#I don't think I have the cognitive capacity to use them

[marinsawakening]

There's some real nuclear level cognitive dissonance to the way various monsters (Zora and Moblins, most notably) are clearly sapient, and the way you are simultaneously expected to slaughter dozens if not hundreds of them throughout your average LOZ game.

Even in BOTW/TOTK, which clearly tried very hard to make bokoblins/moblins equivalent to animals, they possess the ability to build human-like settlements and show capacity for complex strategy. In older games, particularly the top-down LOZ games, monsters' sapience is straight-up textual, with multiple monsters talking to you as people. It's pretty much impossible to pretend monsters like moblins or the old school/river zora are anything but people. And yet they're the fodder enemies. I believe this contradiction is what the kids call 'ludonarrative dissonance'.

Jokes aside, much has been written about both video games' and the fantasy genre's tendency to create sapient (or sometimes outright human) fodder enemies, and the racist/xenophobic implications hereof. I'm uninterested in summarizing or retreading these discussions. I just want to note some of my observations on how the series has dealt with the inherent tension between 'monsters are sapient' and 'you should kill every monster you see'.

First that comes to mind for me is the Oracle duology. To my knowledge, these were the first games to try and combine the old-school monster zora and the OOT-style friendly zora. It did this by dividing them into two camps: the savage river zora, and the regal sea zora. The sea zora detest the river zora and do not want to be associated with them, stressing their differences.

In this same game, however, there are multiple moblins who display sapience, most prominently the Great Moblin. The Great Moblin is a bandit who leads a large group of other moblins; he talks, has motivations and desires, can strategize, etc. In Seasons, after you destroy his keep, you can find him sadly making bombs by hand, trying to regain firepower. You can blow up his house for fun.

So although Seasons/Ages draws a firm line between the 'monstrous' river zora and 'civilized' sea zora, it also contains probably the most obviously sapient monster in the franchise. I don't think the Oracle games had any political intent/message, I doubt the devs spent even a moment considering the implications here. Mostly, it reads like a confused attempt at mixing 'old' and 'new' attitudes toward monsters (especially with the zora), oblivious to the unfortunate implications this creates.

Echoes of Wisdom then picked up this sea/river Zora divide and ran with it. EOW is a game clearly trying to marry 'old' and 'new' Zelda. It is a top-down '2D' game with traditional Zelda dungeons and enemies, but with open world exploration and a lot of player freedom. The sea and river zora's conflict can easily be read as representative of the conflict between 'old' and new' LOZ. In the end, the two have to come together in harmony to progress.

Nothing of the 'old' attitude toward monsters remains, though. EOW obviously does not consider the river zora as monsters, seeing as you cannot create echoes of them. The other monsters, though still capable of using human tools and building BOTW-style settlements, have even less indication of sapience than BOTW's monsters. Although it can't quite cast monsters are pure animals (not if it wants them to have keeps), narratively speaking, they are no more people than a snake. By removing the river zora from the category of 'monster', EOW is feels free to once again use monsters as nothing but canon fodder.

This very much seems to be the 'new' attitude toward monsters. LOZ has gradually been moving away from monsters as sapient creatures, or trying to, anyway. Monsters do not talk anymore, and their settlements are noticeably less technologically advanced than they often are in older LOZ games.

In fact, as monsters became less and less sapient, they also seem to have gradually adopted a... 'tribal' aesthetic, for lack of a better word, based on racist pop-culture depictions of a variety of non-white/east Asian cultures. Older art would often give moblins/bokoblins armor/clothes that were at least similar to Hylians'. But over time this has steadily diminished, with many games giving them overtly racialized/ethnic features (such as Twilight Princess' dreadlocks on its bokoblins), quite obviously to 'other' them from the European Hylians. Monsters have never been portrayed as 'civilized' the way Hylians are, but the racial coding very much does seem to have increased in tandem with animalistic framing.

TOTK goes so far as to make monsters explicitly creations by Ganondorf, for the purpose of serving him. I do not believe this is the first time monsters have gotten the framing as creations of evil (for one, BOTW and its blood moon sure did), but it's the most blatant I can remember, as it's in a major story-relevant cutscene.

What's interesting to me about this is that it makes little sense when we consider the fun facts about monsters that occassionally appear on the loading screens, or their entries in the hyrule compendium. These refer to their living habits, diet, etc. in ways more akin to an animal than a nebulous creation of evil magic. This contradition also exists in BOTW, where the monsters 'rise with the blood moon', reborn through the Calamity's power, but are also very much described more as animals than miasma.

To fully illustrate what I mean: compare a bokoblin to gloom hands. One of these is a part of an ecosystem, one of these is not. Yet both of them are supposedly creations from Ganon's evil magic. It just doesn't really line up, does it?

All of this to say: I think Nintendo and/or the LOZ devs are by now perfectly aware of the optics of using sapient creatures as fodder enemies. As video game stories have become more complex, tolerance for this trope has decreased. As such, the LOZ franchise has attempted to move away from this. However, they wish to maintain the bokoblin/moblins' basic conceit as, effectively, humanoid enemies with a degree of intelligence.

So in their attempt at compromise they have revealed some very telling presumptions. Less human = tribal aka not white or Japanese. Former monsters that are 'humanized', the zora, become by and large friendly with Hyrule (ALBW as a possible exception, depending on how you look at it). None of this development is strictly linear, of course; for example, EOW's monsters do not follow BOTW/TOTK's design principles. But it's nonetheless a pattern, and the optics aren't great.

I don't really have much of a conclusion to all this. If anything, I suppose that the series' treatment of its monsters fits into a long-standing pattern of LOZ attempting to address criticisms of racism/xenophobia without understanding how they actually connect to their world. Or perhaps: trying to fix their optics without wanting to fix their hearts. Depends on whether we presume ignorance or malice, I suppose.

[explainslowly]

I've been contemplating lately whether I should become one of those ppl who has different pronouns in English vs native/spoken language

[grison-in-space]

Source. Dr Gill is, for context, an American climate scientist who has been organizing in politics for almost a decade now.

I think this is a really important thing to keep in mind, not only in the context of climate doomerism but also in the context of political doomerism. It's a natural response to long term and extremely rational fear, but it's also a self-defeating response. Not only does it paralyze the person who believes we are all doomed, but it dispirits the people who actually are trying to improve the shitty situation.

I think some people are trying to express this statement hoping to be talked out of it, but I wish they wouldn't. No one knows what will happen tomorrow. No one. The world is a chaotic, uncertain, unpredictable, hard place to be right now, but being unpredictable does not mean that the worst possible outcome is predestined. Even for battles that are unwinnable in the short term, bleeding out our foe or diminishing their capacities can create opportunities for success in the medium to long term.

This kind of pre-emptive giving up is in many ways the central sin of the left and in particular it is the sin the Democratic Party has carried since the 1980s, before I personally was born. Reagan scared the Democratic establishment then and incurred in them a sense that true victory was impossible, which set both the stage for the Clinton era (in which Democrats moved rightwards to try to appeal to the center, assuming that their own distinct appeal to the left was not important) and also for many of the organizing failures we are seeing today.

I get it if folks cannot muster hope right now. Fuck knows many of us are tired and disillusioned and sore and tired and let down. It's a hard time. We are all struggling.

But think about how you express that grief and sorrow. If you need someone to talk you out of feeing totally hopeless, try to say that explicitly instead of pre-emptively declaring that nothing is going to happen. This is why spite is such a great motivator: it changes the internal stage from "winning looks really hard and near impossible" to "No matter what happens, I'm really going to fuck up those bastards' day." It shifts your assessment of the world and what is possible into a context that you can control, which is a really important cognitive technique for combating learned helplessness. And it makes obeying in advance much less likely.

You don't have to be optimistic. Just think about how you're framing each battle. Whether or not you can win, you sure can make the other party regret tangling with you--and if you still wind up dead at the end of it, well, maybe you can take some of those anal abscesses along with you.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Would you say that the intelligence and emotional capacity of dolphins are overstated? Would you say the same for orcas(I know they’re dolphins lol but for every “dolphins are evil post I see “us flawed humans can learn so much from them” comment under an orca post).

Don’t get me wrong, they’re intelligent but I think in a “baboon/crow/parrot smart and not “human/mystical higher being” smart.

Oh 100% yes.

Certain lobbyists and activists love to overstate the cognitive capacity of dolphins and orcas and essentially anthropomorphise them into basically "humans with fins".

It tells me that these people haven't spent a lot of time around them because they're definitely not that.

They're certainly smart and they learn new concepts very quickly - but most of their intelligence comes from social intelligence rather than complex thought.

Most of what makes them unique is based on the environment they live in. Signature whistles, for example, makes sense for a social animal that interacts in the world through sound. Echolocation also makes sense for an animal that often navigates dark/murky waters or has to detect prey over long distances.

But yeah there's no actual scientific evidence that suggests dolphins are these hyper intelligent beings that are beyond human intelligence. And after spending many long hours observing behaviour and working with bottlenose dolphins, I would say that they don't need to be.

