#and a social person especially. it’s horrible

[kadieeverfree]

Tessa James Elliot: Sad headcanons

Trigger Warning:child ab*se,child neglect,misstreatment,angst.

She was extremely pale and thin, a result of the anxiety and stress she felt every time her parents interacted with her.

Her wrists and ankles were always covered in cuts, scars, and bruises from being chained up so often and trying to free herself. It reached the point where even the slightest touch or movement caused her pain.

She developed a strong fear of the sound of metal clashing because it reminded her of the chains. Whenever she heard metal collide, she would panic.

Her father insulted her directly, calling her by degrading misogynistic insults(mostly the W word)

For even the smallest mistake or misstep she made, Louisa and James would punish her with more aggression.

They treated her like a servant and maid, just like the drones. They forced her to clean up after their late-night parties, clean the mess from their galas, set the table and serve dinner, and tidy up the chaos they themselves caused.

She never attended school or high school; her parents had her homeschooled with personal tutors. Tessa is very skilled in chemistry, mathematics, history, and literature, but she was stagnant when it came to handwriting and social squills.

It wasn’t just being chained; they also verbally and physically abused her. They would kick her, punch her, pinch her, pull her hair, slap her, whip her with belts, and hurl deeply hurtful words at her.

Louisa would hit her with her fan as a punisment.

Sometimes they punished her by denying her dinner (luckily, J would always sneak food to her so she wouldn’t go hungry).

There were times when they punished her by not allowing her to bathe, only to humiliate her later for her bad smell.

Once, Louisa gave her a horrible punishment and split her lip just because she caught her eating a cheesecake that belonged to her in the kitchen.

Her four drones—especially J—were the ones who comforted her when she cried from all the abuse. Well, Cyn would just silently watch her cry, still keeping that innocent smile on her mouth.

Her parents wanted to marry her off to the son of their business colleagues so that the Elliot family could produce another generation. This caused Tessa to scream and cry, but they would always silence her. In a way, Cyn saved her from this...

[werebutch]

Every day so many times a day I remind myself that I cannot keep avoiding everything there is to life and every day I am so scared and I say but just one more time. And I’ve been doing this forever. It is so hard anxiety is so much harder than everyone says it is mine is completely ruining my life it’s horrible. It’s so horrible

[skinnypaleangryperson]

Everything has been so pathetically genuinely terribly cringe to me lately, to the point where I don't get joy out of anything anymore, but I'm trying

I'm aware enough to know that this is a side effect of severe depression and stagnance and mundaneity and generally being sick of being alive and hating everything for it

[maxdibert]

And that is precisely the worst reason, because just as they could choose to exercise violence, they could also choose not to, but they opted for the first choice. We can’t forget the reason behind that power: their power came from the lack of consequences for their actions and the certainty that there would be no serious repercussions. James and Sirius knew they could attack Severus because he was someone without a family name, blood status, or financial resources. No one was going to defend him, no one cared about him, he wasn’t important among his peers, and he didn’t have present parents. He had no money, no influence—he was a nobody.

And they weren’t nobodies. They had all of that. James knew his parents would do anything for him, and while Sirius came from a bad household, Walburga would never have allowed her son to be humiliated—even if only to flaunt the power of the Black family and preserve their image. They had a safety net; Severus didn’t. So they could do whatever they wanted to him. If that hadn’t been the case, they would’ve picked on Mulciber or Rosier or any other Slytherin. But they didn’t—because they couldn’t. Those kids came from good families with resources, and their actions would’ve had consequences. So James and Sirius weren’t interested. Sure, they might’ve played a prank on them once or insulted them, but there was no prolonged bullying, no targeted abuse, because if they’d done that, they’d have gotten into trouble. With Severus, they had free rein—and that’s the most sinister part of it all: they went after him because he was defenseless.

They could have chosen not to do it. They could’ve been like many other popular boys and girls with social influence who don’t go out of their way to torment others. They could’ve chosen not to be violent, but they didn’t want to. I was part of a popular group in my school, and there were kids with a lot of money whose parents were important people, and they didn’t go around tormenting anyone. People can choose not to be terrible human beings—especially people like James, who had no trauma or underlying reasons to explain his behavior beyond being a violent, narcissistic jerk.

