#Non-Hierarchical Groups

[zmyaro]

Does anyone know of document tracking software that, instead of having document “owners” who can take certain actions, implements a consensus model where anyone on the team can propose changes, mark pages for deletion, etc., and anyone else on the team has the opportunity to block the action?

(I know we software folks have that in source control systems, but I am looking for something designed for not-tech-y uses?)

[wutheringheightsfilm]

for everyone asking me "what do we do??!??!"

The Care We Dream Of: Liberatory and Transformative Approaches to LGBTQ+ Health by Zena Sharman

Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (And the Next) by Dean Spade

Cop Watch 101 - Training Guide

The Do-It Yourself Occupation Guide

DIY HRT Wiki 

The Innocence Project - helps take inmates off of death row

Food Not Bombs 

Transfeminine Science - collection of articles and data about transfem HRT

Anti-Doxxing Guide for Activists

Mass Defense Program - National Lawyers Guild

How to be part of a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team)

Understanding and Advocating for Self Managed Abortion

The Basics of Organizing

Building Online Power

Build Your Own Solidarity Network

Organizing 101

How to Start a Non-Hierarchical Direct Action Group

A Short and Incomplete Guide for New Activists

Eight Things You Can Do to Get Active

Palestine Action Underground Manual

How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm

Spreadsheet of gynecologists that will tie your tubes without bothering you about it

COVID Resource Guide

Mask Bloc NJ (find one near you, these are international!)

Long Covid Justice

Donate to Palestinian campaigns (2, 3, 4)

Donate to Congolese campaigns (2, 3) 

Donate to Sudanese campaigns (2, 3)

[huginsmemory]

Ideology of Exceptionalism and Gravity Falls; meta and character analysis

I had a whole ago read a post by @icanlife that had a quote by Alex Hirsch on Ford's greatest flaw, and wanted to explore what the flaw is, which is the ideology of exceptionalism; in the exploration, I’ll touch on what it is and how it is used in abusive relationships and cults, as well as how it drives multiple Gravity Falls characters and consequently how it impacts relationships between these characters, and how the show ultimately refutes exceptionalism.

Quick note here; I am not in any way, shape or form a psychologist nor have any formal training in psychology; this is written from my own experiences with this ideology and my own forays into psychology and trauma-informed learning. It is also written with a loose understanding that is likely not broad enough to cover all references to cults, extremist groups and abusive relationships. 

The Ideology of Exceptionalism 

First of all, we have to get through a drier bit, which is… what is the ideology of exceptionalism and how does it arise? Might be fairly obvious, but it is the belief that you are, or belong to, a group of exceptional people, thus more important and worth more than anyone else; ie, those who don't qualify as 'exceptional'. It is often a subconsciously learned ideology. Now, what qualifies one as exceptional can be extremely varied; generally it revolves around something that provides some form of privilege. Thus, it might be, as the main exceptionalist idea in Gravity Falls, 'intelligence', or power, or it can be such things as attractiveness, quantity of money one has, species, nationality, or skin colour and ancestral heritage. The ideology of exceptionalism, being by nature hierarchical, devalues, and at its worst, openly and violently dehumanizes those who do not qualify as exceptional. 

For why exceptionalism occurs is an extremely broad topic, but I've personally found that, for exceptionalism revolving around intelligence, it's a result of a poor sense of self-worth, and having one's self-worth tied to what makes one exceptional. Poor self-worth itself (again, broadly) is a result of childhood trauma from a lack of positive affirmation and unfulfillment of the emotional needs of the child. Meanwhile, self-worth becoming tied to the quality of exceptionalism generally is a result of when positive affirmation was pretty much solely provided around their 'exceptionalism', especially when provided derogatory commentary, or a blatant example of how they would be treated if they aren't 'exceptional'. As a result of the general lack of affirmation, self-worth then becomes often solely reliant on the qualities of exceptionalism, as that is the only way for the child (and later, adult) to get affirmation of their worth, as well as out of fear of being ‘not worth anything’ like the examples of ‘non-exceptional’ people they have been given. 

This is especially likely to occur when the child is a social outcast; the adoption of the hierarchical ideology of exceptionalism, and the devaluation/dehumanization of others often occurs subconsciously as an avoidance/minimization tactic from pain. This is to say, the child, and later the adult (if healthy self-worth is not established) goes 'it doesn't matter what the non-exceptional people say or if they accept me since I matter more than them because of my exceptionality'. It can even be taken further, that being shunned is part of one's exceptionalism, and becomes part of the qualifier of being exceptional. For instance, 'they just can't understand because they aren't exceptional and that's just a part of being exceptional'. This idea also neatly tailors into the part of the concept of being better then others means you are separate from others; this can be taken that someone who is special, needs to be alone to be truly special.

Obviously, exceptionalism is not a healthy coping mechanism for poor self-worth, as often such people constantly feel the need to prove and show off their exceptionalism to gain that affirmation and avoid rejection, which is stressful. As well, it often negatively impacts their relationships with other people as a result of the arrogance of believing that they are better than most others, or even deliberate sabotage due to their arrogance. This occurs as they flatten the complexity of human experience to black-and-white hierarchical categories of exceptional/not-exceptional through constant judgement of those they meet, and often refuse to engage with people who don't belong to their 'exceptionality', or even people they simply don't like, even if they technically qualify. Generally, those that they do like or have close relationships with, often due to being similar, are automatically labelled as 'exceptional'. Those judged as ‘exceptional’ also become privy to the open judgements of ‘non-exceptional’ others, out of a subconscious belief by the exceptionalist that the other believes similarly; something that may strain their relationship if the other doesn’t ascribe to exceptionalism. This all culminates in the exceptionalist being blind or even adverse to the diversity of experiences, which makes it difficult to create relationships and community outside of echo chambers of their own beliefs (if they can even find this), and subsequently, these people are often isolated and have very few to no close relationships with people. 

However, all humans require connections with other people, relationships where one can rely on others emotionally and physically if needed and feel accepted; they also require to feel like they are worth something, that their life has meaning. Lacking meaningful connections and having a crippled sense of self-worth, a deep yearning hole is left in these people. Exceptionalism, especially as it is a narrative constantly pushed by Western society as it validates hierarchies, is then employed as a (often subconscious) trauma response to assuage this yearning hole, with arrogance and denial. And depending on the circumstances, it can be a very strong and definitive trauma response for people.

This isolation and lack of self-worth is catnip to abusive relationships, including cults and extremist groups. These types of relationships often heavily rely on isolating their victims or pulling them into echo chambers of solely the abuser’s rhetoric, to redefine what is healthy through gaslighting; as the exceptionalists are already isolated, this makes them extremely susceptible. They also often provide these people affirmation, and in these cases especially about their exceptionalism, thus confirming their self-worth, their 'specialness', while also providing them the connection they have been lacking, either through the cult community or through the abuser’s own presence. These emotional needs, which haven’t been met in a long time, if ever, begin to be fulfilled; something that abusive relationships and cults hinge on, rather than any form of logic.

Ideology of Exceptionalism and Gravity Falls

The main characters within Gravity Falls which are heavily ascribed to exceptionalism would be both Ford and Bill; this characterization deeply impacts the story and their relationships with others (technically the Northwest are another case regarding wealth, but less directly impact the storyline and thus tangential; Gideon also is an example, but as a mirror of Bill). With each of these characters I’ll go into detail within their sections on the way they began to ascribe to exceptionalism, and how it plays out later in their relationships; I will first begin with Ford, then move to Bill. Then, to cap it off, I’ll go into the characterization of Stan and the way Gravity Falls refutes exceptionalism. 

Ford and Exceptionalism

Firstly, the quote from Alex Hirsch that kicked this whole baby off, as mentioned previously; 

“Ford sees Dipper as someone who’s special like himself. That’s Ford’s great flaw, his arrogance is he believes that there’s special people, and everyone else. That human attachments are actually weaknesses. And the song and dance that he’s giving Dipper right now, is the song and dance that he gave McGucket, back when they were younger… ‘You and me are different, we’re better than everyone else. We have a path that no one else can understand, and only us can do this.’ It’s a very seductive idea for Dipper… Dipper is a smart kid, but Ford’s projecting. Ford loves Dipper because he sees someone who’ll tell him ‘yes’ to everything. Who’ll never challenge him, who’ll do a really insane dangerous mission.”

Very blatantly Alex Hirsch calls Ford out on his arrogance in the belief that he is special, in his belief in the 'lone hero' complex, in his belief in exceptionalism. And really, it should be no surprise that Ford does so, considering the way he's depicted as a social outcast as a child (other than Stan), and the way his parents have been clearly shown to be not particularly emotionally supportive (“I’m not impressed”); they don't provide positive affirmation except for his intelligence (mostly due to the possibility of money making through it…), while also actively comparing him to Stan who is derogatorily ‘not-exceptional’, and ‘worth less’. This all sets Ford’s self-worth up to be fragile, and other than Stan who wholeheartedly accepts him, he is isolated and invalidated; plus, the only other validation he receives is around his intelligence. All very classically fitting the profile for exceptionalism.

Image id: Stand and Ford when they were children, both clearly enjoying each other's company.

