering is a function of caring—not just voting. Therefore, there are two potential solutions: (a) make them care more; (b) make systems that let them matter more, without caring more.

Conservatives have low energy. They want high impact—at this point, they need high impact. After all, once you yourself are being killed, it’s kind of too late. Any engineer would tell you that there are two paths to high impact: more energy, or more efficiency.

Conservatives vote but don’t care. If we don’t have a viable way to make conservatives care more—meaning orders of magnitude more—effective strategies and structures must generate power by voting, not caring. They must maximize power per vote.

…

Interference means voters who are on the same team are working against each other. Impedance means voters resist delegating their complete consent to the team.

Interference is like a bunch of ants pulling the breadcrumb in different directions. To eliminate interference, point all your votes at one structurally cohesive entity which never works against itself.

Impedance is like getting married for a limited trial period, so long as your wife stays hot and keeps liking the stuff you like. As Burke pointed out in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol, the fundamental nature of electoral consent is unconditional:

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of Constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a Representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider.

But authoritative Instructions; Mandates issued, which the Member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgement and conscience; these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental Mistake of the whole order and tenor of our Constitution.

The cause of electoral impedance in the modern world is the conventional concept of “agendas” or “platforms” or “issues.” When you vote not for a cohesive entity, but for a list of instructions you are giving to that entity, you are not voting your full power. You are voting for Burke’s opponent, who felt “his Will ought to be subservient to yours.” In effect, you are voting for yourself. Narcissism once again rears its ugly head.

When you vote an agenda, you are granting limited consent to your representative. You say: I vote for you, for a limited time, so long as you stay fit and cook tasty dinners. I am actually not voting for you! I am voting for “reforms for conservatives” (Hanania). I am voting for “a broad set of shared attitudes and policy prescriptions” (Greer). Dear, I am not marrying you. I am marrying hot sex, regular cleaning and delicious meals—till ten extra pounds, or maybe at most fifteen, do us part.

You implicitly withhold your consent for anything not on your jejune list of bullet points. Then, you wonder why your representatives have no power and are constantly mocked, disobeyed, tricked and destroyed by people who are legally their employees. This is not political sex. This is political masturbation. You voted for yourself. And instead of a baby, all you got was a wad of tissues. Nice way to “drain the swamp.”

Your vote does not work because you are not voting, delegating, or granting consent. You are like an archer with one arrow who, afraid of losing it, refuses to let go of it. Without releasing his dart, all he can do is run up to the enemy and try to stab.

So if conservatives want to maximize the impact of their votes, all they have to do is the opposite of what they’re doing. Instead of voting for the okonomi a-la-carte stupid little political menus of hundreds of unconnected candidates and their staffs, they can all vote for the omakase prix-fixe chef’s-choice of a single cohesive governing entity.

Such a power, elected, has the voters’ mandate not just to “govern,” but to rule. When no other private or public force enjoys any such consent, no other force can resist. We are certainly well beyond “rule of law” at this point! On the inaugural podium, the new President announces a state of emergency. He declares himself the Living Constitution. In six months no one will even remember “the swamp.”

Wow! What a simple, clear idea! The engineer, when he comes across so compelling and obvious a design, knows there’s a catch: he won’t get the patent. Someone else must have invented it before. People may be stupid—but they’re not that stupid.

Indeed we have just reasoned our way to reinventing the oldest, most common, and most successful form of government: monarchy. And we are setting it against the second most common form, the institutional rule of power-obsessed elites: oligarchy. And to install our monarchy, we are using the collective action of a large number of people who each perform one small act: democracy.

The alliance of monarchy and democracy (king and people) against oligarchy (church and/or nobles) is the oldest political strategy in the book. The suburban conservative, who just wants to grill, either has no idea this ancient and trivial solution exists, or regards it as the worst thing in the world—even worse, possibly, than his sixth-grader’s mandatory sex change.

And why? Ask your friendly local Judas goat, the pundit. Even the “new right” pundit—who only differs in his policies and issues. Which are, true, slightly less useless. As the top of the tree is slightly closer to the moon.

The 20th century even came up with a handy pejorative for a newborn monarchy. We call it fascism. No word on whether Cromwell, Caesar, or Charlemagne, let alone Louis XIV, Frederick II and Elizabeth I, were fascists.

But, to borrow Scott Alexander’s charming term, also not his own invention, they were certainly strongmen. TLDR: if you want to be strong, elect one strongman. If you prefer to be weak, elect a whole bunch of weakmen. Do you prefer to be weak? “If the rule you followed brought you to this place—of what use was the rule?”

The pundit reassures you that you don’t need a strongman to be strong—you’ll do fine with weakmen—so long as those weakmen have the right “shared attitudes and policy prescriptions.” By the way, here are some attitudes I’m happy to share with you. Click now to accept cookies. Did I mention that I have policy prescriptions, too? Skip ad in 5 seconds. Congratulations, you’ve been automatically subscribed! Check the box to opt out of most emails—void where prohibited by law—terms and conditions may apply…

…

An odd sort of pundit, who remains only nominally anonymous but has always very much GAF, Scott Alexander does not have Hanania’s cagey diplomatic noncommittal. As a “rationalist,” he is deeply committed to his own class status, and to oligarchy itself—which, like most, he misidentifies as “democracy.”

While the whole raison d’etre of the rationalist is the irrationality of our oligarchy, as displayed in genius moves like refusing to cancel regularly-scheduled airline flights to stop a Holocaust-tier pandemic, the rationalist’s dream is a rational oligarchy—using Bayes’ rule, which given infinite computing power will become infinitely intelligent—in Carlyle’s immortal phrase, “a government carried out by steam.”

Obviously, this is not just logical—it immunizes the rationalists from the scurrilous charge of “fascism,” or worse. And they were right about stopping the flights. So was my 9-year-old. Sadly, in a world of universal delusional delirium, rationality can get quite pleased with itself by clearing quite a low bar.

My view is that no government can be or ever has been carried out by steam—only by human beings—a species the same today as in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, if possibly a little dumber on average—and this will remain the case until some computational or genetic singularity occurs. For neither of which events will I hold my breath. This is why I find it easy to picture 21st-century America under the phronetic monarchy of an experienced and capable President-CEO, and almost hilariously impossible to picture it under a Bayesian bureaucracy of polyamorous smart-contracts.

Alexander disagrees. Here is his analysis—the same text that Hanania quotes. Let’s go through it thought by thought, and see if we can’t turn it into some delicious carnitas.

…

Let’s get back to those “elites.” Alexander conflates three quite orthogonal concepts in his use of the word “elite”: biology, institutions, and culture.

Elite biology is high IQ, which is genetic. Elite institutions are any centers of organized collective power—Harvard, the Komsomol, the Mafia, etc. Elite culture is whatever ideas flourish within elite institutions.

Destroying biology is genocide—specifically, aristocide. Destroying institutions is… paperwork. Who hasn’t worked for a company that went out of business? Same deal. And if the culture is the consequence of the institutions, different institutions (with the same human biology) will inevitably nurture different ideas.

