#and I'm going back a decade

[pineau-noir]

Is there a hartwin or kingsman server? I need to talk about my newest obsession omg

[dkettchen]

she would've told them unlike her canon! version who decided not to be an ally smh

[nellasbookplanet]

I do think that referring to Essek as irredeemable for regretting his actions only because he was caught and risked losing his friends is both kind of reductive to him as a character and a misunderstanding of the concept of redemption arcs in media.

A person generally isn't changed because you sit them down and hand them a bunch of political theory to read. They change because their circumstances and relationships do. It's like that guy who was deradicalized because he got a bunch of shrimp and started to care for them. It’s our relationships that change us, because they give us not a logical but an emotional reason to do so.

Caleb explicitly says "these people will change you" (or something along that line; I don’t remember the exact quote). Essek, before the m9, didn’t genuinely care about anyone. The people who would die if a war started because of his actions were irrelevant and abstract to him. Caleb, similarly, also started c2 not really caring about others. He had no interest in taking on Ikithon or the Assembly to save others from going through what he did, too preoccupied with his own trauma and his own goals to care. In that sense, he started the campaign in a similar place as Essek post ep. 97: regretful, but too busy wallowing in his own self-loathing to productively do anything to prevent future harm due to his previous actions.

Being with the m9, being reminded of the importance of other people and realizing that they’re capable of caring for them, is what changes Caleb and Essek both. Of course Essek starts out more concerned with losing the nein than with strangers killed in a war. They’re his starting step, the opening through which he realizes that the people hurt by his actions are real, that he cares, that he has the ability to, if not undo his harm, help stop furthering of it.

[seance]

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE ❧ i bet on losing dogs.

[fun-esta]

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Been thinking about the X-Files recently. A show I have a hazy, but fond memory of.

[green-green-grass]

a decade later and peggy carter still owns my heart

[fascinationstreetmp3]

ahhghh....... armand knowing daniel can't live with him and can't live without him... away from armand daniel will always eventually end up lost and wandering and aimless, and by his side he's frustrated and hurt and angry. in the throes of addiction and being driven towards madness and a rapidly approaching death no matter what he does or where he is, because the damage has already been done. and book armand only has two options at the end: leave him alone, don't come for him again, and watch him die; or finally turn him like he's been begging for years, and risk losing him anyway. but show armand has a third option... because he knows daniel will be able to survive if armand is not part of his life, but only if he never remembers knowing or loving armand in the first place

[kelev9]

obsessed w this dutchie. like girl where are your stripes.

[thelunastusco]

Oh my fucking GOD.

The ISSTD information about CDDs is NOT about system accountability. It is NOT about "well you have to make sure that a demon system member knows they're in a human body and anything they do will also hurt them too". The ISSTD isn't supporting the personhood of system members.

"This translates to--"

Stop.

Y'all are literally jumping through hoops to convince yourself and others that the ISSTD sees systems as different people sharing one body if-that-is-how-someone-identifies when that is flat out not the case. Will some providers be good about it? Sure! There are definitely providers who accept systems as different people if that's what they say they are, but that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what the ISSTD suggests.

The DID patient is a single person who experiences himself or herself as having separate alternate identities

It can be helpful to use the terms that patients use to refer to their identities unless the use of these terms ... would reinforce a belief that the alternate identities are separate people or persons rather than a single human being with subjectively divided self-aspects

the patient is not a collection of separate people sharing the same body

patient should be seen as a whole adult person

You can't "translate" these quotes away as being "actually they mean--" because no, no they don't mean anything else. They mean exactly what they say: that plural folks coming in are not separate people even if they say they are, but one person with fractured aspects of their singular psyche.

Yes, you can agree to call them "people" or "individuals" if that's what the patient (singular) calls them, but they are ONLY alternate identities of ONE SINGULAR person, not their own people, and if calling them "people" makes the patient see them as separate people different from the One True Singular Person you're talking to, you are NOT to call them "people". The idea that a system is actually different people in one body is a false belief.

You are not a collective. You are, in their eyes, One Person. Period.

Yes, parts of the ISSTD sound really close to what the plural community would call system accountability-- the idea that "clinicians must hold the patient accountable for the behavior of any or all of the constituent identities", for example. But that is not system accountability. That is "you are one whole adult person, not separate people, and so accountability must be maintained as if you were one whole adult person regardless of what you believe or circumstances".