Ford’s belief in his exceptionalism catalyzes after the shattering of his and Stan’s relationship. Previously the twins are shown to do everything together, having a very close caring relationship; something unlikely if Ford thought he was better than Stan. Also, when Ford is talked to about his opportunities, Ford looks uncomfortable at the way they talk about Stan as inferior, compared to how he himself is being praised; but in the offer he’s simultaneously finally being validated, he’s being told he’s someone worth something, and he’s going to be someone worth something after this. And then the science fair incident occurs, and Ford loses that validation from his parents, from the judges and a future of more validation; after being promised validation and acceptance, it slips through his fingers. And in his anger of being denied that, it becomes easy to begin to slip subconsciously into the rhetoric the others have been feeding him; that he’s exceptional, that Stan isn’t, and he deserved to be recognized for his worth. So he breaks the relationship with the only person who accepted and validated him for who he is. With that loss of previous support, Ford becomes then deeply obsessed with proving his exceptionalism to the world to assuage that fragile self-worth, to become accepted, or even better, revered, confirming that he is someone of worth, someone special, like he was promised. 

Ford’s obsession also doubly functions as a way to alleviate his guilt over shattering their relationship; if he’s exceptional as he believes, then he’s within the right to respond the way he did, as he’s worth more than Stan, he's better off alone, and he has a right to be angry over being denied that validation. As well, in much the same way as it is used as a way to alleviate his guilt over the end of their relationship, it is also likely used in a way to minimize the pain of being ostracized (although not directly depicted); afterall, Ford’s keenly aware and insecure about his social ineptitude and his six fingers as things that make him different from other people, case in point with his experience visiting Lazy Susans Diner. Thus it wouldn’t be unsurprising if he uses the idea of being worth more than those who ostracize him to imply it ‘doesn’t matter’ what they think. His ostracization by nature keeps him from generally forming close relationships, with the exception of Fiddleford (who much like him, is socially outcast, and intelligent) during his university days. As a result, he's isolated and acutely lonely, having lost Stan.

Image id: One of the missing Journal 3 pages in TBOB, detailing Ford's botched social interaction in Lazy Susans Diner. In the background is the print of his six-fingered hand.

In his obsession over being acknowledged, Ford, like many others who believe in exceptionalism, identifies strongly with the causes of his ostracization (his intelligence, his six-fingeredness) as part of, or wholly, makes him exceptional. It is obvious through his choice of study; with the grant he has been gifted, he chooses to revolve his work around the weird, the outcast, something that you see Ford gravitate towards being an outcast and deemed 'weird' himself (which in Journal 3 he openly talks about). Something that can be, much like him, framed as 'exceptional'. His work is even recorded in a journal that Ford deliberately chooses to put his six-fingered hand on the cover of. Intertwined with the way it becomes adopted into the idea of exceptionalism, is the keen loneliness from his ostracization and a deep desire to be accepted and a wish to find a community of other weird people.

Image id: Two pages from journal 3, labelled 'Myself', in which Ford is open about being weird, and a social outcast, while also noting his ambitions and that 'Gravity Falls, [is] the place that I fit in.'

Ford and Bill

All of this culminates in Ford becoming an incredibly easy target to manipulate by Bill. He’s desperate to be acknowledged (and thus accepted) by an authority figure so that his belief in exceptionalism is justified and his self-worth confirmed. And he knows he’s intelligent, that he's exceptional because people have told him so, but he just needs to prove it with something that shakes the world. And the grant is finally his second chance after the fair, but he's stuck, and the research is going nowhere, and he's in a town where he doesn't really know anyone and he’s so terribly lonely. And sure, he clings to his exceptionalism but if he can't even prove it then is he really exceptional? Is he even worth anything like he thought he was? And what about what he's left behind, rejected, because of his exceptionalism?

And THEN he finds an incantation and he ignores the warnings because maybe, just maybe, this will be his break to get that acceptance/validation he has been chasing his whole life? 

And then it's better than that. 

A god, essentially, shows himself to him, an ultimate figure of authority. And he tells him that yes, he is special, he’s worth more than other people, and Bill’s only showing himself to Ford because he is so much more intelligent than anyone else. Ford is suddenly getting his exceptionalism confirmed by a god of ancient knowledge, an immensely intelligent interdimensional being, and he’s also showering him with affirmations, specifically affirmations around what Ford's fragile self-worth is based on. And even better, he's delighted by Ford's six-fingeredness; he's not put off at all, it even becomes his main nickname for Ford, just like it used to be for Stan all those years ago. On top of it all, Ford's own social ineptitude doesn't phase Bill, another thing Ford is self-conscious about; Bill's own social ineptitude as he's not human probably makes Ford feel comfortable, knowing that's not expected from him.

Through Bill, not only does Ford find someone who validates his self-worth through intelligence and even confirms to him that his weirdness is part and parcel of making him special, he also finds someone who he regularly (generally) is in contact with, who enjoys talking to him and even banters with him familiarly. Hell, Bill even deliberately goes out of his way (literally possessing a whole wack ton of rats, then dream karaoke) to celebrate his birthday with him; how long do you think Ford has simply skipped his birthday since he had no one to really celebrate it with? The loneliness, beneath his arrogance and belief in exceptionalism, is being fulfilled; for the first time since Ford was a teenager, he's fully accepted by someone, social awkwardness, six fingers, exceptionalism and all. 

Image id: One of the lost pages from Journal 3 in TBOB, the 'one thing led to another' page, with Bill and Ford singing karaoke and drinking together, both clearly enjoying themselves; Bill has an arm slung around Ford's shoulders.

So it's really no surprise at all that Ford fell for this, hook line and sinker. Hell, if I was in Ford's shoes I would fall for it just as hard. And I've seen a few posts floating around talking about how Bill is bad at manipulating, and no, he's not. He was able to pinpoint exactly what Ford wanted and needed, and provided that, was charismatic enough to provide that. Again, manipulation isn't about logic. It really isn't; it's about the emotional core in people, what people lack and what you can give them to slowly reel them in to sing your dance and song. And people will ignore vast swaths of red flags when you're finally being accepted, when you're finally getting your emotional needs met at least in some way or form. It's better than not having them met at all, such as previously. So Ford worshipping Bill is really not a surprise, especially as Bill deliberately stoked it.

All of this is part of why you see Alex Hirsch call Ford's belief in his exceptionalism his greatest flaw; because it allowed him to be very easily manipulated by Bill, and by its nature kept Ford isolated from others, evident by his arrogance in assuming he knows best and refusing to see other people who aren't as 'intelligent/weird' as him as worth getting to know, listen too and even reach out to ask help from, it's him believing he has to be the lone hero as someone whose 'special'. It's something that blinds him to the danger of his work around the weirdness of gravity falls because he’s desperate to seek a place where he and his weirdness belong, and it's something that plays out in each and every relationship he has because it's something he clings to so deeply. It's what cost him his relationship with Stan, who previously accepted him completely, and, as he's disinclined to form new relationships and as Bill actively strokes his paranoia (Trust No One…), ultimately further increases the hold Bill has over him. It's only Fiddleford’s presence as he works with Ford that allows him some form of outside reference and reprieve from solely Bill’s influence, something that Bill resents deeply and is clearly jealous and angry about, even if Fiddleford is helping create the portal. And it's ultimately Fiddleford, once he was aware enough of what was happening, calls Ford out on it, seriously jeopardizing Bill's influence over Ford; but Ford is too invested in the portal, in chasing his own ambition and caught up in Bill’s manipulation to take him seriously, until the incident with the trial, and Ford beginning to hear other voices then Bill.

Ford’s Exceptionalism and Wider Relationships

Now back to how it plays out in all Ford's relationships; we've already gone over it with Bill's influence, because it made him extremely easy to manipulate, and with his disregard of Stan in favor of validation of his exceptionalism. But Ford, as pointed out by Alex Hirsch, also exerts the ideology's seductive rhetoric to both Fiddleford and Dipper (who look up to Ford) in a similar way that Bill does with him (although there is a difference of it being used intentionally and maliciously, compared to subconsciously and earnestly, even if it is problematic). Ford, with his black-and-white view of exceptionalism, sees both Fiddleford and Dipper as people who are like him; 'exceptional', and so he treats them as such, and uses this rhetoric to coerce them into helping him.

For Fiddleford, the lure is how he can change the world, how he can be finally acknowledged if he helps Ford with the portal. And it works well; he willingly chooses to leave his own work and his wife and young son, to work with Ford. Much like Ford, Fiddleford himself is also a social outcast and regularly presumed less smart than he is, and he’s got a chip on his shoulder to prove himself, to gain acknowledgement and recognition from the world at large. Although Fiddleford has a family which presumes he’s not entirely lonely like Ford is, he also clearly has deep feelings for Ford, some which are hinted to be more than just ‘friendly’ feelings; it is likely the combination of the lure of validation and spending time with Ford, a kindred spirit that accepts him and an old friend/crush, that causes him to agree (afterall, it was Ford who made Fiddleford feel accepted and choose to stay at Backupsmore). And Fiddleford’s not even considered a partner, but rather an assistant to Ford due to Ford's arrogance, and he still drops everything to go! It’s more about their relationship and connection rather than validation, but that doesn’t stop Ford from espousing exceptionalism. And this is a distinguishing difference, because although Fiddleford would like recognition, he’s not there solely because of it; he’s not a believer in exceptionalism nor arrogant about his skills, and so, unlike Ford who is blinded by his obsession, he’s much more aware of the dangers of the weirdness of Gravity Falls. Thus, he's actively calculating the risks involved, and when he realizes there could be potentially devastating consequences of the portal, he attempts to talk Ford out of it; this fails due to Ford’s own denial and obsession over the portal. In the end, it all goes terribly sideways, and Fiddleford ends up losing everything he had; his wife, his son, his friend, his memories and himself to the trauma he had experienced at the invitation of his friend with the lure of validation and company, due to the memory gun he had created himself. 