The SS was anything but a low-IQ institution, yet it propagated a very different culture than Harvard. 21st-century Germany is anything but a low-IQ country, but the ideas of Kurt Eggers do not flourish in it. It seems that high-IQ institutions can be destroyed—and the new “elite culture” will be the culture of the institutions that replace them.

So the only target is the institutions. There is nothing “nasty” about closing an office. In the worst possible scenario, the police need to clear the building, lock the doors, and impound the servers. Such tasks are well within their core competence, and can be performed with calm professionalism. They will probably not even need their zip-ties.

…

For democracy to be effective in such a situation, it must know its own limitations. It can seize the reins—but only to hand them to some effective power. This power must have one of three forms: an existing oligarchy, a new monarchy, or a foreign power.

Also, there are three classes in an advanced society, not just two: nobles, commoners, and clients. Since clients support their patrons by definition, once nobles plus clients outnumber commoners, the commoners have permanently lost the numbers game. This is why importing client voters is a recipe for either civil war or eternal tyranny—if not both.

…

Yes. This is what happened in denazification, except with monarchy and oligarchy reversed. For example, all German media firms today are descendants of institutions created, or at least certified, by AMGOT. Nothing “organic” about it.

The essential problem with Alexander’s picture of this process is that, since like most smart people today he inhabits Cicero’s great quote about history and children, he simply cannot imagine replacing one kind of elite institution with another. Nor can he imagine high-IQ elites—human beings as smart as him—which are as loyal to a new sane monarchy as today’s elites are loyal, slavishly loyal, to our old insane oligarchy. Does he think that Elizabeth’s London had no elites? Caesar’s Rome?

If Alexander was analyzing the Soviet Union in the same way, he would conclude that elites are inherently devoted to building socialism for the workers and peasants. Since the present world he lives in is all of history for him, he cannot see the general theory which predicts this special case: elites like to get ahead. To genuinely change the world, change what it takes for elites to get ahead.

If the elites are poets and their only way to get ahead is to write interminable reams of “race opera,” as my late wife liked to put it, the floodgates of race opera will open. If the elites are poets and their only way to get ahead is to write interminable reams of Stalin hagiography, Stalin will be praised to the skies in beautiful and clever rhymes.

…

There are two big strawmen here. Let’s turn them into steelmen.

First, “the populace uses the government” is non-Burkean. The populace (not all of it, just the middle class) installs the government. Then it goes back to grilling. So long as the commoners have to be in charge of the regime, and the commoners are weak, the regime will be weak. They need to “fire and forget.” Otherwise, they just lose.

Second, Alexander has clearly never heard of the atelier movement. No, this is not the same thing as your grandma in front of the TV copying Bob Ross.

What happens is this: every (oligarchic) art school and art critic no longer exists. Not that they are killed, of course. Just that their employers are liquidated (not with a bullet in the neck, just with a letter from the bank). They exist physically, not professionally. They were already bureaucrats—they had careers, not passions. Who gets fired, but keeps doing his job just for fun? Certainly not a bureaucrat.

And every (oligarchic) artist no longer exists—not that they are killed, of course. Just that the rich socialites who used to buy their stuff got letters from the bank, too. Libs sometimes talk about a wealth tax—a one-time wealth cap, perhaps at a modest level like $20 mil, will concentrate the rich man’s mind wonderfully on actual necessities.

Elites like to get ahead. The people who got ahead in the oligarchic art scene can no longer get ahead by doing shitty, bureaucratic, 20th-century conceptual art. Because there were so many of them, and because the demand for this product has dropped by at least one order of magnitude if not two, elite ambition is replaced by elite revulsion.

The enormous supply-and-demand imbalance for both art and artists in 20th-century styles leaves these styles about as fashionable as disco in 1996. “Paintings” that used to sell for eight figures will be stacked next to the dumpster. “Artists” once celebrated in the Times will be teaching kindergarten, tying trout flies, or cooking delicious dinners.

Inevitably, some of these people have real artistic talent. (The first modern artists had real talent—Picasso was an excellent draftsman.) They can go to an atelier and learn to draw. They will—because now, acquiring real artistic skill is a way to get ahead in art. And again, elites like to get ahead.

…

There is nothing “normal” or “natural” or “organic” about oligarchy. Does Alexander think “uncured” bacon is “organic” because, instead of evil chemical nitrates, it uses healthy, natural celery powder? He sure is easy to fool. But who isn’t?

Culture and academia is already yoked to the will of government in a “heavy-handed manner”—yoked not by the positive pressure of power, but the negative attraction of power. When the formal government defers to institutions that are formally outside the government, it leaks power into them and makes them de facto state agencies.

Power leakage, like a pig lagoon spilling into an alpine lake, poisons the marketplace of ideas with delicious nutrients. Ideas that make the institutions more powerful grow wildly. Eventually these ideas evolve carnivory and learn to positively repress their competitors, which is how our free press and our independent universities have turned our regime into Czechoslovakia in 1971, and our conversation into a Hutu Power after-school special. PS: Black lives matter.

The paradox of “authoritarianism” is that a regime strong enough to implement Frederick the Great’s idea of “free speech”—“they say what they want, I do what I want”—can actually create a free and unbiased marketplace of ideas, which neither represses seditious ideas nor rewards carnivorous ideas. But it takes a lot of power to reach this level of strength—and it requires liquidating all competing powers.

I have never been able to explain this simple idea to anyone, even rationalists with 150+ IQs who can grok quantum computing before breakfast, who didn’t want to understand it. Ultimately it reduces to the painful realization that sovereignty is conserved—that the power of man over man is a human universal. (Also, we all die.)

No surprise that nerds who think of power as Chad shoving them into a locker can’t handle the truth. PS: I went to a public high school as a 12-year-old sophomore, was bullied every day for three years, and graduated college as a virgin. Whoever you are, dear reader, you are not beyond hope. You can handle the truth.

…

And yet: Alexander’s post is about Erdoğan—and his description of Erdoğan is spot on. It also is a perfect description of Orban in Hungary; it applies to Putin in Russia and Xi in China; and it is even pretty accurate for Hitler, Mussolini and friends.

What all these “strongmen” have in common is that they are provincial. Turkey is not exactly the center of the world. Even 20th-century Germany was nowhere near the center of the world, though it could at least imagine becoming that center. If Turkey just disappeared tomorrow, no one would have any reason to care except the Turks. Who needs Turkey for anything? What would collapse—the dried-apricot market?

Erdoğan’s problem is that he cannot vaporize the oligarchy, because the institutions that matter are not in Turkey. The provincial strongman has no choice but to follow the “populist” playbook that Alexander describes so well.

Orban can kick Soros’s university out of Hungary; he cannot do anything at all to Soros, let alone to the global institutions of which Soros is only a small part. He is indeed “arrayed against” these institutions, to which his Hungarian elites (who speak nearly-perfect English) will always be loyal. The contest is unequal and has only one possible winner, though it can last indefinitely long. Even Xi, whose country can quite easily imagine becoming the economic center of the world, is a provincial strongman—in fact, he sent his daughter to Harvard. Sad!