They are their own incredibly complex animal with indvidual variability and personality that is very well adapted to the ecological niche they occupy. Honestly I don't even like comparing animal cognition to human cognition becuase it measures them up to something that they have no evolutionary reason to be.

And they don't need to be "just like us" to be worthy of attention, conservation and study.

Anyway here's a picture of Caliban because she's gorgeous and she deserves the world.

[pearsandrust]

in honour of me deciding to appease my 2021 self by going to a genshin event this week, here's how i'd rewrite sumeru if i were given the chance. note that this is solely based off of the in-game themes and lore that i still remember, and i quit pretty early on. so. warning for canonical inaccuracy.

also, this is a traveller-less rewrite. i love aether/lumine, but i think their reputation as the "hero" often ends up taking away other characters' autonomy. the MC being capable of practically everything means that we don't get as many moments where other characters realize they have to step up. anyway, that's enough yapping. thoughts under the cut <3

PLOT

the general flow of the plot would be kept the same, but here's a list of points i want to include:

the sages don't imprison nahida by any physical means. instead, they take advantage of the fact that she's the first/central akasha terminal. the sheer volume of requests the sages send to the akasha causes her to be a) constantly overstimulated, therefore locking herself in the sanctuary of surasthana, and b) unable to use her mind for herself, which takes away her biggest source of power

another reason nahida is unable to communicate with the people is because the akasha is actively diminishing the population's cognitive capacities

the first person to realize that critical thinking is declining among the citizens of sumeru is, of course, alhaitham. he notices that a lot of people have stopped using figures of speech. instead, everyone seems to speak the same way, which he finds unsettling.

at the same time, the sages have enlisted kaveh to redesign the akademiya's buildings for "efficiency". that's right. they're making kaveh do minimalism. the horror ! the intrigue ! what did they do to get him to agree (i will cover this later when i talk about his character)

(this one is a WIP) as the manifestation of the withering in people, i'd want eleazar to have more notable psychological effects. distortion of memories/dreams would be my first instinct. since the withering is also linked to the remains of greater lord rukkhadevata, i think collei would be the first person to see irminsul and hear the words "world, forget me" (instead of the traveller).

i'd keep the samsara arc, but instead of having nilou host the dream, the host changes during every "reboot". the beep everyone hears at the end of the day isn't just the dream restarting, but also a confirmation that a new host has been found. of course, every person's dream would still have features unique to them. because i love kaveh, i'd like to write a dream hosted by him at some point -- with his dream's defining factor being that his parents are still in sumeru city.

the sages are still trying to make scaramouche a god btw.

i want the tale of king deshret's civilization and the introduction of forbidden knowledge to be basically lost history. it would be so interesting to have the characters wonder if the desert's mysterious machines hide the secret to defeating scara, only to eventually find out that the sages are just repeating deshret's sins. it would also be interesting to see people wish for deshret to return without knowing exactly why he fell in the first place

speaking of the desert, i'd like the conflict between the akademiya and the desert people to focus at least a little on the destruction of history in the pursuit of "progress". the sages are willing to overwrite the past whenever it's convenient for them, so there's no way they can be entrusted with the knowledge/culture of the desert. but then again, i'm actually not too sure why hoyo wrote the desert/forest conflict the way they did in the sumeru main story, so i could be missing something crucial here. let me know!

tying nahida's imprisonment to the akasha system does also mean that the cast needs to find a way to dismantle it before freeing her, which is something i haven't quite figured out yet (sigh). i was thinking of doing something along the lines of how alhaitham broke the hivemind in his story quest.

you know that theory that's like "nilou is the reincarnation of the goddess of flowers and [other character] is the reincarnation of deshret"? while i don't fully agree with it, i'd like to introduce some mechanism by which the main cast can draw power from the memories of those gods (perhaps using nahida as a conduit). memory is such a prominent motif in sumeru, and it would make such a perfect antithesis to how collei's eleazar was once suppressed using a dead god's remains, resulting in her having uncontrollable powers. useful powers through honouring the past vs terrible power through exploiting it. do you see the vision

CHARACTERS

okay, now for points relating to individual characters!

nahida

i don't have much to change about her personality, but here are a few points i'd like to add to her:

metaphors metaphors metaphors! i know she already speaks pretty metaphorically, but i don't want to just play it off for humour ("haha nahida why are you talking like that"). i want her to get weird and creative with them!! use symbols that people wouldn't expect !!

a core problem with nahida attempting to take control of sumeru again is that if the akasha has made everyone unable to learn for themselves, she can't really spread knowledge to the people. i think this could make for an incredibly interesting character arc. nahida initially tries to make herself seem more like an archon of wisdom and plays into the akademiya's stereotypes of wisdom/intelligence, using very specific language and explaining things literally to people (as the sages/traditional academics might do). in the end, she realizes that her personal style of teaching -- using fairy tales and stories as metaphors -- is far more effective

note: while the official lore doesn't confirm that rukkhadevata is the "ruler of yesterday and tomorrow morning" mentioned in one of the sumeru books, it's such a powerful idea that i'd like to make it the basis of her identity in this rewrite. it encapsulates the importance of memory -- how the past informs the future. this both connects back to irminsul and explains nahida's biggest weakness. she does not have nearly as much lived experience, and thus, she has less memories to draw power from.

kaveh

kaveh's my favourite genshin character, which is why this whole thing is a little biased towards him. but honestly, it's hoyo's fault for stating he's canonically the closest to nahida's ideal of wisdom and then not putting him in the story.

of all the sumeru characters, i feel like he'd be the most opposed to the akademiya defunding the arts and focusing solely on progress. in such an environment, i imagine that he'd feel like he never has enough time to process everything, which also plays into the concept of "debt". he feels like he owes the universe everything he has failed to preserve.

i'd like kaveh's mother to send him the occasional letter. in each one, she seems to get a little further from who she used to be, giving him the feeling that the past is slipping away. i want him to wish that he could stop or rewind time, and for this wish to eventually bring him to the orchard of pairidaeza (the time-stop place underneath the desert). i'm not entirely sure why -- i just think it would fit.

in a similar vein: the reason he agrees to help the akademiya redesign their buildings in a minimalist style is not because they offer him money, but because they threaten to destroy all the notebooks and papers his mother contributed to their library. you know, the last evidence that she was ever an architect.

alhaitham

hoo boy. alhaitham. while i love his current character, the sumeru story didn't really challenge him in any meaningful way. he kind of just. handled it all. and that's ... kind of disappointing? i'm not saying we should overstimulate him for sport or anything, but i'd try something like this:

have alhaitham be a parallel to scaramouche. NOW BEFORE YOU GUYS YELL AT ME. HEAR ME OUT

both alhaitham and scaramouche are heavily influenced by their respective pasts, but neither of them really acknowledge it. in scaramouche's case, he's actively trying to repress his memories. alhaitham is a bit different -- we know his grandmother had a big influence on him, but i cannot remember a single time that he has brought her up. i don't think he's actively trying to forget her, but i presume he usually just focuses on other things. at the beginning of the story, i'd characterize alhaitham as someone who usually neglects past issues in favour of current/future ones. he would think this is an efficient, more peaceful way to live. as the story progresses, he gradually realizes that neglecting the past is not a strength, but rather something that makes you more susceptible to repeating your previous mistakes.

he doesn't need to become excessively sappy or nostalgic to accomplish this. it would mostly happen through small, fleeting moments. for example, the sages get rid of some of the books in the house of daena because they're "old and redundant", and alhaitham realizes this makes him uncomfortable.

meanwhile, scaramouche becomes wrongly convinced that you can only be successful if you rid yourself of your past. even though both of them start with similar ideologies, they end up as vastly different characters. which would be !! so interesting !!

collei

COLLEI NATION !!! ILOVEHERILOVEHERILOVEHER.

collei is a perfect example of the importance of memory, if only because of how deeply she values amber. and the fact that she had to learn how to read after arriving in sumeru makes her a perfect addition to the story's exploration of language. also, the fact that her favourite stories are fairy tale picture books? which exactly aligns with how nahida prefers to tell stories? collei is the true main character of sumeru and none of you can tell me otherwise. i am dying on this hill

HEAR ME OUT. since there's no traveller, i want collei to be the one who defeats scaramouche in the end. there are a lot of more powerful characters, but her lore perfectly aligns with scara's. as an example, collei's doll (cuilein-anbar, named after amber) is a great parallel to the doll scaramouche's friend once made for him.

we can tell from collei's ascension voiceline (even if it's a life-or-death situation, i'll never need to rely on their power again) that she wants to develop her own set of skills; that way, she'll never need to call on the power that was sealed within her. this makes her a great character for the scaramouche fight. when the traveller does it, they use the knowledge of everyone in sumeru. similarly, we could see collei willingly learn different skills from different characters throughout the story. that way, it feels natural for her to tap into all of that knowledge during the climax -- just like aether/lumine does. do you see it. do you see the vision

candace

collectively we are sleeping on candace. this includes whoever wrote her character stories. they were also sleeping on candace.