As for Dipper, much like Ford, he also has issues with self-worth (many of the episodes deal with Dipper finding self-worth; ie, the manotaur episode), has a physical oddity (his birthmark) and by far the trait he relies on most for worth is his intelligence (for example, in one episode he rubs it into Mabel's face over and over again in beating her in games). He's also extremely desperate to be recognized by authority figures as someone intelligent, case in point when he summons the dead after being made fun of by the government agents to try and show them that the information he's gathered is important after Stan dismisses his knowledge. This desperation to be seen as someone of worth from Dipper, much like Ford, extends to the need to be a hero, something he even says at the end of the zombie episode; yet, due to Mabel, unlike Ford he's not a lone hero, and Mabel also half the time acts as the hero.

Image id: Zombies crawling out of a crack after Dipper summons them; Dipper and the two agents look on in horror.

It all culminates in Dipper hero-worshipping Ford when he returns; really, no different than Ford worshipping Bill. And Ford clearly finds it extremely flattering; Dipper's attention and amazement of him feeds his exceptionalism. Exactly how Ford responded to Bill, Dipper is willing to do anything for Ford, excited too, in an attempt to impress Ford and be validated and accepted. And for Ford, that's an extremely heady feeling, especially as someone who has been constantly alone the last 30 years, especially when he had one previously confirm his exceptionalism all those years ago and stopped, and now someone is once again affirming that idea. And Ford doesn't have to be alone again, because he's found a kindred spirit in Dipper as his assistant, someone ‘just’ like him, someone who is exceptional. Because he sees himself in Dipper, he begins to espouse exceptionalism unconsciously, by praising Dipper's own intellect and adventurous spirit, assuaging his feeling of self-worth, while also telling him he's more important or better than others because of it. 

And it's seductive to Dipper, because he wants to hear those affirmations of his self-worth, especially as he hero-worships him, but Dipper isn't sold on it, because it means leaving Mabel behind, it means believing that he's worth more than Mabel (and also, Stan, and all his friends he’s made in Gravity Falls). It's ultimately because of his relationship with Mabel that he rejects the ideology; he's not isolated the way Ford was with Bill, and he's not willing to break that relationship for that acknowledgement, because his relationships matter more to him.

Bill and Exceptionalism

Now of course, that's only on the Pines; what about Bill? 

While it's obvious that Bill uses exceptionalism as a main manipulative tactic, it's not just an ideology he sprouts emptily; it's also an ideology he believes in, just like Ford, although it's less based on intellectual exceptionalism, and more on power and 'weirdness'. 

This most distinctly can be seen in Bill's denial about what happened to his home dimension; Bill's belief in his exceptionalism occurs as a pain avoidance tactic from killing his whole dimension. Bill was clearly a social outcast within his dimension due to being able to see 3d; he's not accepted, and not trusted, to the point that there is medical intervention to make him blind. That's a deeply traumatic experience that completely erases one sense of self-worth, where one’s sanity is called into question by your parents on something that is not harmful, that's beautiful and you just want to share with them. It's a deep and clear rejection of who Bill is, and his ability. As a result, out of a desperate bid to be understood and accepted, he ends up trying to show them the stars. And it ends up killing everyone. 

Image id: Page of TBOB, on 'The Early Years' which notes that Bill was an oddity for seeing 3d, something that was illegal to speak about. Bill frames it as something that made him 'special' and better than all the others.

Traumatized, and originally rejected by the dimension, he instead weaves an excuse of exceptionalism; that it doesn't matter what he did to them because he's exceptional and he's worth more than all of them because he can see 3d, because he's powerful, so he shouldn't/'doesn't' feel any remorse about it. With such a traumatic result of trying to be accepted by people, he rejects the idea of trying to be accepted for who he really is; instead adopting a facade of a monster that he believes he is (and eventually, becomes).

Even if he clings to the delusion of exceptionalism, and shuns attempts to find true acceptance, he still wants it; and that's where his henchmaniacs fit in, as they're all, as Bill's noted when trying desperately to get Ford to join him, weird; each has something 'wrong' with them, which is why Bill accepted them as his lackeys (although it's not like we know the context around these). It's a surface-level acceptance however, one more predicated on fear than emotional acceptance. He's taken his 'weirdness', much like many do who believe in exceptionalism,as ‘part of what makes him exceptional'.

In the same way that Ford wants to show the world that he's smart and intelligent by building the portal, Bill does so by wreaking havoc and taking over existences as a way to show the world that he's powerful, that he's someone to be reckoned with, that he's not someone to be ignored because he's someone who's worth more than others. If you can't be loved and accepted, then being hated and feared is better than being ignored; acknowledgement at least approaches acceptance, it's validation of some sort of worth. It also functions as deliberate self-sabotage of his morals, by proving that he is the monster that killed his entire dimension; if that's what he is, then that's who he's going to be, because if he wasn’t, then he has to come face to face with his remorse over what he did to his dimension and his whole house of cards around his exceptionalism and not caring collapses. So instead he keeps feeding the delusions the denial, and lies and lies and lies and keeps lying to ignore all of it, to wrap himself in this shroud of exceptionalism and brutality as a way to function. And it somewhat works, because he's mostly deluded himself about it all, even if subconsciously he knows. 

And of course, this display of Bill's exceptionalism is what brings Bill to earth, to Gravity Falls, and to manipulating humans. In meddling with earth and humanity, beyond Bill's goal of taking over earth and fleeing his own unravelling dimension, he also enjoys reaping the benefits of being worshiped by humans, who find him awe-inspiring. Their amazement of who he is, and Bill's own posturing and manipulation of people leads to Bill literally forming cults (ie ciphertology) or having apprentices that worship/find him (to varying degree) inspiring; all reinforcing his feelings of exceptionalism. 

Of course, Ford numbers among these people; he praises Bill and worships him, as he's played like a fiddle by Bill, because his self-worth and belief in exceptionalism is fucked up in a way that perfectly resonates with Bill’s. Because it's the exact same types of issues around self-worth, around being an outcast, being weird and wrong physically, and yet at the same time gifted. And Ford clearly is incredibly lonely and yearning for acceptance, but so is Bill; since the beginning he's been trying to find someone who would accept him, even if he's given up on it. And for his song and dance to entice Ford in, he pretends he's not crushed dimensions for fun, that he's not a 'monster'; a version of him he buried after he had tried to show his parents the stars, one that he occasionally resurrects and puppets around for manipulation (all lies are better when they have a grain of truth). And this version of him is worshipped, but above all is accepted, is loved by Ford. The softer parts of Bill, even if they are still weird as fuck, the parts that were never far beneath the surface for all his deluding, become loved by Ford. Much as Ford becomes hooked on Bill’s praise, Bill also becomes hooked on Ford's genuine love and care. It becomes personal, unlike any previous ‘inspirations’ and Bill over time gets to the point that he feels accepted, safe enough with Ford to share about his dimension much more close to the truth then he did with any of his henchmaniacs. He becomes vulnerable with Ford, in response to Ford’s own vulnerability with him. He’s finding acceptance for the first time in his life around the softer parts of himself, not just the feared acknowledgement that comes from his dimensions conquering; much like Ford is finally finding companionship and acceptance with Bill, not just only intellectual validation. Bill's also for once, not just self-serving; he cares, and goes out of his way to take time with Ford, even celebrating Ford's birthday (in the unique way he does things), both with the rats and the karaoke.

Image id: One of the lost Journal 3 pages in TBOB. Ford recounts Bill talking about the destruction of his dimension, and calls himself by implication a monster.

They're both fulfilling each other's emotional needs, needs which both of them have struggled with most, if not all of their lives (although their relationship is certainly not healthy, considering it's codependent as fuck, riddled with exceptionalism and oodles of power imbalance issues). And suddenly, against Bill's plans, Ford's no longer just a disposable pawn, but someone Bill wants as part of his team, someone by his side, closer than his henchmaniacs are. He's unwittingly fallen for Ford, and so when everything goes sideways in his plan, and Ford swears it off, suddenly cutting off their relationship and that acceptance Bill had finally felt, he spirals into grief and anger from the rejection. As a result, he becomes extremely abusive to Ford in desperate attempts to continue their relationship, and ultimately he becomes obsessive over Ford joining him again as Ford continues to refuse, as evidenced by both Weirdmageddon and the Book of Bill.