In a global century, the only way for these provincial strongmen to develop genuine local sovereignty is to go full juche. This is simply not possible for Hungary or Turkey, both of which are firmly attached to the cultural, economic, and military teat of the Global American Empire. Indeed it is barely possible for North Korea, a marsupial nation still in China’s pouch. So Alexander is right: these “strongmen” cannot win. Their regimes will all go the way of Franco’s. It’s impressive that they even survive.

Erdoğan simply has no way to attach his best citizens to his own regime. They are citizens of the world. Elites always like to get ahead. If you’re a world-class talent in anything, why would you try to get ahead in Istanbul? Suppose you want to make a name as the world’s greatest Turkish writer. Succeed in New York, then come home. Turkey is a province; provinces are provincial.

Yet I am not a Turk or a Hungarian, and neither is Scott Alexander. The greater any empire, the more essential that its fall begin at the center. The Soviet empire did not fall from the outside in; it was not brought down from Budapest or Prague; it fell from Moscow out.

And the American empire will fall from Washington out—though that may not happen in the lives of those now living. And although nature abhors a vacuum and no empire can be replaced by nothing—and oligarchy, in the modern world, can only be replaced by monarchy—the “strongman” of this monarchy will not look anything like these mere provincial dictators.

…

The result of Alexander’s perceptive calculations, which are only wrong because their only input data is the present, is simply that our present incompetent tyranny is and must be permanent. Of course, every sovereign regime defines itself as permanent. Yet when we look at the past and not just the present, we see that no empire is forever.

Some grim things are happening in America today. These grim things have a silver lining: they expose the gleaming steel jaws of the traps that the aristocracy sets for its commoners. They remind the cattle that a goat is not a cow and a baa is not a moo.

Every pundit is a Cicero. And amidst all the greatness of his rhetoric, Cicero could not imagine a world that had no use for Ciceros—a world governed by competence, not rhetoric. By the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon, nothing had failed more completely than the whole Roman idea of governance by rhetoric—an idea many centuries old, an idea whose execution had beaten all competitors to capture the whole civilized world, but an idea that was past its sell-by date. Rome herself was no longer suited to it. The republican aristocracy of Rome no longer meant Regulus and Scipio and Cincinnatus; it meant Milo and Clodius and Catiline. Its factional conflict was the choice between Hutu Power and Das Schwarze Korps. Caesar was not a disaster; Caesar was a miracle.

In the death of the American republic, every detail is different. The story is the same. The contrast in capacity between SpaceX and the Pentagon, Moderna and the CDC, Apple and Minneapolis—between our monarchical corporations, and our oligarchical institutions—is a dead ringer for the contrast between the legions and the Senate.

The sooner we stop pretending that this isn’t happening to us, the better results we can get. Wouldn’t it be nice to get to Caesar, Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, without passing through Sulla and Marius, Crassus and Spartacus? Alas, from here and now it seems unlikely. But I can’t see why every serious person wouldn’t want to try.

[dmitri-smerdyakov]

The Fantastic Beasts Franchise and JK Rowling

Alright, so...hi everyone.

I don’t know how many people follow this blog anymore because my main blog of operation is now @alwaysahiccupandastrid - I still try to keep this blog relatively active though, just because it was my original blog, I’ve had it since I was 13, and I have so many memories attached to it.

I’m aware that a lot of the people who follow me, especially since late 2016, do so because a) I was a loud and proud Fantastic Beasts fan, b) I wrote some Newtina and Jakweenie fic, and c)...I don’t know. I literally don’t know why people bother following me anywhere because I don’t feel like I have a lot to say. But, anyway, many people probably follow me due to Fantastic Beasts and my posts/fanfics within the fandom.

Those who follow my active blog will already know my feelings and thoughts, but because of the fact many things about this blog - me, the posts for the last four-ish years, the url itself - are Beasts related, I felt it was necessary to come and write an actual post here instead of just reblogging things and calling it a day. I’ve always been very outspoken online, but I’ve been avoiding a certain topic of conversation on this blog for years now, and I’m finally in a place where we can discuss it.

I am, of course, talking about the hot topic that is JK Rowling.

Back in the days between FBAWTFT and FBTCOG, I was a very outspoken defender of JK Rowling and her decision to defend Johnny Depp’s inclusion in the films. Now, this is something I still stand by to this day, and due to the evidence that has since come out, I’m even more steadfast in the opinion that keeping Depp was a great decision. I am fully in support of him and the way he’s currently battling against his abuser. But that’s not what I’m here to talk about right now. As I was saying, back in the day, I was outspoken about the opinion that “we don’t know the full story” etc., and as a result I received very colourful anon messages. Now, to my knowledge, none of these were about JKR being a TERF/transphone, but I think it’s important to mention that at the time I scoffed at the idea she could be one. I openly admit that I didn’t listen to what other people - including actual trans individuals - were saying about JKR and her transphobia because I frankly didn’t want to admit it. I didn’t want to admit that the person who wrote something that saved my life could be so hateful and a bad person - that, and at the time I passed it all off as “wokeness out of control”.

It is now 2020. Up until last Saturday night, I was still in support of JK Rowling - I didn’t agree with some of the stuff she had said, but I was trying to be positive and have hope by telling myself that she didn’t mean to be transphobic, that she just didn’t know what she was doing was wrong, even though the evidence clearly showed otherwise (I.e. her liking transphobic / radfem tweets). I said to my followers on my Beasts page that instead of cancelling people outright, we should be attempting to educate them instead, and if they choose not to learn then fine. And, being 100% obvious, I didn’t want to admit it because I frankly already was feeling annoyed at two different Beasts cast members for different reasons: Ezra Miller (for choking a girl) and Dan Fogler (for his tweet about BLM - admittedly that was probably him being well intentioned but not saying it right). So yeah, I didn’t want to cancel another member of the Beasts “family”.

I had JKR’s tweets on notifications, and for the most part over the last few weeks, it was all about the Ickabog. However, on Saturday night I noticed that she had suddenly tweeted something completely different, and I looked at it. Given that I had adamantly defended her and said “freedom of speech” for so long, it’s telling that my first thought upon seeing her tweet was literally “for fuck sake, Jo, why”.

I won’t post her tweets here but to sum that first tweet up, it was her being annoyed over the term “people who menstruate” being used in an article instead of “woman”, and mockingly saying “there used to be a word for that” before pretending she didn’t know the word. She knew that tweeting it would start arguments and anger, and yet she still made the decision to do so. Her follow up tweets frankly dug the hole deeper; she tried to defend herself by saying, to sum it up, “I have a butch lesbian friend who agrees with me” “I just care about women’s rights!” And “IF trans people were marginalised I’d march with you!” (“If”, of course, being the real kicker here because what do you mean IF. They ARE. Every DAY.)

