#and not to ascribe too much importance to what is at the end of the day a very heavy handed poem that name drops a nazi

[fleshadept]

[4dkellysworld]

After deciding 'it is done'

This is more of a manifestation themed post (it's a draft from March when I spontaneously felt like writing it but didn't post it) because I felt like it but I'd appreciate if I didn't get any asks about manifestation* (unless I change my mind later) cos I'll share what I can and there's a lot of material available already! You can see my past post on this topic here. For more posts on it, see @4dbarbie-archive and realisophie's posts here and here and there's also some over at @ndjournal in the experience sharing tag.

*Also because I don't want to send mixed messages to the readers of this blog. I see conscious manifestation as a way to challenge & break limitations and concepts from the mind, not to get things in the world (kinda like Neo learning to bend the spoon in the Matrix if you get me lol). The latter will only pull you deeper into ego and the world, which isn't conducive to self-realization (if that's your goal) if you're focused on satisfying ego and the worldly life. If that makes sense and you resonate and agree with that, then we are on the same page but not everyone is and that's okay too, just do what feels right to you. Just sharing my reasoning :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been reading this book called Parallel Universes of Self because I read the author Frederick Dodson had an interesting reality shifting experience. I didn't expect to read info on manifestation but they are pretty much the same. I have a few books of his that I'm skimming through out of curiosity and there's some interesting stuff (I might share some other things later, he doesn't just talk about manifestation, but also consciousness, reality and even non-duality).

I thought I'd share the below excerpt because it's explained really well and might help some others. It's also a nice succinct summary of what Ada and Soph talked about for materialization/manifestation as well. I can remember pretty much 95% of the things I've ever "manifested" were from when I acted the way he described after I had decided "it is done". It's easier to do this for things you don't care about because you just end up forgetting about it entirely and then it shows up and you're like 'oh yeah!! nice'.

In the hours, days and weeks after simply rest in the new viewpoint, rest in the fulfilled reality. This means that you don’t try to “make it happen” because you have already claimed it as real. You don’t affirm, visualize, repeat or wait for it. You don’t hope for it to come in some future. Because you have claimed it as already real you don’t even think about it much either. You don’t ask when, how, where it will show up. Instead you simply do what offers itself to you throughout the day, and this will involve commonplace activities. Daily life continues in a natural manner without neediness or lack. Once in awhile you may want to re-feel the body sense of the chosen reality, and enjoy what you have claimed as true, but often not even that is necessary. Furthermore you needn’t be “acting as if” the desired reality is manifest, for that still implies separation. Simply cease to behave in a way that presupposes that it is not already so. You may refuse to ascribe relevance or importance to any events that seem to contradict your newly chosen reality. From the new viewpoint such events may still exist and come up but they are no longer relevant enough to be reacted to and interacted with. They may be the way things are at the moment, but they are no longer the way you are. The corresponding physical manifestation will appear when you stop needing it, chasing after it, looking for it but are instead willingly and lovingly identified with it…not for the sake of “making it manifest” *, but for the sake of experiencing its joy in the here, now and today. *Because trying to make it happen/manifest reinforces the idea/belief that it isn't

This is the same as what 4dbarbie said about getting ego out of the way or as Lester Levenson said, let go and let God. Just let it happen and stop trying to control the process because the more you try, the more you reinforce the fact that it isn't already so. Basically stop putting in effort once you know it is true, just continue knowing with calm and ease that it is the way you want it. Ada also said here:

If you have thoughts like "I need to say my affirmations", "I need to check my state", you're not living in the end but still desiring. When you're able to look at the thing you desire as being something that was once a dream, but now only a memory - you've entered the state of the wish fulfilled. When desire turns into identity, you know you've succeeded in fulfilling yourself.

Yes we're conditioned to think we need to work hard and put effort to earn things in the world but when it comes to manifesting, this sort of mentality will only sabotage and hinder your success. You can literally just decide you have it and then never look back. This sort of mindset can take a bit of time and practice to get used to because it is not something we're used to but the more you practice, the easier it gets.

Here is an excerpt from an astral projection book (I think it's from The Illusion of Method?) I thought was really apt at describing this too. He's talking about AP but you can apply it to manifesting or pretty much anything as well.