Stanley Pines, and the Refuting of Exceptionalism 

Exceptionalism, being a negative driving factor behind many core character dynamics, is ultimately refuted by the show. This occurs multiple times over the show, such as with Mabel in the Pioneer Day episode, especially compared to Pacifica, but mostly through Stan's characterization. Stan is someone who has been since the beginning characterized (if lovingly so) as someone who is a failure by societal standards; he’s an older man running a run-down tacky tourist shop to swindle gullible tourists out of their money, has multiple divorces, has an ongoing feud with a literal 12 year old, clearly has had multiple mishaps with the law (some ongoing), is generally pretty self-serving and is extremely lonely and really had no close relationships until Mabel and Dipper showed up. He's not exceptional; he's not even what we would consider 'decent' enough to have a 'typical, hard working job’. In short, he’s a failure, a stark difference to the idea of 'exceptionalism' that characterizes Ford. If he's gifted in any area, it would be charisma (debatedly), not anything else.

But it's still Stan who rebuilds the portal from literally only one journal (not all three!) and gets it to work. It even seems like he only needs some codes from the other two journals when he does get them, suggesting that he was able to extrapolate from what was left and the first journal’s blueprints to fix it entirely, something that is extremely difficult and technically complicated (Ford, Bill and Fiddleford all worked on it together!). Stan's able to do it, even if it's been shown he's not 'naturally' gifted in that area. And it's something he does as a result of his deep care for Ford; because even after their fights, he cares about Ford and wants to right his wrongs, believes he should, because of his whole life of being defined as a failure and even worse than that, screwing up his ‘exceptional’ brother’s life. And he’ll do it even if that means learning how to build an interdimensional portal, even if it takes up thirty years of his life doing so, and he doesn't waver. Much of this is connected to his own complexes around being deemed a failure compared to Ford, having failed to succeed in his life, and how he feels that he needs to atone for screwing up Ford’s life, now for the second time; but beneath it all, he also cares. Much like Ford, he's extremely lonely, but he's not blinded by Ford's arrogance, and as a result he wants to make sure Ford's safe, because that's what he used to do, they’re twins, they grew up together, they once they had fully accepted and cared for each other, and dammit that still means something, and Stan hasn't found that depth of emotional connection since. So if possible, he wants to rekindle that closeness they had, but first, he needs to bring Ford back. 

And in the end, it's not Ford's own special gun he built using his intelligence that 'kills' Bill. It's Stan, someone who Ford had long ago broke it off with in search of validation of his exceptionalism, someone who both Ford and Bill labelled as 'not-exceptional', who defeats Bill. It's exceptionalism's devaluation of people who are 'not-exceptional' that causes Bill to underestimate the Pines beyond Ford, and it's only when Ford put aside his exceptionalism and his refusal to accept and trust 'non-exceptional' people, that is, trust Stan once more, that causes Bill to end up defeated by Stan.

In the end, it's not about who's 'smarter'; it's a reminder that everyone has different skills and are better at different things, but that doesn't diminish one's worth or value, and that just because someone isn't naturally 'gifted' in an area doesn't mean they can't learn or use different ways to get around obstacles. Ultimately, it comes down to that no one is worth more or less than other people; exceptionalism is a lie. It’s a lie and an excuse, and it's certainly not a healthy way to assuage one's poor self-worth. What does matter is creating positive healthy connections with other people, and caring about them. This creates a community where you can be yourself and be emotionally fulfilled through these connections; and when opposition does arise, you become able to fight it together, and fight so much stronger than if you are alone.

And by the end of the show, you see that. Ford begins to let go of the ideal of exceptionalism and its black-and-white categorization; finally recognizes his own faults around prioritizing validation of his intelligence and exceptionalism over his relationships, and finally, after all the years, chooses to create and rekindle positive relationships with people, trust people, and make amends. And in the end, he goes sailing with Stan, prioritizing their relationship, finally fulfilling their childhood promise.

Image id: One of the pages written by Ford into TBOB. Ford refutes Bill's idea of happiness, and says he has finally found his own happiness, and it looks like the photo taped in, of Stan, Ford, Dipper, Mabel, Soos and Wendy, all smiling together.

TLDR: Exceptionalism, an ideology of categorizing people into being special and worth more vs plebian and worth less, is a trauma response and subconscious ideology that characterizes Ford and Bill’s lives, deeply impacting all their relationships as it is used to coerce people into doing what they want, makes Ford easily manipulated, and breaks relationships through their arrogance. It is ultimately denounced through the way Dipper chooses to reject Ford’s offer and his rhetoric of being exceptional, and through the way it's not Ford’s intelligence, but rather Stan, who has been labeled as 'not-exceptional' and a failure at life, that defeats Bill through trickery. It's a reminder that everyone has worth, and no one is worth more than other people, even if one may be gifted in certain areas; the ideology of exceptionalism is fragile and a lie. In the end, creating a caring, loving community around oneself is where strength truly lies, as is seen with the deep care and love the characters have for each other, and the repairing of Ford and Stans relationship.

Thanks to the lovely @eshtaresht who deigned to beta read this monster of a post for me

If you enjoyed this meta, (first of all if you read all this you're a champ!) I've also done another gf meta post! (It's shorter I swear)

[demonking-propaganda]

13 spoiler-free reasons why you should read Mairimashita! Iruma-kun

...if you haven't done so already 👀 (With "spoiler-free" I mean I'm not describing plot points or characters, but under the cut I'll discuss the overarching themes, so be warned if that's too much for you. The first 7 reasons may be enough lol)

It's both funny AND wholesome. I literally can't read it without laughing out loud, and there are a bunch of chapters that make me cry every time I read them.

It's clever! The Japanese version contains several puns based on the kanji "魔" (read "ma", = devil, demon), starting from the title, but it's a recurring pun. The English translation adapts them pretty well. Plus, there are some of the best plot twists in recorded history (IMO). And the names and characteristics of most characters are based on real-life demonology.

It's queer AF. Like, really gay. There are explicitly homoromantic relationships and several nonbinary and gender non-conforming characters. One of these is the best unashamedly nonbinary character ever written. Plus, the manga premise can be seen as an allegory of hiding in the closet. The only thing that made me uncomfortable because of cisnormativity (boys in drag as a joke) is completely fixed in later chapters, and very well so.

It's feminist, without being preachy or paternalistic. Simply put, the women/girls are three-dimensional, complex characters, as the norm should be. And there are lots of them, without it being a harem (...the harem trope is actually used as a joke).

It's spooky and adorable, imagine Halloween vibes all year round. Both main and background characters are super diverse, and if you like monsters there is stuff for you.

Most characters are neurodivergent-coded. It's basically the autistic/ADHD manga.

The art is phenomenal. It's especially good to see the improvement of the art style over the years (the first chapter was published in 2017 and the manga is ongoing). Some panels are really breathtaking.

8. The story is about personal growth - like most shounen manga, fair enough. But the protagonist, Iruma, is so far from toxic masculinity I dare say he's the antidote to it.

9. It's also about found family, the discovery of unconditional love, and trust, and healing from familial trauma.

10. It's about finding a group of friends you belong to, and transforming your weirdness into a strength, identifying and cultivating what you're good at instead of fitting into a mold.

11. It's about the beauty of learning in your own way, and the importance of education and the shaping of future generations.

12. And the reason why I opened this blog: it's about fascism and fighting against it. I mean real fascism, as in "a powerful individual/group wants society to be hierarchical and oppress certain minorities, elevating a specific subset of the population based on intrinsic characteristics which are being misleadingly treated as merits". Ethno-nationalistic stuff. More specifically, it's about being a somewhat politically illiterate person, who learns about systems of oppression beyond personal injustices. It's about questioning what is the best way to arrange society.

13. Most importantly, this manga gives you hope about the future, something I find harder and harder to have. Hopelessness is dangerous - as people without hope stop fighting. This manga makes me actively feel better. Since it's ongoing I can't ensure it will always remain that way, but I've come to trust the author enough that I expect it to.

[argyrocratie]

"How will people get healthcare?

(...)

During the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona’s Medical Syndicate, organized largely by anarchists, managed 18 hospitals (6 of which it had created), 17 sanatoria, 22 clinics, 6 psychiatric establishments, 3 nurseries, and one maternity hospital. Outpatient departments were set up in all the principal localities in Catalunya. Upon receiving a request, the Syndicate sent doctors to places in need. The doctor would have to give good reason for refusing the post, “for it was considered that medicine was at the service of the community, and not the other way round.”[40] Funds for outpatient clinics came from contributions from local municipalities. The anarchist Health Workers’ Union included 8,000 health workers, 1,020 of them doctors, and also 3,206 nurses, 133 dentists, 330 midwives, and 153 herbalists. The Union operated 36 health centers distributed throughout Catalunya to provide healthcare to everyone in the entire region. There was a central syndicate in each of nine zones, and in Barcelona a Control Committee composed of one delegate from each section met once a week to deal with common problems and implement a common plan. Every department was autonomous in its own sphere, but not isolated, as they supported one another. Beyond Catalunya, healthcare was provided for free in agrarian collectives throughout Aragon and the Levant.