Yes, parts of the ISSTD sound close to accepting system members as separate people-- specifically the passage of "countertherapeutic for the therapist to treat any alternate identity as if it were more “real” or more important than any other". But again, that isn't because they see individual system members as their own, separate, whole people sharing a body. It's because "all alternate identities represent adaptive attempts to cope or to master problems that the patient has faced". Meaning, they are pieces of the One True Singular Person that have formed to cope or deal with problems, but are still that One True Singular Person nonetheless. So, sure, they're all "real" because they're all actually that One Person.

And for some systems, that might be how it is! For some plural folks who aren't systems, that might be how it is! But under no circumstance should the plural community allow themselves to be fooled into thinking that the ISSTD actually allows for the plural community to ever see themselves, in any way, as separate people sharing one body. It doesn't, and too many providers do not and will not see their plural patients in that way. Even if they mirror your language and play along. They can and will stop doing so, if they think that your system ACTUALLY considers themselves separate, unique individuals instead of "self-aspects" of One Person.

You can "translate" the passages into anything you want, but that doesn't change what is actually meant. Glossing over the fact that it flat out denies personhood because some other lines sound almost like community rhetoric changes nothing. We can't believe systems are literally talking themselves (and others) into thinking that the ISSTD sees systems as fully realized individuals when it says in plain language it doesn't.

We knew reading comprehension was dead, but c'mon.

What horrifies us is the potential that younger or less savvy systems will see that shit, accept it, and then walk into a therapist's office thinking "oh the ISSTD says to accept us as different people if that's what we say we are so it'll be okay". When that sort of thing USED to get plural folks put into mental hospitals against their will. When that sort of thing STILL winds up with systems being discriminated against, and in some cases denied treatment like trans health care.

Most singlets in the psych field DO NOT see you, a system, as different people sharing the same body-- even if they use your language. You HAVE to be careful and screen potential therapists. You HAVE to interview people to make sure that they will respect your system, and treat you/you all as you want to be treated. The ISSTD is NOT your friend, and providers who follow it will by and large NOT be the people you want to see, unless you're the sort of plural/plural system who sees themselves as "subjectively divided self-aspects" of One Singular Person.

The plural community has been fighting this bigotry for DECADES.

It has NOT stopped.

[thewalrusespublicist]

hi! really enjoying reading your blog. i've listened to the beatles all my life but only now have i started looking into the more fandom side of things, and reading your interpretations/insights into a huge variety of beatles topics has been super interesting and informative!

as for my question, i've only recently learned how much paul is still like, actively grieving john. (obviously i knew he mourned his death, but john's now been dead longer than he was alive and paul seems just as grief-stricken as he was decades ago.) and something i've been wondering is if he's ever performed his songs that were obviously/highly suspected of being critical of john live since his death? based on much of what i've seen, i imagine he'd have a hard time even looking the fact that he was ever publicly reproachful of john in its face, so to speak. (when considering how wistful and rose-tinted he seems re: john, etc., if that makes sense?)

Hi anon!,

Thank you so much!

I would honestly have to look back at his set lists but to my knowledge, no. I really don't think he'd want to and, to be fair, I don't think there are many songs about John that are that critical and the small pool that are, aren't really suitable for live performances compared to others. Edit: I was wrong, Paul did perform Too Many People in 2005 as part of the setlist and briefly in 2008.

On the slight contrary though, as per the mention of 'mixed feelings' about John in the Lyrics book and other things, I think Paul's grief is intensely complex and that the public only get to see some of it. I don't think he is that upset or regretful about being critical, if you listen to the Salewicz tape closer to the time of John's death Paul says that he could have said an awful lot worse about John and Yoko but he hasn't because he loved John. In the context of the absolute tidal wave of garbage John threw at him, Paul arguably had the sense to not do or say anything really unforgivable so I think his conscious is pretty clear aside from not making up properly. I am not saying that Paul doesn't mean the nice things he says about John publicly (and if any of the anecdotes and stories about him in private are true, these stories are potentially more frequent and intense than you'd expect), but judging from various places and comments he seems to also hold some very difficult feelings about the last ten years of John's life too.