Since then, JKR has written an essay on her website defending herself and her opinions, and yes, I read it. I read it a few times, in fact. At first, I felt my anger simmer and felt I had been too hasty to make anti JKR jokes, that I was wrong...but then I read it again properly and realised that what she had written was a piece that turned herself into the victim, and that despite putting on the appearance of her saying she supports trans people, including the phrases “I support trans people” and “of course trans women are real women”, she still spewed much transphobic vitriol and hate. She cited no sources for any of her proclamations or statements about statistics, implied that trans men transition to escape their “womanhood”, that trans women are men in dresses, that trans women are dangerous to “real” women (aka cis women) and shouldn’t be allowed into women’s changing rooms or toilets. There was also the autism comment, and the implication of autistic girls somehow not being able to make decisions or whatever.

I’m going to get straight to the point: I don’t support JK Rowling or her radical feminism.

As someone who is a proud feminist (libfem?), I can honestly say that never have I felt threatened or like I was being silenced by the inclusion of trans women in feminist spaces or conversation. Never. In my second year at sixth form, I was in charge of the LGBTQ+ club until a new leader with better leadership skills could step in, and - put simply - that year, the club was made almost entirely of first year transgender students. Even though I had called myself a trans ally for years, I realised there was a lot I didn’t know, and I learnt quite a lot from these students. I continue to still learn today. They were some of the nicest and most intelligent people I got the chance to meet, and I can truly say that at no point was I ever worried to be in a room alone with a trans woman, nor was I concerned about which bathroom they went in - bathrooms are bathrooms. Speaking of bathrooms...when I was at uni during a particularly tense rehearsal a few weeks before our final show last year, a guy in our group made me cry and I ran to the women’s bathroom to escape. Not only did the other girls come to comfort me, but you know what? The guy came in and apologised profusely to me. Did any of us girls give a shit about having a guy in our toilet? Absolutely not. It’s a fucking toilet. And, on that note, I was never worried about a trans woman or even a cis man attacking me in the toilets. You know who DID attack me in the toilets regularly? Other cisgender women.

As a feminist, I fully support trans women and am not threatened by the inclusion of trans women in women’s spaces or in women’s rights discussions. While I agree that cis women and trans women inevitably go through different struggles, at the end of the day, we all identify as women and are women. I think that if your feminism is so threatened by the existence of trans women - TERFs, RadFems, JKR, looking at you - then your feminism is flimsy and not feminism at all.

As a woman, I find it highly offensive that JKR and many RadFems focus so much of womanhood and feminism on an involuntary biological function that, frankly, many of us would rather do without. Yeah, I’m talking about periods - no matter how proud I am to be a woman, I still fucking hate periods and would get rid of mine if I could without erasing my chance of having kids someday. I can hear the RadFems accusing me of “internalised woman hatred” for saying I hate my periods, but you know what, they suck and they hurt and fuck them. The fact that JKR (also the the radfem movement) reduced “women” to just people who menstruate and can have children, and vice versa, is incredibly offensive and misogynistic. For a start, trans men menstruate, intersex people can, non binary can etc. Next, not even ALL cis women have periods - women who are menopausal, young women who haven’t started puberty yet (some do start very late), some women don’t have regular cycles, some women have medical problems that affect their cycle, some women are on birth control that can stop their cycles. So the idea of women being defined as “those who menstruate” is offensive not only to trans/intersex/non binary individuals but also to cis ones too.

As I write this, I’m a 22 year old woman who is still learning and changing every day, and one of the things that I’ve found myself thinking about recently - especially since we’re in lockdown and we have nothing BUT time to think - is about myself and my identity as a woman. What prompted this was when I saw Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s beloved book, “Little Women”, which I’ve since read, for my birthday back in January, and I left the cinema feeling exalted and powerful with my own identity as a woman. (I’ll be returning to LW in a bit)

After some thinking, I’ve realised some things. For me, my identity as a woman is not just because once a month my uterus decides to shed; I do not identify as a woman just because I have certain physical features. I am not a particularly feminine person either, and I’m what some may call a “tomboy” (a phrase I actually don’t mind but I know a lot of people do for understandable reasons since it’s a phrase designed to differentiate people who don’t conform to society’s expectations etc) because I prefer video games and more geeky stuff to shopping or dressing up or make up.

For me, there is no one way a person has to be or appear in order to identify as a woman. Women are beautiful, complex human beings; we are not defined by our genitalia, by an involuntary biological process. Women are strong, intelligent, and interesting people - no two are the same. For example, some decide to raise families, some choose to pursue a career, some do both - all of these are valid and none are more “feminist” or “womanly” than the others, because it’s our as women. I guarantee that if you lined up every single woman in the world - cis AND trans - no two would be the exact same.

I mentioned “Little Women” earlier, and as I was pondering over what makes me identify as a “woman”, I thought a lot about a certain quote from the 2019 film that has stayed with me since it was first said in the release of the trailer. It’s spoken by Jo March to her mother, and I’ve started to understand what for me makes me a woman.

For me, being a woman is all of this: having minds, hearts, souls, ambition, talent, and being beautiful each in our own ways. Women are capable of love and empathy, capable of desire, capable of the most complex and human feelings and emotions, and coming out the stronger for it.

Sex is one thing; gender identity is another.

I won’t dissect every single thing JKR wrote in her essay, but I will just say this: her comments regarding autistic girls are extremely tone deaf and she does not speak for those with autism. I’m going to be honest and admit something here I haven’t before: I have not been diagnosed with autism or aspergers but I AM currently on the waiting list to see someone who COULD diagnose me. Apparently I show signs of a potential diagnosis, so...we’ll have to see. But I have friends who are autistic, and they’re disgusted by JKR trying to use them to support her TERF arguments. Autistic and other neurodivergent people are absolutely capable of making decisions and are NOT people who need to be babied or have their hands held, to be told who they are. It’s incredibly ableist of JK Rowling frankly.

I would also like to point out... I’ve seen people saying “but she doesn’t hate autistic people, Newt is autistic!!!” - yes, but JKR didn’t write him as autistic. Eddie Redmayne chose to play Newt as autistic - JK Rowling didn’t do shit.

It’s also time that I acknowledge that both Potter and Beasts inevitably hold JKR’s problematic views, and that by denying her ownership of her work, we’re not holding her accountable for the horrible things she’s done. This includes - but is not limited to -:

Anti-Semitic stereotypes in the goblins

Lycanthropy being used as a metaphor for AIDS - an illness that is heavily associated to the gay community, and also there was the panic of the AIDs crisis in the 90s where much misinformation and homophobia was generated and spread because of it.

Adding further to the lycanthropy point, one of the infected individuals - Greyback - is stated to have a sick preference for infecting children. Not only are werewolves tied to harmful gay/AIDs stereotypes, but also to the disgusting and frankly wrong notion that gay people are pedophiles.

The only Asian character is called Cho Chang. Cho Chang. That’s two steps away from outright just calling her “Ching Chong”. It’s not a name an actual Asian person would have.

The Goldstein sisters are probably distantly related to Anthony Goldstein, who JKR confirmed (on Twitter of course) is Jewish, meaning that Tina and Queenie are most likely Jewish too (and Goldstein is a Jewish surname). However, despite the fact that the first FBaWTFT is set DURING Hanukkah in 1926, there’s zero signs of them celebrating or observing it. Maybe that’s more on set design than anything else, but come on - if I, a fanfic writer, can do some research, JK/the crew of a major movie can too!