James was raised in a loving, progressive family, surrounded by care and privilege. His duty was to choose not to be violent, yet he decided to become a despicable, classist bully. Even Sirius has a backstory that makes his sociopathic tendencies somewhat understandable, but James? He’s just a fragile, egotistical jerk who couldn’t stand someone else getting close to the girl he liked, and because that someone turned out to be an easy target, he chose to torture him—even after he “got” the girl. Honestly, I find him a despicable character in every sense.

I also completely agree with everything you said. When people talk about Severus being resentful and violent, they tend to equate him with James and this supposed “change” James underwent that we never see or have any evidence of. But people often forget what I said earlier: James had no reason to be a jerk. His whole life was easy. He was filthy rich, adored by his parents, and after finishing school, he no longer ran into Severus in the halls, so he had no one to torment.

Meanwhile, Severus faced violence at home and at school. He endured teachers (the people responsible for his well-being) ignoring the bullying he suffered, even telling him to stay quiet when he was almost killed. He lived in a house full of supremacists as a half-blood, constantly having to prove he deserved to be there despite his status. He had no financial safety net to fall back on if things went wrong. He was groomed by members of a cult. He was groomed, emotionally manipulated, and had his insecurities and traumas exploited by Dumbledore. Very few people could have endured Severus’s life without ending up taking their own life.

People completely disregard his context. Sure, he had a horrible personality, but his life was horrible too. It’s not like he had many other options.

“I was bullied in school and didn’t turn out like Snape.”

Well, that argument works both ways. I was never bullied in school—in fact, I’d say I was part of a group of people considered “cool,” and not once in our lives did we go around picking on others, either verbally or physically. Nor were we going around drawing attention to ourselves with jokes that only appealed to the intellectually challenged. So, I don’t know, this whole “kids will be kids” thing doesn’t sit right with me because I was in that position, and I was never that childish. Neither were my friends. If we’re going to personalize the argument without considering the characters’ context, then let’s all do it, right?

The ironic part is that the same people who endlessly excuse the Marauders are exactly the kind of people the Marauders would have bullied relentlessly, and the fact that they genuinely don’t see it is… I don’t know whether to find it sad, pathetic, or both.

[icewindandboringhorror]

boy in silly sitting positions compilation

[apricusapollo]

for these past couple of days since the news came out i've been thinking and there are quite a few things that mean the world to me - shadowhunters, teen wolf, DC shows (supergirl, the flash, the legends of tomorrow, arrow), the maze runner - mainly because they're such a huge part of my entire childhood and middle school life that i'm still so nostalgic about.

HOWEVER, one direction has always been a lot more special than the others, simply because my entire fangirl life started with and because of them yk?? the very first fanfiction i read was one direction one, the very first fanfiction i wrote myself was one direction one, the reason why i created my very first twitter fan account (which then led me to finding quite a lot important people in my life later on, including my best friend) back in 2020 account was because of one direction. basically everything you need to do at first to consider yourself a fangirl, in my experience, was because of one direction. and they, all five of them, have meant and always will mean a lot to me.

[spotsupstuff]

How did Gem become the terrifying witch she is today? Was she like that when she was was first booted up?

probably similar case to Murder of Crows

in the case of Crows, a Gen 3, her existence is explicitly filled with emotion cuz that's just how poor Gen 3s are. instead of the usual "going to anger/determination or joy", Crows' programming scanned through the starting info package and went clinical depression mode

Gen 1s are more callouse about emotions, robotical, usually fall back on logic in their first few years. Gem's programming scanned through the starting info package AND interacted with her elders- especially most likely Boreas and Disdain, two most morally complex Iterators currently online (Orion and Spore were sweethearts, Zephyr generally unavailable to anyone but Boreas and Orion)- and her programming concluded that morality is a choice she doesn't have to take to reach her goals- in fact it might actual hinder her progress- and deleted the stuff out of herself

cue typical growing up stuff in a society where death isn't taken all That seriously while still carrying the horrific effects on mental health like irl and you get Gem's brashness, lack of moral sense and readiness to dig through guts of still living things

[goldlightsaber]

Not having the best social skills and not picking up on social nuances is not the biggest crime in the world if you’re nice/your intentions are good — a reminder to myself

[the-voice-of-night-vale]

social anxiety can be really funny in retrospect bc it will have you saying shit like 'is it weird to call a doctor's office and schedule an appointment?"with 100% sincerity and panicking about it as if that's not the silliest thing in the world

[reflectionsofgalaxies]

how do y’all move past the impulsive desires that come with existential crises?