like alhaitham, i'd also like candace to have a bit more of an internal struggle. her character stories don't offer us much ("candace was not depressed" -- ah. okay,,,?), but we do get the hint that she always has to have her guard up. she has to remain calm at all times. she can't really wear the cute trinkets she buys. i feel like there could be a really interesting conflict between her determination to protect everyone and her innate desire to be someone else.

there is a lot that candace can teach the other characters about language, which is a Core Sumeru Motif! the way she speaks in the story is actually really unique, given that people come to her for Divine Guidance TM. this could add to the ongoing idea that objective/academic language is not necessarily the best way to communicate with people.

dehya

not too much to say here -- her character works well as is!

i would lean a little more into the fact that she keeps returning to the desert, no matter what. this could directly conflict with her desire to obtain a position where she can help her loved ones live better lives. she wants them to break free of the restrictive mindset they've developed due to the harsh conditions of the desert. if she remains a mercenary, she may never have that sort of influence, but can she really tolerate working somewhere like the akademiya? this is especially interesting considering alhaitham asks her to join the akademiya himself at some point (IIRC).

i think she could have a really interesting friendship with nilou, though. they are vastly different people and yet they both have an appreciation for beauty. they both also want to live a carefree life. i think it would be so fun to see them bond, and we could have some cool scenes where they teach each other how to fight/dance :)

nilou

speaking of nilou,

i think it would be interesting to dive deeper into why the akademiya is defunding the arts. it could be because of their subjectivity, or because they don't really "advance the current state of knowledge" in sumeru. in any case, it would be fun to have the conflict stem from the sages' desire to intellectualize everything. it would definitely clash with nilou's carefree personality.

out of everyone, nilou would be most affected by the negative side effects of the akasha. it diminishes her creativity, leading her to feel burnt out. i would love to have an arc where nilou feels uninspired, but later realizes it's because her access to instantaneous knowledge has made her stop observing the world around her.

it would be really cool if nilou could see the aranara. for no particular reason tbh. i just think it fits her

unfinished characters: tighnari & cyno & faruzan & layla & sethos

i haven't read the lore for these characters, but if this idea ever comes to fruition, rest assured that they will be added :)

dori

no dori. i am so sorry dori fans but i genuinely do not know what to do with her. please enlighten me

scara

just one thing:

the dendro archon is the avatar of irminsul, which contains all the world's memories. this, in itself, is a form of "eternity". i imagine that's part of why he agreed to try and overtake nahida in the first place. it was another shot at holding onto "eternity".

aaaand that's it! that was such a long post. i'm never posting about genshin again (i say that every time i post about genshin). if anyone read the entire thing i love you.

[snugglebugs]

KAI SMITH flip (caregiver-leaning!)

Kai Ninjago Smith is ABSOLUTELY an age regressor are you KIDDING me are you JOKING me. He is BASICALLY CANONICALLY an age regressor!!!!

"I bet he loves being treated like a baby..." (Nya, Season 14, Episode 6, Call From The Abyss)... Yeah he does because he IS a baby. He is THE baby. He is BABY.

His entire traumatic backstory is that, after his parents were taken from him from an early age, he had to step into a parental role for his little sister and become the adult of the family while still being a child himself. He had to grow up before he even really had a chance to grow at all. On-screen, we see that once his parents return and he's no longer forced into that role of responsibility, he canonically regresses into childish habits and language we have never before seen him use or display beforehand.

"Ham and cheese sandwiches with crispy bacon? Oh thanks, Mommy! You're the best! Mm... bacon is the best, too!" (Kai, Season 14, Episode 6, Call From The Abyss).

Conclusion? Kai Smith is the most age-regressor to ever age regress ever I will not take criticism because I am OBJECTIVELY CORRECT.

Anyway!! I think Kai is regresses from 5-9~ years old. We can tell from his diction that he doesn't seem to be a baby regressor (at least in this scene), as he's capable of fully-formed sentences and has the cognitive skills required to play video games, so that leads me to believe he might be a little-middlespace regressor! Kai's parents left when he was around 5, so it makes sense he wouldn't be an infant regressor, but around the little-middle spectrum, regressing into the same range of years in which he didn't have a chance to be a child before.

I don't just think he's an age regressor, though, I also think he's a flip, too! He definitely has some care-giving tendencies built-in to him from having to be a caretaker for his little sister for so many years, and so he pretty naturally slips into the role of a big brother caregiver! I imagine he leans more towards the caregiving side then the regressing side, just because being a caregiver is what he's used to being - what he's always had to be - but that may be prone to change as he becomes more comfortable with his regression! He hates regressing around the other age regressors, especially when they're regressed, because he feels like when they're small he has to be big and adult to take care of them regardless of his own headspace. We can see his caregiver tendencies displayed in... countless interactions with Lloyd. Speaking of...

LLOYD MONTGOMERY GARMADON age regressor!

I am, once again, OBJECTIVELY correct. Lloyd is basically canonically an age regressor. He IS canonically an age regressor. He is, quite literally, a child stuck in a teenager's body -- as in he was a child and then magic age-up tea turned his body into a teenager's but still left him with the mental capacity of a child. Which is the DEFINITION of what an age regressor is!! Bodily an adult but mentally a child!! He IS an age regressor!!!!

And even if that WASN'T the case, he'd probably be an age regressor anyway, because, like. Look at him. He had the weight of the world on his shoulders since he was, like, eight, was unable to be a child because he had to endure constant rigorous training and when he WASN'T training he was undergoing countless traumatic experiences while he was still a child.

Lloyd: Well...The latest issue of Starfarer just came in at Doomsday Comix and it's a limited run, so if I don't go out and get it, it's going to sell out. Last they left off, intergalactic rogue Fritz Donnegan was surrounded by the Imperial Sludge, and if I don't find out if he gets out alright, I think I might have my own doomsday! Kai: The fate of Ninjago rests on your shoulders. As the Green Ninja, you have a giant responsibility to hold. I'm sorry, but you don't have time for such childish things. Lloyd: Other kids get to play and have fun. All I ever do is train...(Season 2, Episode 18, Child's Play)

I don't even think I need to argue my case that hard for why Lloyd is an age regressor. I think it'd be harder to argue why he ISN'T an age regressor, actually. TRY to argue that he's not an age regressor. TRY. I BET you CAN'T.

I don't have much evidence for this one, but I imagine he may be a pet regressor, too! He's an oni-dragon-hybrid, after all, and his heritage have proven to come with strong instincts regarding this animalistic half of his genes, as seen throughout the Oni Trilogy. Even if he doesn't have any physical traits, it's likely he at least has psychological ones. I imagine he growls, gnaws on things, et cetera!

COLE BROOKSTONE caregiver!

Look at him. JUST LOOK AT HIM. The most caregiver to ever caregive ever forever. He has chronic can't-stop-adopting-children syndrome. He's adopted, like, three separate children at this point. It is becoming a problem.

"Huh? Oh, no. Don't make that face. Don't cry. Oh, I can't take it any more. Hey, look at me. Hehe. Yeah. I'm not sad. Ha-ha, I'm not crying. Oh, fine. But this is between you and me. Shine, little glow worm, glimmer glimmer. Hey there, don't get dimmer, dimmer. You like that, huh? Well, there's more where that came from. Glow, little glow worm. Glow and Glimmer—" (Cole, Season 8, Episode 5, Dead Man's Squall)

When his mentor canonically (mentally & physically) regressed into an infant his first and immediate instinct was to adopt and care for them. If that isn't agere caregiver behaviour I don't know WHAT is. HE BECAME THE FATHER TO AN INDIVIDUAL REGRESSED FROM THEIR NORMAL HEADSPACE INTO A CHILD.... HE'S LITERALLY A CAREGIVER GUYS!!!!!! I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU WANT ME TO SAY!!!!!!! I AM JUST STRAIGHT-UP CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!

JAY WALKER padded regressor!

Jay: Aah! [He picks up a ruined stuffed toy.] Mister Cuddlywomp… [sobs] is a teddy bear I used to love when I was five, but now he's totally lame and—

Cole: We know you still sleep with him.

Jay: And I don't care who knows it! Mister Cuddlywomp... (Season 7, Episode 6, The Attack)

Jay Walker is DEFINTELY a regressor. His personality has been noted to be very child-like and babyish at times, to the point where the fandom (and showwriters) tend to infantilize him, despite the fact that in his own right he can be a very serious character when he need be. As much as I do believe he's an age regressor, it's important to remember he can be very capable and competent character when he's big, too, and not to define him by his regression!

If he's any regressor, it's definitely a padded regressor. Throughout the show, it's become a running bit that he's a bedwetter and has a weak bladder:

Jay: But I don't wanna get wet. I...I only have one pair of underwear.

Kai: Jay, this is no time to be making jokes. The Bounty can only take so much.