Even in the nascent anarchist movement in the US today, anarchists are taking steps to learn about and provide healthcare. In some communities anarchists are learning alternative medicine and providing it for their communities. And at major protests, given the likelihood of police violence, anarchists organize networks of volunteer medics who set up first aid stations and organize roving medics to provide first aid for thousands of demonstrators. These medics, often self-trained, treat injuries from pepper spray, tear gas, clubs, tasers, rubber bullets, police horses, and more, as well as shock and trauma. The Boston Area Liberation Medic Squad (BALM Squad) is an example of a medic group that organizes on a permanent basis. Formed in 2001, they travel to major protests in other cities as well, and hold trainings for emergency first aid. They run a website, share information, and link to other initiatives, such as the Common Ground clinic described below. They are non-hierarchical and use consensus decision-making, as does the Bay Area Radical Health Collective, a similar group on the West Coast.

Between protests, a number of radical feminist groups throughout the US and Canada have formed Women’s Health Collectives, to address the needs of women. Some of these collectives teach female anatomy in empowering, positive ways, showing women how to give themselves gynecological exams, how to experience menstruation comfortably, and how to practice safe methods of birth control. The patriarchal Western medical establishment is generally ignorant of women’s health to the point of being degrading and harmful. An anti-establishment, do-it-yourself approach allows marginalized people to subvert a neglectful system by organizing to meet their own needs.

After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, activist street medics joined a former Black Panther in setting up the Common Ground clinic in one of the neediest neighborhoods. They were soon assisted by hundreds of anarchists and other volunteers from across the country, mostly without experience. Funded by donations and run by volunteers, the Common Ground clinic provided treatment to tens of thousands of people.

The failure of the government’s “Emergency Management” experts during the crisis is widely recognized. But Common Ground was so well organized it also out-performed the Red Cross, despite the latter having a great deal more experience and resources.[41] In the process, they popularized the concept of mutual aid and made plain the failure of the government. At the time of this writing Common Ground has 40 full-time organizers and is pursuing health in a much broader sense, also making community gardens and fighting for housing rights so that those evicted by the storm will not be prevented from coming home by the gentrification plans of the government. They have helped gut and rebuild many houses in the poorest neighborhoods, which authorities wanted to bulldoze in order to win more living space for rich white people."

-Peter Gelderloos, "Anarchy Works" (2010)

[queeranarchism]

Do you know any good anarchist theory on leadership skills? Like, I'm in a position right now for a project where I'm a leader and I want to navigate that with anarchist principles. Or maybe you have some writings on the topic?

Short answer: no.

Anarchism is by definition anti-authoritarian and that is not compatible with having a leader. If you are a leader, the anarchist thing to do is to work to dismantle your leadership and shift your group to a non-hierarchical and consensus-based project.

In that process, some parts of what's often considered 'leadership' might be reassigned to roles like:

Coordinator: a coordinator keeps track of whether a project has the resources it needs, the people in it have the tools that they need, things are going according to plan. Crucially, a coordinator does not make decisions for the group.

Meeting facilitator: a facilitator helps the group have efficient meetings that result in a group consensus. This may include time-keeping, observing whether everyone at the table gets a chance to speak, suggesting little exercises that can help the group think outside the box, etc. Crucially, a meeting facilitator does not make decisions for the group and does not push the consensus process to the outcome they'd most like to see.

Contact person: a contact person is the first point of contact by which outsiders can reach the group. They may include attending meetings on behalf of the group or speaking to media. If a contact person wants to agree to something in an external meeting, they always go back to the group to get approval of that decision. Crucially, a contact person does not make decisions for the group.

Generally these roles are shared and rotated to avoid anyone becoming too powerful and irreplaceable within the group.

If you are a subgroup within a system that requires a hierarchical leader, you might choose to become a 'pretend leader' to the outside, and switch to a consensus based non-hierarchical internal structure. If you do that, it's important to think about how to make sure your group has the power to challenge you if you act too much like a leader. One effective way is for them to form a union without you in it.

You can also choose not to do any of these things. You don't have to do organize your project in an anarchist way. But if you do want to organize your project in an anarchist way, you have to stop being a leader. You can't do anarchism and hold on to power. Not possible.

[serpentface]

Sketch overview of typical facial emoting in elowey, using Etsushir as a reference.

Elowey do not have faces that are as ‘expressive’ as humans in terms of specialized musculature, constantly visible whites of eyes, distinct brows, etc. They have a greater overall variety of communication methods (particularly via strong olfactory senses- many emotions can be detected by scent) and are less specialized than humans for facial emoting. However, facial expression (and body language) is still very important to communication.

Their pre-sophont ancestors lived in hierarchical social systems with a single breeding female and male that were socially dominant to the rest of the family (non-reproductive siblings, elders, and children). Social structures were enforced by body language and olfactory signals in a ritualized capacity- dominance hierarchies were typically very secure and well established, and reinforced by visual signaling rather than violence. These ancestors were highly territorial and would behave aggressively towards other family groups to maintain access to resources, and visual signalling would be an important means of enforcing boundaries against competitors- outright physical engagement is risky and avoided when possible in favor of strong agonistic displays (though outright fights and killing would have been fairly common in instances where rivals were caught trespassing and were vastly outnumbered).

Elowey have great behavioral plasticity and no longer universally exist within similar social systems, but the instinctual basis for this behavior remains and forms the basis of most visual emoting.

The most pronounced difference between facial signalling in elowey and humans is the meaning of teeth. In humans, happy/friendly feelings are often expressed by tightening the lips or pulling them back to prominently expose the upper teeth (eg: smiling). In elowey, tight lips and the exposing of upper teeth is a signal of nervousness, fear, anger, or outright aggression. A contented/happy/friendly elowey will most typically drop the jaw open and fully relax the lower lip, exposing lower teeth while keeping upper teeth sheathed (this expression is a close equivalent to a smile, but may be more passive). Slow blinking or keeping eyes closed is also a polite and friendly signal (and is a more pointed and intentional gesture), and combinations of the two are very friendly.

This difference is generally well-known and understood in human and elowey groups that live in proximity and regularly interact, but can still cause communication difficulties and discomfort. Elowey intentionally replicating a toothy human smile will usually slowly blink or close their eyes in the process, which helps settle internal discomfort at using an aggressive/fearful gesture in a friendly context, and signals to other elowey that their bared teeth is an act of communication with the targeted human. Humans often find the elowey smile somewhat difficult to replicate (due to a stiffer lower lip), and commonly defer to relaxing and dropping the jaw and blinking slowly.

Elowey raised among humans or in historically human-elowey cultures may pick up the toothy smiling behavior from a young age, but will still tend to instinctively include a slow blink. Human-elowey cultures are noted for having very distinctive smiles (which may exist anywhere on a spectrum between elowey-typical and human-typical, but near-ubiquitously include slow blinking).

Yawning will naturally expose teeth and not be read as innately aggressive, but especially dramatic yawns where the upper teeth are exposed throughout are signals of confidence and authority, and can be read as overly cocky and impudent if produced by one who is not an accepted authority figure, or rude/mildly aggressive if it is perceived as a targeted gesture (yawning widely at someone can be an insult). Typically, a yawn where the upper teeth are only briefly flashed at the peak is considered most polite (though exact cultural expectations can vary). In pre-sophont elowey, yawns were used by dominant pairs (particularly the female, with larger cuspids) as a passive enforcement of their place in the social structure, and as an active threat display when encountering rivals. Rival groups would confront each other at a distance with 'yawn-offs', which would allow each group to gauge the other's size, physical strength and health, and confidence.

The tongue is used in some expressions, usually submissively oriented ones. Using the tongue to partly cover teeth usually signals harmless intent, and can tamp down on aggressive/fearful gestures (IE an angry expression with the tongue out says 'I'm upset but I won't hurt you', a fearful expression with the tongue out says 'I'm scared and I'm harmless, please don't hurt me'). Children (and adults) being scolded will often stick out the tongue or lick their lips in acquiescence. In some cultures, poking the tongue out between the lips (in varying positions and forms) is a specific gesture indicating sincerity and good intentions.

The whites of the eye are also important to communication. Elowey have large irises, and the whites are only slightly exposed in a typical expression. Prominently exposing the whites is almost always a signal (unless literally just looking at something to the side), though the meaning is context-dependent. It most often indicates sustained interest/curiosity. Casting the eyes wide to the side is a placating, submissive gesture that can indicate fear, guilt, shame, etc. Elowey tend to find human eye emoting very hard to read, due to the whites of the human eye always being exposed and most gestures being subtle.

Elowey ears are more mobile than humans, but still relatively stiff with a limited range of motion, and not central to emoting. Tucking the ears back is usually an anxious/angry gesture, while moving them slightly forward is a signal of interest and focused attention.

Fur can be erected as a visual signal, usually denoting fear or aggression, sometimes used as a show of confidence or strength.

[ink-flavored]

65 Question OC Polycule Ask Game

Do you have a bunch of OCs in a polycule? Do you have the burning desire to answer questions about them? Look no further for an excuse to talk about it!   There are footnotes under the cut to explain some potentially unfamiliar terminology. Remember to send an ask to the person you reblog it from to make sure everyone gets to play!

How many members are in the polycule? How are they related to each other? Feel free to draw a flow chart.

Did the relationship start polyamorous, or was it a monogamous relationship that eventually opened?

If it started monogamous, how did the process of opening the relationship go?

Are there any mono-poly1 relationships in the polycule?

What “shape” is the polycule? A triad, a “V”, a straight line of metamours2, or incomprehensible?