Adding on from that, gotta love how one of the JEWISH main characters then decides to join the Wizarding world equivalent of Hitler. I already had problems with Queenie’s characterisation in CoG, but that’s the icing on the cake.

POC/Black characters - in both series but since I’m a Beasts blog... Seraphina Picquery, a Black female president serving a term during a MAJOR wizarding world crisis, is severely reduced to have only 3 lines in CoG. Nagini’s only purpose is to be the only friend of Credence, a white man, before he joins Wizard Hitler and abandons her; she’s also an Asian character who we know one day permanently becomes a SNAKE, and who goes on to actually have a piece of Voldemort’s soul inside of her?? And some do see her as his slave, though you could argue that she’s actually the only being that he holds any love or respect for. Leta Lestrange is a half-black woman who is killed/literally sacrifices herself for TWO WHITE MEN, and who’s death was literally confirmed to have been added in last minute.

Also, the whole Lestrange storyline was fucking nasty: white Lestrange Sr imperius-ed a black woman (Yusuf Kama’s mother), raped her, and she then died in childbirth. I’m sorry, what the fuck??

In Harry Potter, Seamus is a terrible stereotype of an Irish person - he likes to blow things up. Look up the IRA and their bombings. Fucking Irish stereotype. As someone with Irish grandparents and who is proud of their Irish heritage, this really pisses me off.

Let’s not forget the whole Native American cultural appropriation. That truly speaks for itself.

So here is where I speak candidly to everyone who follows me and/or sees this post. While Beasts is no longer my No. 1 fandom these days, it and Potter still hold a huge piece of my heart. I have 5 wizarding world tattoos, so much merchandise, and I can safely say that being a fan of both series has shaped me as a person. Both of those series helped me get through the darkest days of my life, including bullying at school, my Nan passing away, and my mental health struggles.

This is why what’s happened has impacted me so much and broken my heart. For me, it feels like it’s tainted now because of Jo and her views. I know that we should separate the art from the artist, but when her views are so clearly woven into the very fabric of the Wizarding world, it’s a huge problem.

Here’s another part of the dilemma - I do not wish for the Beasts films to be cancelled. I’m well aware that the *cough* people who dislike me will say I’m trying to be negative, trying to boycott the series blah blah blah, but that’s truly the last thing I want. I still love the story, the characters, the soundtrack, and I want to know how it ends, if only for my own piece of mind. It’s also important to add that by boycotting Beasts, it’s also harming the hard working thousands of others who worked on the films: the cast, the crew, the extras, the musicians, etc., not to mention the fans who actually are invested in the series and have taken solace in it. It’s not fair for them to all suffer over the actions of one TERF.

This is one of my biggest worries, however: the Fantastic Beasts films do NOT have a good reputation as it is. The second film was boycotted by some due to Depp, and now there’s talk of people boycotting number 3 because of JK Rowling. Lots of people already talk hatred about it, and this will only fire that hatred up even more.

There’s also talk of Eddie Redmayne potentially being kicked from the franchise due to a “leak” that he doesn’t want to work with JKR anymore, but this could be sensationalist news reporting. But if it came down to it, I can honestly say that I would rather continue to have Eddie play Newt than keep JKR as a writer. Eddie has done more for Newt than even JKR has, and if he goes, then that will be the last straw for me within the fandom. That will be when I take a sharp exit out, sell my FB merch and have my tattoos covered.

To add, the Fantastic Beasts scripts are...not great. Or, at least, what we saw on-screen wasn’t. Maybe that’s David Yates being the literal worst (fuck you, Yates, you suck) and cutting all the parts with strong female characters, but I honestly don’t think that JKR can write screenplays well at all. I think she’s clearly better at writing books, and that’s fine - books obviously allow for more time to explore characters and story/plot arcs etc, and film scripts offer way less of those chances. I don’t think screenplays allow her to write what she needs to in order to tell the story she wants to, hence why CoG was kind of a hot mess. So maybe it’s just that she’s not suited for screenplays and should stick to books.

Honestly, I kind of just wish that WB would hire another person to finish writing the Fantastic Beasts movies - obviously they’d have to keep JKR on board to tell them the actual plot, but get someone who can actually write screenplays and not be problematic to write them.

By now I’ve gone on long enough that I’ve forgotten my original intent while writing this, so I’ll try to sum up and end now. In short, I am extremely disappointed in JK Rowling and do not support her or her views any longer.

I don’t know how any of you guys are feeling but I would be interested to hear other people’s thoughts, especially other Fantastic Beasts fans. I want to also add that, as always, my DMs and inbox are always open - if not here, then always at @alwaysahiccupandastrid where I’m more active nowadays.

Finally, you guys don’t need me - a white cis woman - to tell you this but you’re all valid and magical and fuck JK Rowling. Her characters would all be ashamed of her, and the characters we grew up with would not stand for the bigotry and vile hatred she spreads under the guise of ““protecting women””. Several of the amazing actors from Potter and Beasts have spoken out against her and her tweets: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Bonnie Wright, Katie Leung, Chris Rankin, Eddie Redmayne. Some have been...less inspiring (Tom Felton, Evanna Lynch, looking at you two 👀)

I’m sending love to everyone right now. I wish I could say something more useful but I’ve spoken enough - I’ve made my opinion clear. I love you all, please stay safe.

[violentviolette]

So I was on your fandom blog and I saw that you believe Bakugou (at least in assuming) to have ASPD. Is wondering if you could expand on that? I personally see him as NPD but I'd love to hear your side of things

first off anon bless u for being on my fandom blog that takes courage cause it’s a wicked hot mess over there lol and secondly to everyone else yes im about to spend an embarrassing amount of effort overanalyzing an anime man, no u shouldn’t apply this logic to diagnosing real people u don’t know or urself, no its not that deep but yes u can fuck right off if u wanna cry about me headcanoning ur favs with “shitty” illnesses. eat my dick.