[magentagalaxies]

.

[pepprs]

lol the absolutely MORTIFYINGGGG ordeal of the situation i just got myself into. god

[slimeylee]

why have these last years fucking sucked ass

[mingoosgf]

Am I uninteresting or intimating or pathetic or unsocial or a mix of multiple

[hyperlexichypatia]

As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.

I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted “Young adults are too poor to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own” into “Young adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own.”

I’ve also talked about the misuse of “enabling” and “trauma” and “dopamine” .

And this is a pattern – people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now we’re talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know what’s best for themselves, so they don’t need or deserve rights or money.

Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that we’ve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.

Codependency What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly “helpful” to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though he’s an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, you’ll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html What it’s been distorted into: Being “clingy,” being “too emotionally needy,” wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.

Compulsory Heterosexuality What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines “lesbian” much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point she’s making. What it’s been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall “Women don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them” theme of contemporary discourse.

Emotional Labor What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated “pink collar” jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be “friendly,” flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc. https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ What it’s been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was “It’s unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because she’s not really your friend,” not “It’s unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because that’s emotional labor,” and certainly not “Disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.” Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haver’s bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of “Seeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public” fully accept the bigoted logic of “Seeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public”).

Battered Wife Syndrome What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.

What it’s been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) don’t know what’s best for themselves. I debated including this one, because “syndrome” was a wrongful framing from the beginning – a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a “syndrome.” But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.

I’m not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with – as a cognitive liberty absolutist, I’m unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what “emotional labor” has become, I accept that “Women are unfairly expected to care about other people’s feelings more than men are” is a true statement.

What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be coercively “helped” for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of “Disabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.”

Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for “Marginalized people make bad choices because…” consider stopping and asking: “Wait, who are we to assume that this person’s choices are ‘bad’? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the ‘bad’ choice the best available option?”

[foldingfittedsheets]

My best friend growing up was a matter of convenience over compatibility. The boy across the street was only a year older than me. We had some common interests but our personality types were a terrible clash. I remember fighting with him just as vividly as any peaceful activity.

We were stuck in the same boat though. There was no other kids to socialize with except our odious older brothers, and being together was slightly less wretched than being alone. Most of the time. Our parents joked that we were like an old married couple, always fighting. We’re both gay now.

His family was better off so he brought more toys and video games to the friendship table. My family had more land so we had animals to play with and secret forest clubhouses. We hung out most days but he refused to acknowledge me at school for the sin of being both a year younger and a girl.

He was a terribly sore loser though. When playing fighting games he’d win four out of five rounds but if I won the fifth he’d turn the console off before letting my character do a victory dance. I was fairly prosaic about this. He liked to play them and I went along. When I won I got to suggest other activities.

Now, I mentioned we both had older brothers. His older brother was only three years above him. They scuffled in a normal sibling manner but the older brother was cognizant that he was bigger and stronger and these fights were more what I would characterize as fencing. There was rules and treaties in place.

My older brother was five years older than me. When we fought it was a no holds barred pit fight. I went absolutely feral. Significantly younger and weaker I unleashed my greatest weapon which was absolute berserker tactics. I bit, scratched, went for the balls, I was a menace. I paid no heed to any injury done to me if it let me land another strike. Most of our fights ended in a stalemate of me pinned or him bleeding too profusely to continue harassing me.

I never considered that I was getting more fighting experience than my friend. When scuffles broke out between us without a controller in hand I won every time. He’d jokingly smack me and we’d go down in a ball of flying hair and monkey screeches, but I always ended on top.

The trouble was, I found, that afterward he was no fun at all. His fragile childhood masculinity couldn’t take these defeats from someone younger and more female than him and he’d always sulk home afterward. I didn’t care for that, especially because fighting him was much more fun than my horrible brother.

Then one day I found the secret. I’d whapped him far too hard upside the head and he began to cry immediately. Full of guilt I whimpered that he’d really hurt my knee. He stopped crying. He hurt my knee? Then we were even! He’d hurt me just as badly and therefore the fight was a draw.

I was delighted by this logic. Every fight thereafter I saw no shame in playing up some injury he’d dealt me retroactively. I had no pride to lose and shamelessly acted beaten to avoid hurting his feelings. Our fights were milder as a result, and we both went away feeling elated by the childhood violence rather than defeated.