Where do each of the members land on the “solo poly” to “entwined” spectrum?3

Where do each of the members land on the “free agent” to “community oriented” spectrum?4

How did each member realize they were polyamorous? Did they always know, or was there some sort of epiphany?

Do any of the current members practice hierarchical polyamory5? Who are the primary partners?

If the polycule is hierarchical, what differs in the boundaries set for primary vs secondary partners? Tertiary partners?

Have any of the members been in a hierarchical polycule before?

Have any of the members been in a non-hierarchical polycule before?

Do any of the members have a preference between hierarchical and non-hierarchical polyamory?

What’s the craziest polycule drama they’ve experienced so far?

Have any of the members been the unicorn6 of a relationship?

Have any of the members been unicorn hunters7 in the past? Were they successful?

How does each member like to engage with their metamours? Do they want to meet every potential addition, or do they not care at all?

What are their “vetoes” for potential metamours? Do they have any at all?

Which of the members want to live with their partner(s), and which prefer to live alone?

How do each of the members deal with jealousy? How intense is the feeling?

How intense does each member feel compersion8 toward their partners and metamours?

Who has the strongest communication skills in the group? Who has the weakest?

Who does the most scheduling out of all the members?

How do they deal with feelings of loneliness if their partner(s) are spending time with their other partner(s)?

Does the polycule ever have get-togethers or dates where everyone is present? What are they like?

Of the members who live together, what are the household dynamics like? How do they split chores, manage finances, etc.?

Of the members who live together, do they all sleep in one bed too? All separate bedrooms? Something in-between?

What are their sexual dynamics like? Is group sex frequent, or is it purely one-on-one?

Do boundaries shift depending on which partners are involved in sex or romance?

What kind of boundaries exist outside of a romantic dynamic? Are friends-with-benefits considered metamours? Hook-ups?

Are any of the polycule members aromantic? How does that influence their relationship boundaries and their relationship to polyamory in general?

Are any of the polycule members asexual? How does that influence their relationship boundaries and their relationship to polyamory in general?

Do any of the polycule members consider their relationship(s) to be queerplatonic? How does that influence their relationship boundaries and their relationship to polyamory in general?

How have their members’ respective family relationships influenced their polyamorous dynamics?

Were any of the members raised in a polyamorous family?

Are any of the polycule members parents? How many kids do they have?

If there aren’t any kids yet, will there ever be?

How would the polycule deal with one member wanting kids, but another member never wanting kids?

If the relationship opened up after children were already in the picture, how was the change explained to them? Was it explained at all?

Do all members of the polycule raise children together, or are there designated “parent” members?

How does being in a polyamorous relationship influence how boundaries are taught to their kids?

How do the kids feel about their parent(s) being polyamorous? Are they supportive, indifferent, or actively opposed?

Have cultural dynamics played a part in how the polycule operates?

Are any of the members keeping their polyamory a secret? Why?

For mono-poly relationships, how does the monogamous partner see and experience their relationship with a polyamorous person? Their relationships with their metamours?

How did any monogamous partners deal with the idea of opening up a previously closed relationship? Was it a difficult change?

Did any monogamous partners discover they were polyamorous after the relationship opened up? How did they find out?

Do any monogamous partners still struggle to cope with polyamory? What gets them through the hard times?

Were any monogamous partners completely fine with polyamory from the beginning?

How do the polyamorous halves of the mono-poly relationships feel about dating a monogamous person? Is it a unique struggle or smooth sailing?

Do the mono-poly relationships have different boundaries than the poly-poly-poly-poly-etc. relationships?

How well do the metamours get along? Do they even know each other?

Do any of the metamours dislike each other? How does that impact their shared partner(s)?

Do any of the metamours hang out when their shared partner(s) aren’t around?

Do any of the metamours have specific dynamics and/or boundaries with each other? Why?

How do the members feel about marriage? Do they live in a society that recognizes polyamorous marriage at all? If marriage isn’t an option, what about legal protections?

What do any monogamous members think about their polyamorous partner potentially marrying someone else (either in addition to or instead of them)?

How does the polycule celebrate anniversaries?

How does the polycule celebrate birthdays?

If one of the members gets sick, who takes care of them? Is there a rotation of caretakers lining up, or designated partner(s)?

Has anyone experienced a particularly messy break-up while in the polycule? How did everyone handle it?

Which of the members, if any, would be happy in a monogamous relationship if having a polycule wasn’t possible? Would any rather be single than monogamous?

How insecure was each member when starting their polyamorous journey? In what ways?

How did each member overcome their insecurities about relationships? Have they at all?

Wild card! Ask anything you can imagine!

[1] Mono-poly: a relationship that contains both a monogamous and polyamorous person; the monogamous person is only dating one polyamorous partner, but that partner might have other partners in addition to their monogamous partner.

[2] Metamour: the members of a polycule who are dating the same person or people, but aren’t dating each other.

[3] Solo: presents to the world as single at first glance; may not want to live with any partner, or if they do, they may not choose to share finances or property.

Entwined: prefers relationships that are more entwined practically, financially, or both; values sharing living space, spending time in close proximity, sharing financial or household obligations, etc.; may see themselves as part of a unit, a single family that shares responsibilities together and approaches life together.

Definitions taken from “More Than Two” by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert

[4] Free Agent: values personal autonomy highly, places importance on the ability to make their own decisions, and presents to the world as able to act without requiring permission from others; places responsibility for decision-making, and for bearing the consequences, on each person individually.

Community Oriented: focuses on the interconnectedness of their relationships and their community; decisions are made with an eye toward how they might fit with the others.

Definitions taken from “More Than Two” by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert

[5] Hierarchical Polyamory: a kind of polyamory in which the members of the polycule are split into “primary” partners, “secondary” partners, “tertiary” partners, and so on. The higher “ranked” members are given more priority when it comes to spending time together, living arrangements, major life decisions, and overall have more control over the state of the polycule than the lower ranked members. This is in contrast to non-hierarchical polyamory, in which there is no ranking system, all relationships are treated with equal weight, and decisions are made as a group. There is no one proper way to practice polyamory, and both methods can be fulfilling for people who have different needs for their relationships.

[6] Unicorn: stereotypically, a young bisexual woman that is equally attracted to both primary members of a hierarchical polycule or a recently opened monogamous relationship, agrees to give both members equal attention, and agrees to have no additional partners. Referred to as “unicorns” because these strict requirements for a dynamic are basically impossible to find.

[7] Unicorn Hunter(s): stereotypically, the primary members of a hierarchical polycule or a recently opened monogamous relationship who relentlessly search for a “unicorn” to perfect their ideal polyamorous dynamic. Often have very strict requirements of their unicorn, which is why they’re constantly hunting for someone who can fulfill them.

[8] Compersion: the opposite of jealousy; the feeling of joy experienced when seeing your partner happy with their other partner(s).

[opencommunion]

"My analysis challenges a number of ideas, some mentioned above, common in many Western feminist writings:

Gender categories are universal and timeless and have been present in every society at all times. This idea is often expressed in a biblical tone, as if to suggest that 'in the beginning there was gender.'

Gender is a fundamental organizing principle in all societies and is therefore always salient. In any given society, gender is everywhere.

There is an essential, universal category 'woman' that is characterized by the social uniformity of its members.

The subordination of women is a universal.

The category 'woman' is precultural, fixed in historical time and cultural space in antithesis to another fixed category—'man.'

... Merely by analyzing a particular society with gender constructs, scholars create gender categories. To put this another way: by writing about any society through a gendered perspective, scholars necessarily write gender into that society. Gender, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. The idea that in dealing with gender constructs one necessarily contributes to their creation is apparent in Judith Lorber's claim that 'the prime paradox of gender is that in order to dismantle the institution, you must first make it very visible.' In actuality, the process of making gender visible is also a process of creating gender. Thus, scholarship is implicated in the process of gender-formation."

Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí, The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses (1997) ~

"Feminist anthropologists of racialized peoples in the Americas tend not to think about the concept of gender when they use the term as a classificatory instrument, they take its meaning for granted. This, I claim, is an example of a colonial methodology. Though the claim that gender, the concept, applies universally is not explicitly stated, it is implied. In both group and conference conversations I have heard the claim that 'gender is everywhere,' meaning, technically, that sexual difference is socialized everywhere. The claim, implied or explicit, is that all societies organize dimorphic sexuality, reproductive sexuality, in terms of dichotomous roles that are hierarchically arranged and normatively enforced. That is, gender is the normative social conceptualization of sex, the biological fact of the matter. ... The critique of the binary has not been accompanied by an unveiling of the relation between colonization, race, and gender, nor by an analysis of gender as a colonial introduction of control of the humanity of the colonized, nor by an understanding that gender obscures rather than uncovers the organization of life among the colonized. The critique has favored thinking of more sexes and genders than two, yet it has not abandoned the universality of gender arrangements. ... Understanding the group with gender on one’s mind, one would see gender everywhere, imposing an order of relations uncritically as if coloniality had been completely successful both in erasing other meanings and people had totally assimilated, or as if they had always had the socio-political-economic structure that constitutes and is constituted by what Butler calls the gender norm inscribed in the organization of their relations. Thus, the claim 'There is gender everywhere' is false ... since for a colonized, non-Western people to have their socio-political-economic relations regulated by gender would mean that the conceptual and structural framework of their society fits the conceptual and structural framework of colonial or neocolonial and imperialist societies. ... Why does anyone want to insist on finding gender among all the peoples of our planet? What is good about the concept that we would want to keep it at the center of our 'liberation'?" María Lugones, "Gender and Universality in Colonial Methodology," in Decolonial Feminism in Abya Yala: Caribbean, Meso, and South American Contributions and Challenges (2022)

[clonehub]

Clone language headcanons:

I believe that the clone troopers are a vast, connected, and diverse enough group of people to have developed their own conlang and/or pidgin so that they can communicate clandestinely/privately with one another.