Jay: You think I'm trying to be funny? (Season 2, Episode 9, The Last Voyage)

Harumi: Uh, forgive me, but is that... underwear?

Jay: We're usually more organized. Ahem. But our leader got lost in a time-stream. Uh, they're Cole's.

Cole: They're blue!

Kai: You're lucky they're not yellow. (Season 8, Episode 3, The Oni & The Dragon)

Jet Jack: Then tell us, who do these diapers belong to?

Kai: Oh, those are Jay's. Tell 'em, Jay.

Jay: Oh. I have a weak bladder. (Season 9, Episode 2, Iron & Stone)

These are only a few of many, many examples (You can find others throughout the show, such as in Only One Can Remain, The Darkness Remains, Darkness Within, etc) of this bit, and though it's usually spun as a joke, there's no harm and shame in it! I imagine the ninja do actually buy him diapers, and as much they tease and prod, they never actually judge him whenever he has an accident!

ZANE JULIEN caregiver!

"I was built to protect those who can't protect themselves!" (Zane, Season 3, Episode 8, The Titanium Ninja)

I don't know what else you want me to say guys... he said so himself.,,,,,,. was built to protect those who can't protect themselves...,.....

Zane's entire identity is hinged around adaptability. Though I could go on a WHOLE 'NOTHER ESSAY about Zane's relationship with identity, the point here is that he often adapts to what people need him to be! I mean, he downloaded thousands pieces of detective media onto his hardware in order to try to track down the other ninja after they went missing, if called for I imagine he could very easily slip into the role of caretaker (he WOULD download hundreds of resources on age regression to help the other ninja)!

I don't have a lot of evidence for this one beside source: bro trust me but bro. trust me. The Vibes,,,, theyre there

These are just my personal headcanons based on evidence I've gathered from the show - I am in NO WAY saying these are the only headcanons or that they are the "correct" ones!! In fact, if you have DIFFERENT headcanons for the ninja (esp. ones I didn't provide a lot of detail for), I encourage you to share them in the tags, I'd love to hear other's opinions!!!! ^^

If this gets enough interested, I might make a pt. 2, so stay tuned!!

[max1461]

I didn't know rationalism of the online rationalists was not the same as the one that has the Wikipedia article. When I first saw the term on Tumblr I went to that article and skimmed it and decided I don't really get what those bloggers' perspectives are. After your post I now have even less knowledge than I did before.

The following is an oversimplification, so for those who have quibbles with the history here, well, forgive me.

Online rationalism was founded by two guys named Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson on the blog LessWrong. Of these two figures Yudkowsky has been much more influential. The ideology that Yudkowsky promoted is roughly as follows:

humans are, relatively soon, likely to develop a superintelligent AI which has the capacity to self-improve by rewriting its own code. This will cause the AI's intelligence to rapidly explode beyond anything we can imagine, a process which rationalists onomatopoetically call "FOOM".

This superintelligent AI, if it could be harnessed and controlled, could cure death, and possibly revive all already-dead humans in a simulated world, leading to a technological utopia in which humans have merged with machines; this is called "the singularity" (the idea of the singularity predates the rationalists, and is a broader transhumanist trope).

However, it is almost certain that a superintelligent AI could not be harnessed and controlled; in fact, if such an AI was created, there is a very high probability that it would end the world (in rationalist jargon this is called an "x-risk"), perhaps usurping all of the accessible matter and energy on earth, then in the solar system, then in the galaxy and beyond in pursuit of its inscrutable goals. Thus, humans have a responsibility to make sure we never create such a superintelligent AI (in a recent op-ed in Time, Yudkowsky went so far as to say that the US should use drone strikes to destroy any datacenter found to be training a large AI model).

The reason that people do not recognize the truths above is because people are too irrational to see them. Therefore, people need to be taught to be more rational, by Yudkowsky via the blog LessWrong. The tenets of being more rational are laid out largely in a series of blog posts known as "The Sequences", later published as a book. The main take-aways are: (1) use Bayes' Theorem all the time to estimate the probability of things, and (2) to eliminate one's various cognitive biases, as outlined in The Sequences.

LessWrong attracted a lot of people who did not agree with Yudkowsky about AI, but who liked the Bayes' Theorem stuff and the commentary on cognitive biases. There is a joke that "anyone who has ever disagreed with Yudkowsky is a rationalist". The people who settled on LessWrong were largely drawn from the milieu of Bay Area tech workers, economics blog enthusiasts, and sci-fi fans. They would come to be known as LessWrongers, rationalists, or aspiring rationals. From this group, two major subgroups worth mentioning were spawned:

First is the Effective Altruists. Effective Altruism, to my knowledge, isn't a strictly LessWronger phenomenon, and has also been influenced majorly by philosophers like Peter Singer. However, they have been so intertwined with LessWrongers throughout their history that I think they are worth mentioning as essentially an offshoot of rationalism.

Effective Altruists believe that, in order to do the most good in the world, one should use one's money in a way that does the maximum amount of good per dollar. Rather than e.g. donating to charities willy-nilly based on what feels important, one should use quantitative methods to estimate how much impact each dollar is making, and donate in a way which maximizes that. The Effective Altruists are split along one main ideological line: neartermism vs. longtermism. The neartermists are basically focused on what we would traditionally think of as charitable activities: fighting disease, giving people clean water, that kind of stuff. I think neartermist Effective Altruism is pretty sensible, and I think they've done a lot of good work evaluating charities and so on. GiveWill is an essentially neartermist Effective Altruist organization, and I think their activities are very worth supporting.

The longtermists, on the other hand, are focused on "the long-term interests of humanity". They are, well, in my opinion, basically a bunch of people trying to turn their sci-fi fantasies into a reality. They are often very worried about AI x-risk, like Yudkowsky, and they're often pro-singularity, and sometimes pro-eugenics, and a bunch of other stuff. Remember Sam Bankman-Fried, the guy who committed the largest act of financial fraud in human history? Well, he was an Effective Altruist with some longertermist sympathies. Some of the money that he stole he actually gave to worthwhile charities, but some of it he used on stupid longtermist sci-fi fantasy shit. His girlfriend Caroline Ellison, who helped him do a bunch of that fraud, was a member of rationalist tumblr. Some of my mutuals were mutuals with her.

The other major group spawned out of LessWrong were the Neoreactionaries, or NRx. These guys, too, weren't a purely LessWronger phenomenon; they were also majorly influenced by people such as the philosopher Nick Land (former student of Baudrillard, who took a far-right turn in the 2000s and started advocating for "hyper-racism") and blogger Curtis Yarvin a.k.a. "Mencius Moldbug". These guys are a rag-tag group of authoritarians, eugenicists, and racists, who are interested in rationality insofar as they view it as a path that leads to their desired sci-fi-inflected far-right future.

Oh, right, last but not least I should define the term "rat-adj". It means "rationalist-adjacent". Uh. So, I was never a LessWronger, and as I think my description makes clear, I find like 90% of this rationalist stuff either goofy or actively harmful. But I have, somehow, ended up basically acquainted with a bunch of people formerly or presently part of the LessWrong milieu, and in light of this I am what one calls "rationalist-adjacent". I talk to various rationalist bloggers somewhat often. And most of them are much more normal than all this would suggest, part of the rationalist discursive sphere but not really believers in the imminent AI apocalypse. Uh. So, there you go.

[sharpth1ng]

Hihihi sharp, sharpie, sharp guy, sharps disposal! Silly sharp man, I sent an ask for writing tips not too long ago, and I am yet again asking. Nay, BEGGING 🙏. If you have. Any writing tips. On Stu’s character. Ouhg. What’s your thought process on writing him?

Anything helps/nfta

If I mischaracterize him I will cry, broski. Jelp.

This is a little late but maybe it will still be helpful.

The way I see Stu hes someone that copes with positivity and humor. If someone he cares about is upset his first instinct is to make a fool of himself to distract them. He's an extremely social person because he finds people entertaining, even though he cares for relatively few of them.

I dont consider him a psychopath but think that relative to the general population he has high levels of cognitive empathy and lower levels of emotional empathy. This means that he's good at understanding people, and because he can understand them he can manipulate them, but he doesn't necessarily feel for them.

For example he's bummed to lose Tatum because he enjoyed spending time with her but he doesn't experience deep grief after her death. The emotional empathy he does experience is extremely selective, and most of it is directed toward Billy.

Put this all together and you have someone who is extremely socially capable. He knows how to fit in and get what he wants out of people. A lack of emotional empathy means he doesn't experience much guilt or shame. Guilt and shame are social emotions, to feel them you have to care what people think of you and how you affect them, and Stu mostly doesn't.

All of that said, Stu has the capacity for emotional empathy, he isn't neurologically incapable of it. I see this as something that kind of atrophied or got shut down through a combination of societal privilege and parental neglect.

The dark side of all that social energy and a history of neglect is that he still craves attention and affection, but he knows better than to just fully be himself around most people. If he did that he wouldn't be able to pass as normal, so thats where Billy comes in.