But now down to the good shit! So I actually think bakugou has comorbid aspd/npd. But for this since u said u already see him as having npd I’ll just focus on the aspd criteria but im totally down to talk more about npd as well if u wanna. (the rest is under a cut because frankly mobile users would have drawn and quartered me otherwise)

So first im gonna go thru the dsm v criteria that are required for diagnosis that bakugou fits/exhibits (leaving out the few things that don’t pertain to him just for length and also because not every person has to fit every single criteria to qualify)

1. Significant impairments in personality as manifested by

a. identity (self esteem derived from power, pleasure, or personal gain), self direction (goal setting based on personal gratification, absence of prosocial standards and culturally normal ethical behavior)

katsukis entire sense of self is built upon his ability to “win” and to always be number one and come out on top. He absolutely cant stand to be viewed as less than that because if so, his entire sense of self begins to crumble. Part of the reason he’s so antagonistic towards Izuku in the early chapters is the fact that Izuku challenges that identity. He (unintentionally and intentionally) challenges katsuki and wont give way to him (which is the right thing to do, but we see how “well” katsuki handles that). He also doesn’t have a good sense of “prosocial standards.” katsuki has created his own internal sense of morals and values, he’s decided whats worth his time and effort based on his own opinions and not on what society deems worthwhile behavior. He’s constantly getting admonished that his attitude “isn’t that of a hero” because his values are different than the ones of the society around him. But he doesn’t care, as long as he “wins” then everythings good. And its not until he stops “winning” and his behavior begins to get in the way of his goals does he begin to realize that he has a problem.

b. impairments in interpersonal functioning as manifested by lack of empathy (lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others) and lack of intimacy (incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, use of dominance or intimidation to control others)

I could frankly write a whole essay about just this bit alone but I’ll try to condense my thoughts. So. Lets talk about katsukis lack of empathy. This boy wouldn’t know another person’s emotions if they walked up and punched him in the face. Which they do. On multiple occasions. But I digress. Katsuki is known for his shitty bedside manner, his lack of concern for the feelings of others is literally what cost him his provisional license, but aside from with Izuku (who we’ve established is a source of Baggage for katsuki and shouldn’t be counted among his normal behavior because at the start of the series they BOTH bring out the worst in one another and overcoming that is part of both of their character arcs and growth and a main theme of the damn story. Win and save. Save and win. Ahem. But again I digress) katsuki isn’t vindictive or cruel in an unnecessary way about other peoples emotions. He doesn’t use them against people, it just doesn’t occur to him that they exist. But as we see katsuki grow and begin to try and change his unhealthy behavior, we see that he’s not oblivious of others emotions in the same way todoroki is (who I headcanon as autistic along with izuku (who also has adhd), but that’s a whole nother post lol), he just doesn’t know what to do with them. He can handle things like kirishima feeling insecure, because he can logically talk to him about how strong he is to encourage and support him, but really struggles with more intimate and open forms of emotional support, like with Izuku.

He also struggles with forming prosocial bonds and friends. At the start of the series katsuki doesn’t have friends, he has lackeys he controls with intimidation and fear because he doesn’t know any other way to be. He has trust and intimacy issues and doesn’t like people getting too close to him because he feels displays of vulnerability are what makes someone weak (see those asocial morals and values we talked about earlier). After his time at UA, a few large helpings of some humble pie, and the diligent and hard work of a small group of fearless idiots (aka kaminari whose literally too prosocial for his own good and has zero self preservation instincts, and kirishima who has an endless supply of patience and understands empathy and other peoples emotions to a degree that’s baffling to me) he is able to start deconstructing that idea and realizing that u can be vulnerable and let people close to u and still be strong. That the mortifying ordeal of being known isn’t actually the worst things ever. Also that when confronted with people who aren’t actually afraid of him, he doesn’t know how else to deter them from getting close to him. The fact that none of the other kids in 1-A take katsukis shit and even go so far as to pick on him and mock him and call him out on his bullshit is a MAJOR turning point for his socialization skills.

2. pathological personality traits in the following catagories

a. antagonism, characterized by hostility (persistent and frequent angry feelings, anger or irritability in response to minor slights or insults, nasty mean vengeful behavior), callousness (lack of concern for the feelings and problems of others)

I mean. Do I even have to expand on this point? I feel like no

b. disinhibition, characterized by impulsivity (acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli, acting without a plan or consideration for outcomes, difficulty establishing and following plans), risk taking (lack of concern for ones limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger, engaging in potentially risky and self-damaging activities without regard for consequences)

this is a criteria where u have to adjust for the world these characters are living in. but even then, by hero standards, katsuki is still impulsive. His teachers are constantly admonishing him in the early series for charging headfirst into a situation, loosing himself to his emotions and anger, and letting things get the better of him because hes not taking the time to properly assess the situation, this also bleeds into katsukis inability to work with others or ask for help. He charges headfirst into a situation by himself, blows up anything in his way, and then asks questions later. His teammates are often left totally in the dark to his plans, motives, or other moves and have to just play catch up to him the entire time. In the deku vs. kacchan 1 fight we see this behavior come out in full force. He has no plan, he blows up half the building with zero regard for their goals, and leaves iida completely in the dark. Momo pointing this all out and dragging him for filth during the recap is another wakeup moment for him, having to confront the realities of his impulsive and negative behavior whereas before he was only praised for it.

so if we take a look at even just that, which is still about ¾ of the diagnostic criteria, I think u can see where this really starts to explain his personality. Katsuki is hot headed, angry, impulsive, stubborn, selfish, he gets in his own way more often than not, he struggles with prosocial behavior, making friends, and relating emotionally to others. He has a hard time comforting people and usually does so in a blunt and logical way, he isn’t great at sympathy and being soft, kind, or gentle with other people. It takes a considerable amount of effort for him to realize where his world view and his morals and goals are warped and doing him more harm than good, and he absolutely cant stand to be vulnerable or honest about his feelings with others. 

All those things, imo, as someone with aspd & npd, are what make me feel like hes a good character representation of what the complexities of living with these disorders is like. Katsuki isn’t inherently a bad person, and as we see him grow and change, we see the ways in which hes becoming better, but its still hard for him. And despite what a lot of fandom thinks, if u look at the canon, the main person katsuki hurts with his behavior is himself. And I think that’s really important because people with aspd & npd are so often catagorized as abusive villians whose only goal in life is to hurt others. Whereas with katsuki we see where these things and this kind of thinking gets in the way of his goals and ultimately hurts him. and thats what I think makes him the most relatable and makes his growth all the much more satisfying. Katsuki is both fundamentally the same and an entirely different person from when we first meet him. his personality didn’t magically completely change, hes not just a tsundere whose suddenly all mushy feely and hyper empathetic, he’s just learning how to deal with his emotions and the world and getting better at being a healthy person.

So yea, those are my thoughts! There was apparently a whole 1600 words of them so my apologies for writing u a literal dissertation on this lol I just really love this fucking character

[witchofthemidlands]

WHY POWER RANGERS 2017 DESERVED A SEQUEL. In This Essay I Will...

A lot of people are gonna disagree with me on this, but in my opinion, Power Rangers 2017 is a goddam masterpiece. It’s probs my second favourite film of all time. It’s beautiful, it’s funny, I felt that soundtrack in my soul and it has an amazing cast. I adore it, alright? Have done since I brought the dvd, because I couldn’t see it in cinemas at the time, because of those stupid ass exams... Anyway, I’m in a shitty headspace, I kinda want to yeet myself out of a window, I’ve had a drink, so, like the piece of actual garage I am, I am going to yeet myself into the trash can of Power Rangers 2017 & explain, why I believe that this film deserved a sequel.

First off THE CHARACTERS. Honestly, one the best things about this entire film is just these five wonderful characters. I could’ve watched these characters do random shit for a whole twenty four hours & not get bored istg, they’re great & they all deserved the world.