This communication includes subtle and complex body language that non-clones don't notice and don't understand. The clones use both the verbal and body language to pass jokes, commentary, and critiques. The body language is especially crucial because clones are not often given a space for their opinions to be heard. This way, a clone can express their thoughts without having to wait for permission from a higher up (especially a ranked non-clones) to say what they want to say.

One of the most important aspects of the clones language is the pronouns. Clones don't gender their society the way we do. As in, they wouldn't try and split society into groups based on assumed reproductive capability and arbitrary feminine/masculine appearance (like we do IRL)

The clones are a hierarchical society, and their hierarchies are based in rank. When they're not based in rank, it's based on things like merit and experience, but for the time being were just gonna talk about the explicit ranks they have. Because ranking and deference are so important to them, their language reflects that. They have three pronouns, and they are self-referential, meaning that the pronouns of others change based your position relative to them.

Clones above you in rank get one set of pronouns. Clones the same rank as you get another. Clones you outrank get a third. This means that at any given moment, there's a clone for whom all three pronouns are being used to describe them. Take for instance Captain Rex. Cody outranks him, so Cody would call Rex pronoun set C. Captain Keeli and Rex are the same rank, so Keeli would refer to rex with set B (if he was alive RIP 💯🪦🕊️) rex outranks all Shinies and everyone in the 501st, so he'd also be referred to with the final set of pronouns.

I haven't decided yet if the pronouns get conjugated for number yet. I also just realized I'm not sure how a first person plural pronoun would work in a mixed group. Maybe they have a fourth pronoun that ignores rank and is specifically for "us/we" statements.

For verbs and tenses, the clones have only three tenses: simple past, simple present, and simple future. Their unnaturally short lifespans and speedy development get factored into their understanding of time.

The clones have to borrow a lot of words as well from other languages. They have multiple ways to say brother, every term needed for rank and weaponry, probably seven different words for March and a bunch to describe laser fire and specific shades of white. This is because these are the things they saw most in their environment on Kamino and I'm their daily lives. They don't/wouldn't have a word for uncle or aunt, though, because they've never had to refer to someone as such. They might have a word for mother and father.

"brother" Is functionally gender neutral in their language, but when speaking Basic, they'll use "sister" for their clone siblings who are girls/women or otherwise just prefer the term. Clones have a LOT of euphemisms for basically everything around them, but also a lot of teasing or derogatory terms for Shinies. The teasing terms Shinies make up for vets never stick. Of course, as we've already seen in canon, the clones also have a lot of words for helmet.

The clones are HIGHLY secretive about their language. Non-military are the most likely to catch bits and pieces, but military non-clones are actively excluded from access to the language. This includes the Jedi.

As loyal as the clones are to the Republic and the Jedi, they're aware of how tenuous their culture is because of their short lifespans, their restricted lives, and their inability to spread naturally the way other cultures do. So they hold on tight to what they have and resist study. They resist outsiders knowing too much because they value what little privacy they have.

Back to the pronouns for a moment. Theyre 100% accepting of any clones who are trans or nonbinary. That's a personal and sacred as finally choosing a name for oneself. So along the same vein, they respect when someone changes their name.

I think the clones have a Spiritual belief system of sorts, but I haven't really developed it yet. The clones have accents that vary by battalion. There's the strong Kamino accent, and then they pick up the accent of the battalion or company they join. The 501st and Coruscant guard have wildly different accents. Everyone gets teased about how they speak, especially when a battalions been separated from the rest of clone society for a time. The language changes constantly, too.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

Genuine question for those of you who say that you want the dissolution of all states. What do you envision in place of states in terms of:

Logistics (i.e. making sure every area has the basic resources it needs in order to function and people not die for lack of water, food, fuel, medical supplies, etc.) Like not assigning these things necessarily but literally just getting them to various far-flung places.

Security (how do you prevent people from outside the area coming in and taking everything including resources, land, people, etc.) How do you prevent authoritarian groups coming in and occupying your formerly peaceful, non-hierarchical society?

Supporting people outside of affinity networks or within rigid social systems (a lot of disabled people, queer people, and other people on the social, familial, and religious outs are gonna die without some kind of appropriate systems in place to meet these needs.)

Addressing major environmental challenges that require cooperation over vast areas of land, if not global cooperation.

Rule of law, especially when it comes to human rights, freedom of movement, freedom of religion/culture, dispute resolution between governing bodies of whatever variety that doesn't involve war, etc. but also just like, basic laws governing interpersonal relationships (preventing rape, murder, theft, etc. and addressing the aftermath of those things in a humane, just way.)

Peaceful transition from states to whatever it is you imagine taking their place, without hemorrhaging lives from the most vulnerable populations.

And like, there's more that I'm sure I'd have questions about too, but these concerns are so basic that I just cannot continue the conversation without knowing what the plan is for these essential tenets of an organized society.

Don't get me wrong: I don't love states and wish we had a better system too. I am also painfully aware that states are failing many if not most of these all the time. However, what I would need to know is how what you are proposing is better than trying to improve what currently exists and isn't going to come at the cost of catastrophic loss of human life, human cultures, animal life, and land destruction. And not in a pie-in-the-sky way, a realpolitik way.

[triumph-of-adaptation]

slo_action / grant.ionaton

We are located in Naarm, Australia. DM to join our discord and get plugged in.

IMAGE DESCRIPTORS AND ALT TEXT

Tile 1: Bright purple text reads “WHAT IS S.L.O.?” above a dark purple illustration of a slug on a beige, textured background.


Tile 2: Bright purple text reads “S.L.O stands for SICKO LIBERATION ORGANISM” above a bright purple illustration of a snapping turtle on a beige, textured background.


Tile 3: Bright purple text reads “SICKO as in people who are chronically sick, "sick in the head", "sick freaks", or just sick and tired of living in an unjust world. We are reclaiming sickness and using our sick lived experiences to create a better world.” on a beige, textured background.

Tile 4: Bright purple text reads “LIBERATION as in liberating ourselves and each other materially and mentally from colonialism, capitalism, ableism, and oppression. we want Land Back, community-building, autonomy and empty cages- we're here to build a brighter future, not just fight against a dark reality.” on a beige, textured background.

Tile 5: Bright purple text reads “ORGANISM as in a living being that grows and changes as necessary. Organisms are non-hierarchical and interdependent, so is S.L.O. All together we want to work slow and steady: focus on sustainability and connection, and consider how we can create meaningful change at a slower pace” on a beige, textured background.

Tile 6: Bright purple text reads “who can join S.L.O.? anyone who wants to contribute to/learn from a disabled/sick/mad lead social/political group. JOIN OUR ONLINE SPACE/ COLLECTIVE NOW. a sicker world is possible.” above a bright purple caterpillar on a beige, textured background.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

I guess it wouldn’t be a good idea to put “prey” beastmen (rabbit, mouse) into Savanaclaw tbh… Probably a good way to avoid bullying.

[Referencing this post!]

We learned in the latest hometown event (ie the trip to the Sunset Savanna) that tensions exist within subspecies of beastmen and that it has been a challenge to unite them. This is similar to what occurs between different kinds of fae. For example, Sebek’s mom and grandpa are nocturnal fae, who do not get along with the diurnal fae seen in Fairy Gala. This is also true, to some degree, of different kinds of merpeople. Recall that Azul was bullied for spitting up ink when he cried and for his bulky tentacles which made him a slow swimmer; these are traits associated with octopus merfolk. I’m sure tensions also exist between humans (such as mages and non-mages, something mentioned by Rollo and implied by Riddle when he talks down Yuu’s inability to use magic).

Twisted Wonderland provides us with several examples of group infighting. Furthermore, the environment of NRC and Savanaclaw itself perpetuates a hierarchical structure (which may contribute to these tensions). Something else that’s brought up here and there (especially in episodes 1’s duel and episode 5’s Vil vs Epel situation) is that “the weak obey the strong”. It’s not exactly a formal rule, but it seems to be a social creed that governs NRC.

With all of this in mind, it’s very easy to imagine that there may be tension between “prey” and “predator” beastmen (though as I said in my original post, I don’t think we can say for certain right now that the Mirror of Darkness separates the beastmen into Heartslabyul/Savanaclaw based on prey/predator status), as well as social issues surrounding strength and imposing it as a means of enforcing one’s will over the weak. It kind of reminds me of the conflict presented in Zootopia. That’s just a theory though a gaaaame theory, thanks for watching—

[communistkenobi]

re: several recent discussions I’ve seen on here about the dangers of bio-essentialism, in the authoritarian personality the authors find over and over again that highly prejudiced individuals (ie those most likely to be fascists) believe very strongly in A) innate human differences that cannot be altered or negotiated, and B) their own personal ability to categorise people based on these differences with a high degree of precision. the highly prejudiced individual can “always tell” when they meet someone who belongs to an outgroup. This discussion is usually framed in the context of antisemitism, with prejudiced people insisting they can always tell when someone is Jewish, that it is impossible to hide.