Similar to the way that Stu is special to Billy because he's the only person who really knows how fucked up he is, it's the same for Stu. Billy is the only person thats safe for Stu to fully let loose with, the only person fully capable of giving Stu the attention and affection he craves.

In that way they're pretty co-dependent, and Stu specifically isn't even trying to hide that dependence. Some people decide from a young age that they're going to be an astronaut or a doctor, and then they devote everything to that until they get it. Stu decided from a young age that he was going to be by Billy's side, however he was allowed. For the most part Billy is his first priority.

I think the paradox of childhood neglect is that you want attention and care but you don't actually know how to be cared for, and it can feel a lot more comfortable to care for someone else than to let them care for you. In some ways Stu can focus on Billy because it's more comfortable than focusing on himself. He understands Billy and I think he enjoys the special relationship he has with him. Even before they're romantically involved he knows that Billy gives him a kind of attention he doesn't give anyone else and that feels incredible.

So that's kind of the way I see his emotional motivation and internal psychological state, that's what I use to figure out how he would respond to various events in my writing.

In terms of his dialogue and internal voice he's jokey, he sees and delights in the absurdity of situations he's in. He uses a lot more slang than Billy and will choose silly turns of phrase just to make people laugh and because he thinks they're funny. He's a fairly sensory person but not as much as Billy, and he's a lot better at identifying his own emotions than Billy. Billy will describe emotional reactions in terms of their physical correlates (eg instead of saying he's embarrassed he'll say he feels sick and his face is getting hot) whereas Stu is often able to just identify that those things mean embarrassment.

Again in contrast to Billy he prioritizes pleasure and joy regardless of what that might mean about him. As a result he's not likely to spend much time in denial about his experiences and he mostly doesn't bother to make excuses to himself about the things he desires. He's pretty brave, he's willing to sacrifice a lot for what he wants and he's ok with a little bit of suffering, even if it's not the kind of suffering that turns him on.

Alright theres your Stuart essay 😭 i hope you find it helpful!

[its-the-sa]

Different anon. God just boiling down the slugcats to 'animals' angers me in a way I didn't think I could be angry. Yes, they are animals, but by all means they are cognitive and understand complex emotions, communicate with a supposedly complex language, are able to be taught to do things. Why else would the iterators use them as messengers constantly? It's not like they're messenger pigeons where it's just going from point A to point B, they understand exact instructions. If this was just some random animal, making groans and grunts, they wouldn't be able to understand what Five Pebbles even meant when he was explaining how to ascend. Even with the mark, could you imagine if he told a lizard this? Artificer, arguably, is a prime example of this. Just an animal would get over their fallen children, sure they'd grieve but in the end they'd just make more. Arti not only is so enraged by their death, that she is physically incapable of ascension, but also swears vengeance upon a whole other species. This isn't just some animal who lost her children, this is a mother who is enraged at her children's murder. Sure, they aren't on the same level as humans are. Like obviously. But I'd argue it makes sense that a scavenger and a slugcat could fall down the path of enemies to lovers. Especially when you consider the fact that death isn't permanent in Rain World's universe. That would definitely change one's perspective on it. I dunno if I make sense, I'm juggling like three things at once, but I had to say what I needed to say. Wording bad, slugcat smort.

tbh it took me a minute to figure out what this was even referring to, because honestly I don't think that anon meant to use the word 'animal' to dehumanize arti in the first place. it sounded to me like they were just using it as a non-human equivalent for 'person', like "why would anyone fall for a person who committed hate crimes against them?" which is a valid question. it never even occurred to me that they could have meant it in the sense of calling her an inferior creature.

that said... you ARE 100% right and you should say it, lmao.

I very nearly got into this exact argument once, bc i saw some comments from a guy scoffing at the idea of arti showing mercy to baby scavs. because by his logic, 'she is just an animal, so she isn't bound by human morality. in the wild, animals kill any young that don't belong to them without hesitation'. and it just pissed me off so much, because not only was it such an edgy "mercy is for the WEAK!" alpha-male bullshit take, it was also just factually wrong. many animals can and do adopt the young of other animals, even other species, especially when they've just lost their own. and like you said, they can grieve, but then they move on. they keep surviving, and making more babies. they don't dwell on injustice, or let rage consume them to the point that it becomes a hindrance to their own survival. they don't go on single-minded revenge quests. they dont try to justify their own violence by demonizing entire species, and they dont end up plagued by guilt in their sleep. those are very, very human things.

and yeah, i see a lot of people theorize that it's the mark of communication that grants the slugcats higher intelligence, but I don't really buy that either. i think the mark just lets them understand the iterator's language. they must've already had the capacity to understand it, or else it wouldn't work at all. it'd be like trying to install windows on a calculator. also, even without the mark, slugcats are obviously shown to communicate with each other. they have their own culture, they tell stories and make art, and they're apparently able to understand karma and the nature of the cycle at least enough to be able to ascend. so like... any creature thats capable of spiritual enlightenment must at least be sapient, right??

it seems like in the absence of the ancients, both slugcats and scavs are beginning to move in to their niche in the ecosystem

[writing-for-life]

Perspective Requires Being Anchored in Reality

These thoughts were brought on by discussing "The Sound of her Wings" in our community…

I absolutely think Death is worried and tries her best as a sister (that she can’t be anything else than her function is a deeper layer that resurfaces many times over the whole run, and that’s of course also a valid discussion to be had).

It’s the reason why I personally don't think it’s warranted to give her a hard time over the tough love approach (but we all see things differently, and maybe that's not a bad thing).

Do we always find the right words? I’m sure most of us are guilty of not being perfect that way, but I also think she made a very valid attempt at trying to refocus him. It is what he needed to hear (sometimes, it is contraindicated to pussyfoot around stuff, and sometimes, we need to word things in a way that is uncomfortable to hear. And of course that can backfire, but so can sugarcoating everything and hanging on to the illusion that if we only find the right words, or don’t speak at all, we’re helping, or by extension, we’re never going to hurt or trigger someone. It’s a harmful kind of concept creep that’s taken hold of what supposedly constitutes “safe” communication, but I digress).

But what we need to hear doesn't always land right, neither is it not prone to being misunderstood, because we are the ones who filter it through our own cognitive bias.

There are no guilty parties in this conversation, neither Dream nor Death. They both are who/what they are. They say what they say and hear what they hear because of that.

Connection

Death reminds Dream of the true value of connection, and he *does* hear it, and he *does* try. It’s just that he is not grounded in reality as she is, because it goes counter to his function. If you’re the personification of all that’s not real, HOW are you holding on to reality? And true connection needs that, and that is the very root of his dilemma…

Death and Dream relate so differently to humans because of this (and they to them), and doorway man is a bit exemplary for that.

gif by @athousandyearstime

Dream is far more “terrible” than Death. Which is half-joke, half-truth. There is probably something about him that is “uncanny valley” to most mortals (plus: being confronted with all that’s darkness and not just light in ourselves is terrifying, but also necessary). They brought that out masterfully in the comics, but we tend to forget about it in the show because, well, he’s played by a human. But it’s still there, and we shouldn’t forget about it. Dream is *not* human, and all the deeper contact he ever has to humans (bar very few) is when they aren’t lucid. Unlike his sister, who literally walks in reality all day, every day, and is there for you when things are as real as they get.

Meeting Dream in reality must be… weird, or potentially unsettling depending on who you are, what your inner world is like. At least judging by the reactions of the people we see in that alley (not just doorway man, the school kids as well). Maybe it’s not like that all the time, but I certainly think he feels it acutely all the time—it’s not that he doesn’t long for connection (it’s so obvious in everything he does) but rather that he can never take it as far as he probably wants to.

In this context, it’s certainly interesting to think about Dream seeing most of his lovers in dreams/the Dreaming—at least most of the time. And that’s also where he has some of his other closest relationships (Lucien/ne and Fiddler’s Green in particular spring to mind, if he were ever to admit he feels close to them). And while one could argue it doesn’t make these relationships any less valuable, they have one thing in common: They don’t play out in reality, and they are failing as soon as they get taken there. And more crucially: The ones that are taking place there have the capacity to hurt him and/or also don’t save him (if we assumed he needed saving—I personally don’t).

The Onslaught of the Collective Unconscious

But there’s another thing: Dream holds the subconscious of every sentient being. He is constantly bombarded with dreams and hopes, with ideas of romantic love and friendship and all that makes us who we are (just talking about humans now because I can’t speak for cats 🤣). But he can’t have it in the same way despite so desperately wanting it (he is the reason the no mortals rule was introduced—let’s not forget that). It must be like dangling that carrot in front of your nose, and the more you try to catch it, the more elusive and frustrating it gets. Because he knows what it’s like without ever being able/allowed to have it. And I think in certain ways, that’s a similar conflict to the one that Death has with life, only that she made peace with it (maybe?) by experiencing mortal life every 100 years.

But what’s the alternative for him?