On the grief being so raw, sorry to go on a bit of a tangent but I've been listening to a podcast on grief recently with Anderson Cooper, and it's made me realise that Paul's presentation of grief is a realistic reflection of how intense grief for a loved one actually is compared to how it gets portrayed in the media and how Western culture likes to see it (ie you get like three years and it's done, moving on). A lot of people on that show talk in similar ways to how Paul talks about John (I see signs of them, they talk to me, they're a part of me, the grief can hit me randomly no matter how long its been, I keep things of theirs etc.) With Paul, the level of grief is I suspect how a lot of people actually feel when they lose someone who was extremely dear to them, but his is more on a public stage and so more visible than the standard person's. I do think his grief for John is complicated however by so much: the horror and senselessness of what happened, their unresolved issues, Paul's tendency to bury things deep, deep down, the intensity of his love for people and inability to process the death as 'it's too much' as well as the intense public attention. It's no wonder that the grief still feels so raw and unprocessed.

Paul is also an excellent example of how one's relationship with the deceased continues and evolves over time. Paul hasn't stayed in one place over John's death, his grief has evolved and transformed and I suspect intensified again in the wake of Get Back. I'm glad that by the sounds of it he is coming to a much happier place about it, even if it's potentially more rose-tinted than the reality. But hey, he's in his eighties, if he's going to have this weight of grief forever and if it gives him comfort he may as well focus on all the happy and sunny moments. More than power to him.

[swordscleric]

I think as a result of their indecision, general dithering on every possible decision and inability to provide a single sliver of rationale behind the actions they have taken, I personally don't think we can judge Bell's Hells on whether or not their decisions are moral or not. Have they wishy-washily and passively avoided every hard question that could have been asked of them? Yes; but that speaks to a lack of interesting ideas and a lack of curiosity on their collective behalf in dealing with the scenarios set before them. I think if we judge them on anything it is the consequences of their actions (or inaction). Realistically, I reckon (depending on how releasing Predathos goes) they will be treated in a similar way to how someone like Vespin Chloras was treated by history - a damned fool whose actions lead to the annihilation of civilisations, the destruction of millions of lives and as such has been (rightfully!) condemned by Exandrian history as one of its greatest villains. Our softening of our view as a fandom on Vespin comes from his editing of Zerxus' pact to save the world from the rage of the Primordials. I think his actions, typical of the Age of Arcanum, echo Ludinus' fatal ideological folly in assuming that they would lead to prosperity due to a change in the divine structures of Exandria; Bell's Hells, having followed Ludinus' plan to the letter, now risk becoming as big of villains as Vespin Chloras for even worse reasons - a total lack of imagination and a deep unwillingness to engage with any hard question that would force them to face their lack of interiority as a party.

[uncanny-tranny]

I know other adults like to joke about how much pain they're in, but genuinely, please try to get your pain checked out if you're an adult experiencing it, or at least adapt your life in whatever way lessens your pain.

Your pain deserves to be addressed. Please don't "let" it get worse because you've been told that to grow older is to suffer. No, you aren't being needy or selfish or annoying. Ultimately, you are the one who suffers the most from the state of your health, and it's entirely reasonable to want your health to be up to your standards.

[mod2amaryllis]

do you think you will go back to work when the Child is like, in school, or is it goodbye forever? personally I've never found a job I feel passionate about so I would be happy never working again lol but I feel a little sad for you that you have to pick between passion and parenthood (which isn't a criticism of your choice I'm sure it makes sense).

absolutely leaving the option open down the line but as sad as i am, i think once my kid is physically here, i won't miss work so much. pregnancy is too nebulous,, like my body is working hard but that just translates to needing rest, which doesn't FEEL productive. i like being productive. but I'm not a career guy either. the more I've cut my hours at work over the last few years, the happier I've been.

but yeah, still, i have settled into my passion for vet med. I'm the fucking Guy at work, even with all my pregnancy limitations I'm still the Guy, i asked my manager if they had interviews lined up to replace me and she was just like "you can't be replaced." that level of validation is hard to walk away from. it's given me the confidence that i can be the Guy at anything i choose to do, including being a mom, but it's not as far reaching as helping animals in my community. it's just different. it's also different leaving work when my relationship with it is the best it's ever been, vs 3 years ago when i almost quit cuz things were SOOO bad. and a big part of why the environment is better is a direct result of my efforts over the years, so there's a sense of investment. ah well and like, just,,, any big change is gonna involve grief.

but I'm listening to jose laugh his ass off at baby tiktoks while i pee for the 6th time before bed and i really really really know that home is where i wanna be. just gonna be a little sad at first.

[sainz100]

x

[darehearts]

it's officially my first blogiversary weekend  !!  😌💛