Jason Scott: Red Ranger, leader of the squad. Jason is probably my favourite out of the squad if I had to pick one & that’s not just because he’s played by the absolute legend, Dacre Montgomery. Jason won me over from the minute he said ‘tHat’S nOt aN uDDeR dUDe!’ (how tf did the cow get out of the gym to be in the field when Jason’s driving away though) Jason was completely different from everything I was expecting him to be. I thought he was just gonna be another one of those dumbass jock characters, who would slowly start to get on my nerves, but nope. Unlike what I was expecting, this character showed a great range of emotions. He was loyal, brave, hugged his best mate twice and cared so much about his family & friends. I mean the guy went so goddam HARD for Billy Cranston after only knowing him for five minutes. I stan that level of immense friendship.

Kimberly Hart: Pink Ranger. I adored her, honestly, I loved everything about her. She was played by the gorgeous Naomi Scott & was a really interesting character, because she was a character that had done a really shitty thing, but was trying to do better. What I liked about all these characters, was that they were all flawed in some way & were not perfect like all these kinds of films try to portray their characters, which was honestly, why Power Rangers was such a breath of fresh air, because it actually showed decent characters, that were not perfect and were working to try and become the best versions of themselves, but knew that they had a long way to go before they could do that. Kimberly was a part of a cyber bullying incident & it was great to see that they never tried to excuse the shit she did, but got her to accept that she did do it and that she couldn’t change what she did. When I first watched this film, I immediately expected Kim to be a major bitch, but she wasn’t. Seriously, these characters were so well written istg. Also, I know the kiss scene was deleted & I both agree & disagree about them deleting it (I shipped Jason & Kim, guys. Then again, I pretty much shipped them all at random times. Jason & Kim, Jason & Billy, Kim & Trini, all the Rangers in one big beautiful poly relationship etc) Yet, what I did like about it was how forward Kim was, most these teen based films, it’s always the guy who makes the first move, gives the first kiss etc, but ma girl, Kim WENT for it. I mean, she full on went for it & topped Jason. I have never stanned harder. You go, Kim! Again, I adored her. Enough said.

Billy Cranston: Blue Ranger, honestly the purest of them all. I loved this guy from the second he appeared (screw that asshole who broke his pencils in his first scene I’d have done more than just slapped that bitch istg), he cared so much about his mates, he gave everything into becoming a Ranger, like the guy was so pumped about becoming a superhero. Too pure for this world, I swear & was such a cheerful character, I mean, the poor dude literally died & he was still probs the happiest of them all. His friendship with Jason was literally one of the best friendships I’ve seen in a film between two dudes, they loved each other & were pretty much joined at the hip throughout the film, honestly legends. Again, these writers really wrote some bloody good characters, because they wrote Billy to be an autistic character & it’s rare to see representation of autistic characters, especially ones that are main characters, which is another reason why the character of Billy Cranston was greatly appreciated, because they handled it well. I will always love that scene where Billy is trying to explain his autism to Jason & he’s just like ‘you don’t have to explain it to me.’ Because Jason accepted him for who he is right away. This friendship was beautiful & the fact that we were robbed of seeing more of it in a sequel is a crime against nature.

Zack Taylor: Black Ranger, was honestly my dude. This guy was so much fun, but honestly, the stand out thing about his character was how much he loved his mother! I appreciate how realistically written these characters are, I really do. It was great to finally see a teenage character who was shown to be a care provider for a relative. It broke my soul when Zack said that his greatest fear was coming home & finding his mother dead, as someone who helps care for a relative, that is a very real fear & I appreciated how they wrote Zack’s explanation about his mother. Another thing I liked about him, was that even though he was a tease & flirted with Trini throughout most of the film, he totally cooled it down when she admitted that she was questioning her sexuality. Honestly, a character to stan here.

Trini: Yellow Ranger, an absolute mood. Oof, what a character. I honestly didn’t know that Becky G could act, but she honestly blew me away in Power Rangers. Trini was definitely one of the best characters in the film, she came across as tough as nails, but she slowly started to find a family in the Ranger Squad. Her & Kim were awesome (I pretty much ship all these characters in various ships, but I gotta admit, I got some hella gay vibes during that doughnut scene). She evidently had helicopter parents, but got on well with her siblings, even if one did say that he thought the Yellow Ranger was a dude, honestly iconic. There was an interesting part where she was talking questioning her sexuality & her parents want to use labels, again, these writers really gave it their all with these characters, because that is incredibly realistic & I really felt for her.

Seriously, this is an incredibly talented cast (Dacre Montgomery deserves whatever awards they can throw at him for Stranger Things) & is one of the more diverse casts I’ve seen in a film & the fact that they want to reboot it again without this cast is just wrong. Yeah, the story was a bit patchy in places, it wasn’t a groundbreaking film, but to me it was a masterpiece, because it made me feel things, it made me laugh, it gave me something I could escape to when I needed it. It had fantastically written characters that you could actually relate to and it was just a whole lot of fun. There’s so much shite out there these days that gets sequels green lit that isn’t nearly as half as good as Power Rangers 2017 was. They also didn’t give us a complete ending, what with the post credit scene, where it seemed like they were introducing their proposed version of Tommy Oliver. I wanted to see who they’d want as Tommy, how they’d write the character & how they’d change the character. I heard somewhere (don’t quote me on this I saw it on tumblr) that Tommy could’ve been a woman in this version, that would’ve been epic. They had so much potential there & they just gave up & decided to reboot because of what? Was it because the film did that badly, did the cast not want to do a second film? I totally respect them for that if they didn’t, but it totally sucks ass that they’re rebooting it again, because they had the perfect set up there, they had a banging soundtrack, the best cast known to man & god & PLEASE can someone create an actual Alpha Five? I need a motivational robot like that in my life.

Power Rangers 2017 deserved sequels.

However, if it must be rebooted, my fan cast for the reboot would be.

Dacre Montgomery - Jason Scott

Naomi Scott - Kimberly Hart

RJ Cyler - Billy Cranston

Becky G - Trini

Ludi Lin - Zack Taylor

Bill Hader - Alpha Five

Whoever they want for the rest of the cast.

POWER RANGERS 2017 DESERVED BETTER FOLKS.

✌️

[thaumatological]

im gonnaaaa revise and post my very dirk centric analysis of the epilogues here as well

also in case it needs stating, spoilers abound!

i read through both of the epilogues simultaneously yesterday, consuming both at the same time rather than one and then the other, and i feel like while it may not have been the most “satisfying” approach from a character-centric perspective, i have a more complete understanding of the stories than those who read them separately. if you’ve read through both and have the stomach to do it again for some reason, i suggest doing it in parallel, m1 c1 m2 c2 etc.

i will warn you though, i ended up having two nightmares at the same time in my dreams last night. like, simultaneously, two separate threads of terror unraveling in my subconscious. i woke up this morning already knee deep into an analysis of the homestuck epilogues, and it was less like “waking up” and more “becoming aware that i was conscious”

anyway, without further ado!

dirk killing himself in candy 14 is the scene that resonates with us as being “dirk” because it is. that’s all dirk, our dirk, the one from homestuck. he Has to do that in order for candy to continue being candy, and part of me believes that he knew that on a conscious level—hence his death being just. he knew he wouldn’t get a nice fluffy outcome in the candy timeline because him, all of him, not just this one instance, was fated to be meat dirk.