Give himself a relationship every 100, 1000, 10000 years (insert random interval here)? He does that, but it doesn’t work.

Surround himself with sentient beings in the Dreaming so he’s not so alone (he’s the only one of the siblings who does this, if we don’t count Despair’s rats. Now there’s another thought about Despair, but this is getting too long already)? He does that, but it doesn’t work.

And now we can say, “Dude, you’re lacking perspective!” Yes—yes he does in a way. But that’s the whole point.

Because perspective requires an anchor in reality. And it’s impossible for him to have that perspective, or hold on to it, due to who and what he is—unreality. All the Endless are outliers compared to their siblings in one way or another. And this is unfortunately his outlier status 😩

[hadesoftheladies]

"you are killing a baby"

i am killing a fetus, not an infant. an egg is not a chicken. potential is not actuality.

"you are murdering an innocent."

it doesn't matter who is innocent. a hungry lion may be innocent in wanting to eat me only because it is hungry and may not have the cognitive capacities to exercise something like restraint or conscience. that does not mean i should not defend myself from harm. it is still self-defense. all animals are expected to protect themselves first and foremost. you are just so used to the idea that women (especially mothers) are supposed to sacrifice their lives for their children in order to be good people--like they aren't human beings with self-preservation instincts.

harm equals anything that threatens the life or health of a person and pregnancy does both.

"your body was meant/designed to do this"

miscarriages are as natural as pregnancies. why do you think the placenta exists? pregnancy sickness? the female body can grow a person, yet also has resistance mechanisms for a pregnancy.

also, just because i have genes that make me a good runner doesn't mean i have to become a marathoner. like think for a second.

"what will the father think?"

women don't owe men or society themselves. i know that's very hard for you to grasp but there's no time like the present to start. there is no ethical way to make a woman a commodity or government assigned asset for reproduction or sex.

"the baby is conscious"

so is the lion in the hypothetical. also, that's debatable. also, what are your thoughts on veganism? since you care so much about the suffering of conscious beings (that is beings with selves)

"but animals aren't humans. they don't deserve the same rights as humans because of their lower cognitive capacities"

great. now apply this ethic to babies and mentally disabled people and then try to explain to me why that has to be different without mentioning how you feel or your religion. :)

"a baby has more potential than an animal."

okay, and why does that potential automatically mean better or more valuable? higher cognitive capacities haven't stopped wars and mass murders have they? (and i would argue that bringing a child into a violent world increases their chance of becoming unhealthy or complicit persons, so you can almost know what the character of your child will be like for certain based on where you're raising them).

"a baby has a soul"

there are two kinds of dualisms within christianity: thomistic and cartesian. cartesian dualism has gone out of fashion even amongst christian theologians and philosophers.

Substance dualism, or Cartesian dualism, most famously defended by René Descartes, argues that there are two kinds of foundation: mental and physical. Descartes states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think.

'Thomistic substance dualism' (TSD) centers around two beliefs: 1) the rational soul is an immaterial substance, and 2) this immaterial substance is the human person.

aside from the fact that both of these philosophies are rife with problems, I think thomistic dualism is the stronger of the two. the rational soul is, in a way, a word for the self.

regardless, both of these describe a self as a soul. so i'm just going to define a self.

The psychology of self is the study of either the cognitive and affective representation of one's identity or the subject of experience. The earliest formulation of the self in modern psychology forms the distinction between two elements I and me. The self as I, is the subjective knower. While, the self as Me, is the subject that is known.

a self is a centralized consciousness with their own memories, introspection and reflections. we know through neuroscience, psychology, behavioural science and sociology that a person or self is formed via experiences (where memories and impressions are gathered, how people learn), language and socialization (economy, history, family, culture) and possibly some genetic expressions (although i think this is more about capacity than actualization).

this is why things like dementia or alzheimer's are so scary and difficult. when a person loses memories, they lose aspects of themselves. when a person changes their environment, they also become different people (even while maintaining some similarities with their past selves).

this is mirrored in popular media, characters that lose their memories lose versions of themselves. this is also why, when you look at stories that feature a multiverse, the same character becomes a different person in different lives. in short, you are not born a person. you become one, and although your self remains singular and centralized (even with age), that self still changes. both the self and the people around the self create the self.

this is also why socially isolated individuals devolve and become mindless or sick (and even have reduced lifespan). certain higher human capacities like "conscience" or "empathy" can be socialized out of a human being, as well. i'd even go so far as to say that children begin conceptualizing themselves as individuals only when they begin to sense the presence of other human beings. they cannot conceptualize their own identity without the presence of other people. they probably don't know they are a self until they recognize other people and then realize they themselves are also people, and people are individuals.

legally a person is:

. . . an entity that the law recognises as having its own distinct personality. This usually means one that is able to act in its own right, and capable of possessing legal rights and liabilities, including individuals (or "natural persons") and corporate organisations.

my point is, how can a fetus with virtually no experiences (which born animals have), no language or skill (learned) to introspect or reflect (or abstract), possibly have a self? when they are not exposed to the outside world? certainly they have the capacity to develop a self, but as established earlier on, potential is not actuality. so legally and psychologically, a fetus is very likely not a person.

but we do not need this to be true to justify abortion regardless, because an innocent person is still causing harm, whether directly or indirectly. so the woman/girl has every right to resist.

[b-blushes]

not entirely clear reflection about disability and 'hobbies' and perceptions of the intersection of those things in relation to more serious circumstances 👍

thing i think i have been somewhat finally been able to put into words is like. okay everyone has limitations in their life to a lesser or greater degree. lots of factors you might have limitations within (financial, disability, etc) when i'm genuinely enjoying things, i'm genuinely enjoying them. the 'problem'? these things are not necessarily the things that i would be doing if i was not disabled. doesn't make those things bad! i'm still enjoying them! just challenging emotionally when someone is looking at snapshot of your life, seeing X 'positive'/'fun' thing you're doing only because the rest is either deliberately or by circumstance hidden (e.g you don't see me being unable to do daily life things because they happen to me alone in my house, i do not tell you about certain upsetting thing going on in private etc) like 'oh you are having so much fun you are doing good 👍'. it's like, i am making the best of 'it', and often in the recent years of my life i would class 'it' as somewhat bad. still cannot express enough my gratitude for those things. like the ability to find and have the capacity (physical, mental, financial) to do them? literally lifesaving, not a metaphor. also for some periods of time i AM purely having fun, rather than the typical 'feeling very unwell but doing X instead of [variety of things that would be harmful or not presenting me with an opportunity for a positive emotion, etc]. not to say there are, for want of a better word 'pure' and 'not pure' versions of doing an activity, the activity is the same in both situations. the circumstances are different though. difficult because it feels like for me atm the Xs are directly as a result of the bad 'it'. it's hard for me to separate the two! idk what the 'point' of this is, just a feeling i've been having. it feels like 'doing X because i had the freedom to choose it out of a world of possibilities' and 'trying to find something that will give me some respite and determined to make X happen to try to achieve this, and now i enjoy X' are different to me! doesn't make X any less enjoyable or authentic or whatever! just feels very linked! like 'you are so strong' 'thanks it was that or die' type situation i guess? idk! also very easy from an outside perspective to just see the various Xs and use them to explain away or ignore the circumstances? 'you can do X so it can't be that bad', 'if you were that unwell then you couldn't do X', etc. really really hard to do positive things when they're seen as a negation of your real and serious circumstances sometimes. also true that there are people for whom the various Xs aren't even possible. also true that the various Xs are often literally and explicitly things i've been asked to do therapeutically as part of various treatments. they are also still 'hobbies'!

idk. difficult situation when people's perceptions of you and thus their expectations of you are based purely on their perception of your Xs, and there's a cognitive dissonance situation going on there. and then it's also like okay. it would seem that to break this, if i want to be seen accurately and wholly, it's complicated. person might feel lied to or mislead. person might not believe you. you likely will need to share your worst moments for them to believe you. you didn't share those moments with them before. why. it's a whole thing. makes it difficult to want to be known by people sometimes. I guess one antidote to this is sharing the bad things as they are happening more. tricky though when those circumstances are not always ones where i'm able to communicate well, or that people actually. want to hear about! or maybe i don't feel like i can handle other people's feelings (or un-asked-for advice) at the moment i am experiencing them. etc. it's a whole thing :P i'm doing 'fine' rn nothing has changed, the whole thing is just something i've been thinking about while i'm getting tested for more 'serious' conditions and am waiting for test results, and considering more radical life changes i might want to make. i'm feeling like it might be difficult to get some people on board with those life changes, or that, the difficulty will be 'emotional difficulty to me to have to petition other people to believe the full extent of it, which i have, either circumstantially or deliberately, been hiding from them, for at various times either my own or what i determined as for their wellbeing.' NOT VERY FUN. i can do it. but i wish i didn't need to. and idk how much it is as a result of decisions that i 'should' have made differently if i wanted a different outcome, or just naturally occurring as a result of all the stuff that's been going on.

anyway it all boils down to "sometimes you will be increasingly more unwell and disabled across a long period of years and someone will make hugely incorrect assumptions and be like 'oh it's nice that you do so many hobbies you must be having a good time generally' and you are like. '(lying) yeag.'" hahahaha. but this conversation has real consequences other than you just feeling invisible.

also like yeah i am having a nice day doing hobbies at home. THAT'S BECAUSE TODAY I AM LITERALLY UNABLE TO LEAVE THE HOUSE BECAUSE I WENT OUT AND HAD A HAIRCUT THAT SOMEONE ELSE DROVE ME TO AND FROM THIS WEEK AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I'VE BEEN OUT. okay i'm fine about this. and i am trulyyyyyy having a nice time doing said hobby.