There is also a section in the discussion chapters of the book about low-scoring individuals - people who are strongly anti-prejudice (or anti-antisemites, as the authors sometimes call them). These people are not just non-bigoted, but take a conscious stance against bigotry and respond with anger when asked leading questions by the interviewers about minorities. like, “what do you think about the Jewish problem in America?” is almost always answered with some version of “there is no Jewish problem,” or “it’s a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem,” which is not an answer to the question so much as it is a rejection of the question’s premise. This is contrasted with the responses from highly prejudiced people, who treat this question as if it’s completely reasonable and outline what they think “the problem” is, though they often attach qualifiers to it (“the Jews aren’t all bad”) to temper their bigotry. Which is to say, there is an understanding on the part of the low-scoring participants of the role rhetoric plays on prejudice - that “just asking questions” is not an innocent, apolitical act, but one that comes preloaded with assumptions on what you think the answers to these questions should be, or the types of answers you think should be produced.

And to place this in another context - the trans panic that is currently dominating right wing discourse - we can observe extremely similar behaviour. This is best exemplified by the common twitter joke of posting a picture of a cis woman and claiming she’s trans, just to watch transphobes reply with all the ways they can “clock” this woman and tell that she is “secretly” a man. and, it’s worth discussing, that bigots frequently and especially define “male” traits as those commonly found in black and brown cis women, that they are especially fixated on white femininity as the measuring stick by which to judge all other women. but we can see the way that this idea of essential difference in humans undergirds all reactionary thought - without essential ontological categories, you cannot advocate for a worldview that argues for the “good” groups to have dominance over the “bad” ones. But they never prove this base assumption! They point to the very fact of variation within human beings - whether that be skin colour, facial features, ability, sexual organs - and claim that these are indicative of some deeper worth (or lack thereof), but proof of that hierarchical view of variation is never provided.

Which is why when bigots claim they’re “just pointing out the facts,” or say shit like “oh so we can’t even say women and men are different now? We have to ignore biology?” this is an inherently bad faith question. They rhetorically marry “variation” with “measure of value,” and force you to now pivot to talking about the fact that like, human beings are different from one another, rhetorically ceding ground to the premise that human variation inherently determines the value of a human being.

And following this logic, the only way for us to achieve a perfectly equal society would be for us to live in a world where every human being looked and behaved the exact same. And like, uh, how exactly would we achieve this? Which set of parameters for appearance and behaviour would we be following? Who gets to decide what those parameters are? The ONLY logical conclusion to this essentialistic thinking is state sanctioned mass death and subjugation programmes, because there is no other way to get rid of ontologically “bad” people. These hierarchies only have value when they are socially and politically enforced. This is why you should be wary of anyone “just pointing out” that human beings have different physical characteristics. They are not pointing out a neutral biological fact about human genetic diversity, or sexual dimorphism.

edit: altered the spelling of anti-Semitism to antisemitism. Apologies for the improper spelling!

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

I am back to complain more but do you ever notice how like. Every pet that isn't a cat or a dog is often labelled "exotic"? It really confuses me. It seems like sometimes a very good domesticated pet and a wild animal that is deeply unethical to keep as a pet both get put into the same category. Idk. I don't like when people do that. I don't think "cats and dogs" and "not cats and dogs" is a very useful way to categorise peoples pets.

I have also seen people suggest that the only domesticated animals are cats and dogs!

ITS RIDICULOUS

humans have NEVER only practiced husbandry with domesticated animals. NEVER.

first off... we had to domesticate things in the first place

second off... most animal husbandry until recently was practical, not companion-based, so *all* pet husbandry now is just very different from the past

third off... many populations of animals have been "tamed" for human husbandry, including things you would never imagine to be possible (Cassowaries! FUCKING CASSOWARIES WERE REARED ON NEW GUINEA.)

fourth off... Human-Animal Bonding (HAB) is in fact a universal thing - we see signs of it across animal groups (and probably other organisms, but anthropocentrism = not acknowledging plants have feelings), with zoo animals and even wild animals bonding with humans in a variety of forms, leading to a release of bonding chemicals in both the human and the non-human animal's brains. idk where this "your pet cant love you" shit came from, because the science shows it happens in the most random animals (fish. fish release bonding chemicals with their humans. fish.)

fifth off... there are SO MANY ANIMALS IN SHELTERS THAT NEED HOMES it is irresponsible to say that people shouldn't have x or y pet if they are able to actually take care of it (admittedly, there are many ACTUALLY exotic pets where that last part doesn't count, but not as many as these anti-pet schmucks say)

sixth off... so. many. things. are. domesticated. chickens! pigeons! ducks! geese! and you know what? a lot of those things DONT MAKE GOOD PETS. domesticated doesn't equal good pet, and non-domesticated doesn't equal bad pet. it's NUANCED. NUANCED. LIKE EVERYTHING.

seventh off... the actual problems that occur in pet care come from not respecting the animal as an individual and as a different kind of individual than yourself, not from an inherent problem in caring for certain kinds of animals. you have to view the human-animal bond as a *partnership*, not a hierarchical relationship, that just happens to include you physically caretaking for the partner. bah. when you think you "own" the animal, have control over it, get to dictate it - that's when you have problems.

eighth off... there are many animals that can *only* survive in captivity, whether its proper pet care, a shelter, or a zoo/aquarium. maybe they're disabled, maybe they were reared by humans, maybe they were traumatized. the list goes on. so many people would just "free" these animals into the wild where they would, ya know, die (remember Keiko, anyone?)

ninth off... anthropocentrism means assuming other animals want the same things as us... I s2g if I see another person say "oh poor pet birdie in a cage it should be free" when I know for a fact these pet birds actually appreciate the safety and security as long as they get enough out-of-cage and bonding time...

tenth off... this all goes back to the fundamental truth that humans are a PART of nature, that we are ALSO ANIMALS, that we are just connecting with other creatures and that is NORMAL, and it is OKAY that we shape the world, the problem is HOW we shape it... like... we are not separate from nature, and thinking that is how we got into this climate crisis in the first place!

G A H

idk what the actual definition of "exotic" pet should be, but "non-domesticated" isn't it

[queeranarchism]

When non-hierarchal decision making breaks down

I already posted this here but I wanted to make it into a post of its own. There are a lot of things that can go wrong in non-hierarchical decision making. This post will be focusing on what coordinators (assigned or informal) can do that can undermine the non-hierachical nature of the group and can put more power in the hands of the coordinator.

Within groups genuinely committed to non-hierarchy, everybody needs to be committed to maintaining a space where it is always socially acceptable to say ‘I think you’re having too much power over this decision making process’ and we all gotta teach each other how to recognize dynamics like that.

Some examples of what to look for:

One person is coordinator for a long time and takes offense at the idea of someone else taking over. Someone taking over would not be seen as a normal rotation of tasks but as a judgement on the coordinator.

Alternatively: a group of close friends rotate key positions and nobody else in the group ever holds a key role.

The coordinator proposes what must be done, instead of letting the group come up with ideas together. The thing the coordinator wants to do ends up being the thing the group decides to do a lot of the time.

Some people talk far more in meetings than others and the coordinator does not take steps to restore the balance and create space for the quieter members to speak.

If the coordinator is sick, the meeting does not happen or no key decisions are made. If anyone else is sick, the meeting carries on as usual.

Meeting dates and times are set by the coordinator alone or by a small group who inform the others.

Access tools such as keys to the meeting space, access to the back account and passwords of the groups email-addresses, website and social media accounts, are not shared with the whole group. 

Important skills, knowledge and networks are not shared. Group members with a less central position can not take over key tasks because they have not been allowed to learn how to do them or build the connections to organize them.

The key decision makers all live in the same house or hang out together a lot, other members find that the plan is already 90% done by the time the actual meeting takes place and they can’t really go in a different direction anymore.

Members that challenge the coordinator(s) are ‘accidentally’ not invited to meetings or meetings are always planned on a day when they have other obligations. 

Meetings in which the coordinator(s) does not get their way are dragged on until members get too tired and agree to the coordinators proposal to get out of the meeting.

Members that challenge the coordinator(s) are told they’d have a bigger part in decision making if they’d do more work, attend more meetings, etc. A few members use the fact that they have a lot of time and a lot of energy to dominate groups and efuse to change their decision making process and meeting schedule to better incorporate members who have a demanding job, or young kids, or who are often low on energy or who can’t travel much, etc. This often ends up putting marginalized people on the side lines, as they often have a lot more stuff on their plate to deal with, and it especially impacts disabled people who can not conform to abled ideas about productivity. At worst, people who can’t keep up with the grueling pace set by the high-energy abled folks face to choice to either burn out or get out.

This is an incomplete list. Feel free to add your own.

None of this means that non-hierarchical decision making can not work. I would argue that it is the only decision making that really works. But we have to keep working at it and recognizing when it's not functioning as intended and we have to be ready to accept the idea that our decision making process needs to be improved upon.