—and speaking of, the concept of Ultimate Selves pretty much squares away meat dirk. he doesn’t read like our dirk, the one from homestuck canon, because the narrative explicitly states he’s Not anymore. he’s become all of him, all of him from across paradox space, including notable players bro, doc scratch, and lord english. dirk’s Ultimate Self is a culmination of every possible him taken to the highest intensity. it reads like one of his personal nightmares because it WAS his personal nightmare—the personal nightmare of our dirk. he’s a prince of heart. the ascension to his Ultimate Self resulted in the complete destruction of the barriers between his splinters. the more i think about it, the more brilliant it is. he seems out of character as the dirk we know and love because he isn’t.

i feel like i finally Get it, but i’m still not looking forward to seeing people who dislike dirk using this to discredit the progress he made on his personal journey (ie “see he was evil the whole time!”) nor am i looking forward to all of the “dirk would never do this! it’s ooc writing!” from people who seem to have missed the part of homestuck where what scared dirk about himself most was the undeniable truth in it. there’s more than one example of “bad dirk and/or dirk byproducts” out there in paradox space. it’s more than feeling like you “might” be bad, it’s… being afraid of what you would be if you weren’t so afraid of being it, it’s seeing things that were a result of You-but-not-you and having to stare down the fact that even if you weren’t bad, even if you didn’t, you could have, would have, did. dirk’s Ultimate Self being a nightmare scenario is ..almost a recursive throwback to his fears about his ultimate self (note capitals)

him taking control of the narrative was epic though. it honestly did not catch me off guard? it makes sense. it is a 100% dirk strider move. if you haven’t read it by now for some reason, go read detective pony. i am diagnosing you with read detective pony by sonnetstuck. it’s terminal.

the only two people aside from hussie to have controlled the narrative in homestuck canon are the cherubs. and i did make the point somewhere up there that dirk absorbed lord english, and by extension, caliborn. that’s WHY he got that ability. not because he’s a prince of heart. dirk controlling the narrative makes sense from the perspective of dirk controlling the external narrative as well, ie, the whole thing is on a piece of paper that he wrote as some form of bizarre cathartic self punishment for his existence, but in the grander scheme of things and truth of homestuck dirk controlling the narrative makes sense as the puppetmaster-turned-puppet we see him become in several of his iterations, because caliborn literally becomes part of him.

everything is so skewed by the narrators. yes, both of them, because the whole point of the epilogues is that both of them suck and muse calliope is just as shitty as “impartial” “narrator” as Ultimate Self dirk is. it actually makes the whole thing a lot greyer in morality than it comes across at first. US dirk does a lot of Bad Shit as narrator, yeah, but even as passive as she is, calliope’s narration has its flaws (see: everything relating to trickster mode)

the epilogues are less about the characters themselves and more about a grander conflict between the two cherubs, using dirk and jade as their puppets—and yes, muse calliope is using jade as a puppet LITERALLY, which upsets me on so many levels i can’t even get into it here. let jade be fucking relevant and happy hussie or so help me i will write myself into your narrative and do some renovation of my own. but dirk is equally deprived of his agency in this scenario. i’m not going to debate with anyone about the inherent goodness/badness of dirk strider because that’s an entirely different essay, but in canon, dirk’s entire arc is about NOT becoming exactly what he becomes in the epilogues. the dirk we know didn’t choose to become his “Ultimate Self,” the dirk we know doesn’t get a choice between meat and candy, the dirk we know is at the mercy of the narrative even as he pretends to control it.

and that’s not something new to dirk strider, in any variation of himself. i’m specifically going back to thinking about the term “puppetmaster-turned-puppet” here, because i like it. in canon, we see dirk get out-puppeted by hal. it’s implied that bro is being controlled at least in part by lil cal, who is in turn.. a splinter of dirk indirectly via hal via arquiussprite. i’m getting a little lost in all the splinters. why is dirk’s worst enemy consistently himself? don’t answer that. uhh also it should be mentioned that makes lil cal a puppetmaster-turned-puppet-turned-puppetmaster, both literally and metaphorically. i fucking hate andrew hussie.

anyway, both of the epilogues do all that shit to to drive home the point that both of them (and i mean muse calliope and LE here when i say both, because this has officially stopped being about the dirk we know) are removed from human concepts like “good” and “evil” and represent duality in an alien manner that to a casual observer could be mistaken for some objective statement about morality, but they’re both wrong to us from our perspective as humans with human morals. the choice of candy and meat from the beginning was a cherub one. that’s not a balanced meal! that’s not even a reasonable dichotomy for humans! meat is not more real or “canon” than candy was, both of them are very flawed stories being manned at the helm by omnipotent green aliens.

okay we’re ALMOST done here, i just want to touch on the actual authors of the narrative rather than the ones the narrative insists are its narrators. by which i mean the actual real life human beings who wrote the epilogue. the point i was making above about how dirk doesn’t have any agency? the point of these epilogues were that none of the characters have any agency in their stories. every work is a reflection of its author, even when aforementioned authors are hiding behind pseudoauthors on a narrative level.

the homestuck epilogues feel very meanspirited to me. they punish their readers for not understanding their intentionally heavyhanded meta. homestuck was always very meta, but it was also fun. this, on the other hand, wasn’t fun. i haven’t seen anyone claim that the epilogues were a “fun” read, even those who enjoyed them enjoy them on the basis that “tragedy is a valid form of art,” and,,, ........and their opinions are. valid. and they can have them. sure.

but for those of us who read stories in order to enjoy them, which i am safely assuming makes up the majority of those who read homestuck, the homestuck epilogues are like a final kick in the teeth as a send off to a fandom with barely any teeth left to lose. we’re already having people who refuse to read them, and god i wish that were me, but it’s also.,, you can’t criticize something properly if you haven’t read it. we’re going to see a lot of very bad takes in the coming days about all kinds of things from information proliferating through the grapevine, and personally, i am not looking forward to it. i really hope this is the end, that homestuck is finally fucking over, and the epilogues are done with and we can all live our lives unmarred by strange orange men with typewriters. i’m going to hole up with my cool and new webcomic music albums and all of the good novel-length dirk-centric fic i’ve bookmarked over the years and wait this one out. i invite you to do the same.

cool and new webcomic bandcamp | cool and new greatest hits | my personal favorite album by them

detective pony by sonnetstuck (seriously please read this it watered my crops and cured my lead poisoning)

literally anything by callmearcturus but this is my personal favorite (chamomile, rosewater, and other unlikely intoxicants)

this long winded discworld joke by oxfordroulette that inflicted me with a terminal case of loving jake english despite it being a dirkjohn fic (vanitas vanitatum) also if you finish reading this one and also succumbed to loving jake english, i’m not going to link it but they have another fic that’ll scratch that itch for you. that’s all i’ll say on that matter.

this fic said nonverbal autistic dirk rights and thank god (we were made for another world by princex_n)

thanks for reading