[glitter-stained]

Some advice to protect and support your brain

1. Wear a helmet. Please.

2. I know this must feel exhausting to see repeated if it's something you struggle with, but exercise really does help, in any capacity you can do it. Go for a walk, do a light routine, anything you can. Ask your doctor, look on the internet, if you can figure out a way to do something that works for you and doesn't feel like the nastiest chore in the world I encourage you to try it, at any frequency you can afford.

3. If you get a concussion, even a light one, go to the hospital. If the hospital doesn't orient you towards a neuropsychologist for an evaluation, insist on seeing one, and if they still fail at their job, go see a neuropsychologist in private. (Again, I know this sucks because it's expensive and not affordable for everyone depending on where you live and I'm sorry, this is the best I can give.) Same thing if you got hit in the head, didn't feel like it had consequences at the time, but have since been experiencing struggles with remembering stuff, impulsivity, etc. In general if you've experienced cognitive changes I encourage you to see a neuropsychologist but if you remember getting hit in the head, do mention it to them. Also, do monitor yourself for potential epilepsy, check what the signs are (they can be much less visible than you think), if you think there's a risk make a card to let people know what to do. If you think there's a risk you might have developed epilepsy after the hit, go back to the hospital, and while explaining your concerns mention that you got hit in the head.

4. Do stuff. Look, there are so many experiments and studies about how juggling helps the brain, or music, or knitting, or writing, or learning a language, or gardening, or. So of course I could just tell you to do all of that with a list of studies and be done with it, but it would be pointless. A lot of cognitive remediation programs based on these studies fail because what happened is a therapist who liked piano saw a study on the benefits of playing the piano and shoved all their patients into a piano therapy group. People, whether they're patients with brain damage or you, random tumblr user, have tastes and you do not have to force yourself to learn a new language or whatever pop psych instagram account tells you is the newest brain-hack. It's much more simple than that: your brain grows when you use it, and that creates extra padding that protects you in the case of trauma, injury, but also the effects of aging and the risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's. (Well, it's not literal padding, the term is "cognitive reserve", but I think the metaphor is pretty accurate.) So try out shit: board games, reading (audiobooks are also a really cool and undervalued invention like this shit is wonderful), learning a new language (comics or watching stuff in the language helps make that fun), juggling, memorising the dsm-5 criteria for every type of disorder, get into comics, learn an instrument, get into baking, explode your microwave in the process of making raw cookie dough, try being around animals (horseback ballad at a ranch go to a cat cafe etc), learn how to dance from YouTube tutorials... Do whatever you want, figure out what's fun, try to avoid ideas of shame at not being immediately good or the idea that it's childish (it's not immature to have fun, i promise.) And give yourself permission to give up. This isn't an assignment, you don't have to push yourself, explore yourself with the energy of a fourteen years old figuring out how they want to dress: what matters is you find a bunch of stuff you find fun.

5. Socialization is really good for you, both for your cognitive functions but also in general for your mood, resources etc (and also all of those are linked). Whether it's a rpg group, an association you're at, even like people on a discord server, meeting friends on zoom, being a regular at quiz night at the club, trying to connect to people in any way you can really helps. I know it's hard, especially for people who struggle with stuff like autism, anxiety, etc. but building connection with other people, in whatever way works for you, really helps improve your quality of life.

6. Again, I may sound a bit like the doctor you want to punch in the face, but a diet full of all the vitamins and protein and general nutrients you need really helps. And honestly whatever way works for you getting these nutrients helps. I often get b-12 deficient because I struggle with the texture of most meats, so I try to eat eggs and sometimes as a kid my mom would put my steak in a blender and my doctor sometimes prescribes me b-12 supplements so I don't faint: that's what a healthy diet looks like for me. And I know exactly what b-12 deficiency does to the brain, so I use those strategies to incorporate it in my diet because I like the memory issues about as much as I like light-headedness and fatigue. (This also works for diets like veganism or gluten free or literally anything. A healthy diet isn't one where you have to eat every food, it's one where you get the nutrients you and your brain needs, and if that involves taking supplements then that's what's healthy for you.) Eating carrots in carrot cake or zucchini in brownie (getting creative with it) or eating premade soup because you want to eat vegetables but don't have the time or struggle with the texture or really hate vegetables and need them to be in a cake where you don't really taste them- that's what a healthy diet looks like. There's a lot of strategies about eating around sensory issues or restrictions and I'm not an expert but like, the ressources are out there. Keeping hydrated is also really important! Similarly, for people who struggle with water, flavouring packets and teas really help!

7. Sleep is so important. Like, to the point it makes diagnosis harder because lack of sleep fucks up everything from mood to cognitive functions to development so if your patient isn't sleeping, good luck figuring out what they have. So talking to your doctor if you have trouble sleeping, working on designing a bedtime routine that helps you, working to reduce nightmares with your therapist, all of that is super important... And don't underestimate the usefulness of napping! Napping rules.

Now, you may have notice that everything in this list (except maybe the helmet one, though these things do cost money) is easier if you have money. I manage some of the items on that list, but don't assume that I am preaching: more often than not, my diet is the cheapest ramen noodles I can find, and I sleep 4 to 5 hours a night.

That's because neuropsychology, like any form of psychology, is inherently political. It's better wages and union rights to have the time and money to afford eating the diet you need and spending time and money on activities and group outings etc. It's equality in the household so you don't have to spend all the time you do have on taking care of all the chores and kids and never getting to enjoy anything or rest. It's, of course, universal healthcare so you can go to the hospital after you get hit in the head and get those scans and EEG go see that neuropsychologist and meet that therapist and get your doctor to prescribe you medicine that works rather than the medicine your dumbfuck insurance company thinks you should fail. It's good food regulations so that you designing a healthy diet can be about getting the nutrients you need and not avoiding getting poisoned by the food you spent your damn money on. It's all of that and more; it's defending your rights, and fighting for those you don't have. So this is all the advice I have, do your best to be kind to yourself, and I hope you have a wonderful year.

[maxdibert]

Honestly, if you expressing your well-reasoned opinion is ‘poisoning the fandom’ and ‘ruining fandom experience’, then their skins are paper thin and their confidence in their intellectual capacity is fragile if they are unable to unpick an argument they don’t personally agree with. The option to simply scroll past it and cultivate a different experience is open to them, but no, discussion of pervasive classism is poisoning their corner of the internet. Your power!

Some blogs I previously respected have really shown their asses since you showed up (lol still remembering that pile on from that one Catalan and their friends, who definitely weren’t used to actually being challenged having cultivated a reputation for being serious meta writers but who all started as anti-Snape Marauder delusionists, I’ve been here years, I do not forget) I respect it!

There's a saying in Spanish that goes, "No puedes estar con Dios y con el Diablo," which literally translates to "you can't be with God and with the Devil," and I think it's quite representative of what you're saying about certain people who believe they can adopt a "neutral" position in life. But in life, you can't be neutral. Every opinion or stance you take on anything is a political opinion or stance. Because we are political subjects, and because our opinions—even when we're talking about fiction—reflect our way of seeing the world.

The way we interact with what we consume reflects a big part of who we are, or at least the ideological conclusions we've come to. Not taking a stance is, in itself, a stance. Neutrality doesn't exist because "neutrality" is also a position. And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about institutional politics, social causes, or the ethical and moral paradigm within a work of fiction, because fiction is intrinsically connected to the culture around us. The way we see and perceive the fiction we consume is a reflection of how we see and perceive the world.

Fiction doesn't just reflect reality, it also shapes it. It establishes cultural precepts and patterns. It influences how reality is constructed. And if it weren’t like that, there wouldn’t be so much current interest in inclusivity. It's not just important to be inclusive so that people feel represented; it's important to be inclusive because, sociologically and anthropologically, if something isn’t shown—if it’s not included in mass media—it doesn’t exist within the general cultural vision of society. It’s not that gay people didn’t exist before; it’s that they weren’t shown.

So, if we understand that fiction is a fundamental part of the cultural vision that surrounds us, what the hell is the point of saying you're impartial? Or that you can enjoy a fandom without taking sides? That's a lie. It’s not true. You can spin out endless arguments full of flowery language and rhetorical nonsense claiming you "understand all opinions," but Karen, girl, we all understand all the opinions. I also understand what people who defend abusive characters are saying, of course I understand it. I also get the line of reasoning they’ve followed to reach their conclusions. But I think that line of thinking is bullshit, Karen. And their opinions? Bullshit, Karen. Justifying abusers? Bullshit, Karen.

The difference between Karen and me is that Karen, desperate to look good to everyone or unwilling to face her problematic ideals, hides behind this image of being an upright and impartial person instead of confronting her cognitive dissonance. I don't need to look good for anyone, and least of all for people who excuse certain behaviors and discourses, so I say whatever the hell I want.

In the end, all these people, like those in politics who say they're impartial, reek from miles away. And just like in politics they smell rotten, they do here too. The problem isn't that they don't want to "ruin" their fandom experience. It's that either they want to please everyone, or they don't want to be critical of themselves and admit that, yes, they like problematic characters, and that doesn't make them bad people. What does make them very questionable people is trying to defend those characters while putting on the mask of an impartiality that doesn't exist. Because on a sociopolitical level, every opinion is partial.

And let me say something: I’d much rather deal with someone who strongly defends an idea completely opposed to mine than with someone who tells me they’re impartial. Because maybe I’ll get angry with someone who defends things I find terrible, but that person is taking a stand. They’re constructing a discourse they believe is right. The impartial one? They’re a coward. They don’t have the guts to do that.

I know which accounts you're talking about, and I know what’s been insinuated about me, and I know they don’t like me. But I don't want them to like me, either. I genuinely don’t care. Well, yeah, i care. I want them to dislike me, to loathe me. Seriously, i prefer that, especially because their opinions are tinted by a bubble of false moral superiority they’ve built around themselves, but which is really just an echo chamber where they feel intellectually superior just because they focus on doing complex analyses that try to be impartial within a context that is neither impartial nor ever will be. Because no literary work is free from social or political analysis. Absolutely none. And especially not when the work itself involves political themes. Even less so when its author is very publicly active in sharing her reactionary opinions.

The girl you're talking about is a hardcore Lily Evans fan who won't accept any criticism of Lily—much less of James—because of course Jily is her OTP. But how do you reconcile being a fan of an abuser and their victim? You can't defend an abuser and their victim at the same time. Because all that really means is that you're excusing the abuser. You can't be with the rigth and the left, and if you try, you're going to get found out. Maybe a lot of people will overlook it, but I’m a pain in the ass, and I won’t. Because I don’t feel like it. Because it’s not coherent. Because you can’t excuse the actions of characters that are clearly shaped by a set of social and class prejudices. You can’t blame victims like that, and you can’t ignore that people’s material conditions and lived experiences profoundly influence the decisions they make.

So if these people want to defend rich, aristocratic abusers? Go ahead. But don’t sugarcoat it, okay?

Then there’s this whole crowd who thinks inserting politics or making political statements about fiction somehow ruins the fandom. But if we’re talking about a story full of political allegories, we’re not talking about damn Sesame Street. Rowling used tons of social and political issues (clumsily) in her books, and now you’re asking me not to make class-based arguments? So we can talk about Nazis, but not about social classes? Or is what really bothers them that if we truly analyze the text from a political and sociological class perspective, most of the characters they defend come out looking bad? Or that most of their theories, rooted in a neoliberal bourgeois worldview, fall apart? Just asking.

I think being an annoying person is always a good thing, because if someone annoys you, it's for a reason. If someone’s opinions make you uncomfortable, it’s probably not because of the opinions themselves or the person expressing them, but because they force you to reevaluate certain things about your own views. They clash with your narrative, and they put you in a position where you’re forced to pick a side. And that’s always a good thing. Because, as I’ve said: you can’t be with God and with the Devil.

[maria-sand-22]

Was just watching season 3 of From and I don't understand why people hate Jim, they're saying he's an unsupportive ass for not being happy with being left alone with the kids while tabby was gone but are yall just brushing over the fact tabby started that fight out of nowhere for no reason and accused him being useless BEFORE he brought up that point cause she didn't like the words of comfort he was using and wanted someone to take her guilt and regret out on for being a dumbass who didn't even bother with making an Internet post about fromvill before getting in a car and back on the road while a powerful entity that steals cars into its realm is still around so that maybe a witch or a fae expert or an FBI supernatural devision person or some shit may help or know what to do or anything, nope no no it's all Jim's fault for being literally the only person doing anything that may get them home without constantly blaming and insulting everyone when he fails for being stupid and for being distressed that his 8 year old started fantasising about his wife's rotting bloated corpse

It didn't sound like he was upset she left it sounded like he was upset that she didn't understand the weight of her leaving fuck she even wanted to do something even more dangerous again AND TOOK THEIR SON WITH HER

Yeah no Jim's not perfect by any means he was an asahole in episode 8 and had his asshole moments like literally every single other character in the show including boyd, donna, and tabitha but he's not this terrible villain either and Tabby is not perfect but what pisses me off is how she doesn't seem to realise that fact unlike Jim who very much seems to be aware that he makes mistakes and isn't always right, I've never seen him start shit he had no business starting or playing the blame game unprovoked or for no logical reason at all completely out of left field unlike some characters like ellis, tabitha, or fatima.

He's no Saint and yeah he can be a jerk but it's no more bad than any other character and the hate he gets is definitely more of a "I have no cognitive capacity to form thoughts of my own so I'll just listen to whatever other fans say so I don't have to think or analyse anything on a higher scale than a 2nd grader" kinda phenomenon.

[ckret2]

Hi! Been keeping up with your fic for the past few months, absolutely loving it!

What is your take on Bill and empathy? In an earlier chapter he refers to it as an alien concept. I was wondering if he's never felt it before? Or if he's repressed it through eons of denial and self-absorbed partying?

Thanks!!

Let's start with definitions, because empathy is one of those words that gets a broad range of definitions from the colloquial (such as "empathy = caring about people") to the academic/scientific ("empathy = capacity to comprehend what another person is feeling"). I'm skewing toward the academic definition. You can care about people whether you experience empathy or not.

These days researchers define two kinds of empathy, "cognitive empathy" and "affective empathy". "Cognitive empathy" means "I can use my intellect to identify and understand someone else's emotions," and "affective empathy" means "when someone else is feeling an emotion, it makes me feel an emotion too (e.g. I'm sad because they're sad)."

When Bill says he considers empathy alien, he's referring to affective empathy. When he's not busy lying to himself about how others feel ("I'm sure Ford would be thrilled to be my friend again!"), he can be very good at cognitive empathy ("With all the stress Ford's under from his dwindling money and his parents' demands for financial success, he'll be desperate for a big break. This is my chance"). But Bill doesn't consider that empathy, he considers that "being smart enough to figure out what people are thinking."

I don't know whether Bill has never-ever-ever experienced affective empathy. He does possess the capacity to care about other people; and he does have the capacity to feel happiness when good things happen to them and anger or sorrow when bad things happen to them; and what exactly is the dividing line between "a person I like is happy -> that makes me happy" (empathy) and "a person I like is happy -> because I like them, I want good things to happen to them -> so I'm happy a good thing happened" (something that's not empathy)? Where do you split hairs between "I feel bad FOR you" and "I feel bad WITH you?" If Mabel comes home crying and Bill immediately gets angry and asks who he needs to murder, do you consider that affective empathy or just (a violent kind of) sympathy/compassion?

What Bill DOESN'T do is feel casual affective empathy for just, like, anybody. If a woman's husband is murdered and she loses the house and she loses her job and her children are sick, Bill's less likely to go "awww :(" and more likely to go "lol. 🍿" If he's in an unusually noble mood, he might go "man, what kind of a messed up society are you guys running that a lady gets fired for crying at work a week after her husband died? Do you not understand how grief functions in your own species?" but like, that's "disbelieving and condescending about how stupid y'all are being," it's not being sad because she's sad.

I don't know whether he's always had low/no affective empathy, or whether he initially had more and then it was reduced. I do know that if he ever did have more affective empathy, it had decreased before he was out of childhood, long before he destroyed his dimension. One of the things that drastically reduces empathy is receiving too much power without a stable social network and coping skills to keep you grounded, and Bill was given a LOT of power as a teen with zero healthy relationships and all the emotional maturity of a typical socially isolated teenager. By adulthood, he had already emotionally walled himself off from the world—there's me (superior) and everyone else (inferior), and anyone with the potential to be my equal is a threat—so if he'd ever had a capacity to feel with other people, he'd shut it down by then.

I'm trying to imagine what he would've been like at eight years old. If he saw some rectangle with an ice cream cone get bumped, drop the ice cream on the ground, and start crying, would he feel sad too? Maybe a little bit. Not enough to share his ice cream though. He'd just keep eating and hope someone else gives the rectangle a new cone. So at one point he definitely felt affective empathy. Not a lot, but some.

But that was a trillion years ago and Bill tends to say what feels truthy rather than what is true, so "empathy is alien and I'm suspicious it even exists" is what he thinks to himself.