Unless you are masochistic, I ask you to reconsider the painful idea of obsessing about time. Bear in mind that results will come whenever they have to, and counting the minutes won't make the outcome arrive faster. It's best if you just forget about it, and accept that it is something that you can't control. You must be patient—most of the time the desired results arrive immediately after giving up control of time. If you are frustrated and/or are afraid of failure, then it means you believe you are in control—and this translates into the feeling that you are responsible for both positive and negative results. Well then, stop thinking that way! Exempting yourself from responsibility is the best course of action there is. As seen in the previous chapter, those who project on command are the ones who couldn’t care less about AP. But the more you obfuscate yourself, the lesser your chances of success —and trust me, you won’t want to get trapped in that vicious cycle. Astral projection works when you stop worrying about failure because you trust that it will happen, whether you “do” something or not.

It’s the same thing: just in the same way that being hasty for sleep to occur keeps us wakeful and alert, being expectant over the OBE will keep us caged in the physical body. If the mind is constantly thinking about the goal, it can easily enter a state of expectancy* and impatience. In such state, the mind is no longer relaxed because expectancy is a state of unrest. This form of tension is what hinders the outcome—thus, the key to being relaxed (i.e., essentially lacking mental tension) is to forget about the goal entirely. If you don’t have the goal in mind you don’t enter a state of expectancy, and therefore you are free from mental tension. *expectancy is the same energy as trying to make something happen.. reinforcing the idea/belief that it isn't so

So, exempt yourself from responsibility means there's nothing more to do because ego is not in control and can do nothing.

[sweettjrose]

Quick question for you cuz you seem to know very well the little guy

Do you think Mickey has any bad sides? Bad qualities/Habits

Ooh! I was hoping someone would ask this question. It was sitting in my mind for a while. I love sharing my thoughts on this little guy.

I do think it is important to remember that when it comes to characters like Mickey it can be challenging to ascribe specific traits to him since there are so many interpretations with differing personalities. Mickey in the black and white shorts is different from Mickey in the Gottfredson comics who is different from Mickey in the Paul Rudish shorts and etc. So some traits may fit better for some versions than others.

I don't know if I can say I am the Mickey expert. But I do think about him a lot and if I came up a list of what I think are bad habits or flaws that he has, based on how is generally portrayed and my own personal interpretation, I would say:

Stubborn - To start off, I feel like a common flaw for Mickey is his stubbornness. Once he sets his mind on a certain idea or situation, he has a hard time being convinced of anything else. It can be really difficult to change his mind, though not impossible. I don't think it comes from a place of seeing himself as better than anyone though, but rather from his desire to hold fast to what he believes in. And in some cases, it can have beneficial results. Such as when he is investigating some kind of mystery he tends to drop everything else, unable to change focus until he finally solves it. This usually gives him the push to solve problems most people give up on. But unfortunately, it tends to result in him ignoring the world around him which can be frustrating at times, especially for Minnie. Sometimes I think Mickey even uses these situations as an excuse to push aside things he doesn't want to do and focus on something he would much rather do.

Untamed Curiosity - I feel like this is actually an offshoot of his earlier personality. He was much more mischievous in his earlier appearances, but that was somewhat tamed over the years. However, I do think one element that has remained is this mouse's curiosity for the unknown. It seems like Mickey can't help himself but stick his nose into things he probably shouldn't. Whether it is listening to a conversation, checking a locked room, testing out a weird machine, or even following an odd feeling. I also feel like his stubbornness doesn't really help as it seems like once a curiosity is in his focus, he can't let it go. Mickey rarely likes to cause problems, but if his curiosity overtakes him, he usually ends up being a troublemaker. Sometimes this usually leads to him catching a crook. But other times it results in a big mess that he would have to clean up. I do think though that his mischievousness isn't entirely gone and does pop up every once in a while. Especially when trying to get out of things he finds boring or doesn't want to be in. And sometimes he just wants to be a prankster and have fun with his friends and family. Which is funny until things get out of hand.

Overthinks - Mickey is very intelligent and can come up with pretty clever plans when trying to solve problems. Unfortunately, this comes with the side effect of him overcomplicating even simple situations. This is usually why Goofy is such a vital friend for Mickey. Mickey tends to come up with complex solutions while Goofy tends to show the easier option Mickey tends to overlook. I think part of this does come from Mickey being afraid of being wrong and making mistakes, so he tries his best to be as thorough as he can be, which unfortunately can lead to more mistakes.

Lack of Self-Protection - One positive about Mickey is that he cares about others and would stand up to protect them. But unfortunately, this doesn't always extend to himself. He is not a doormat but tends to lean more "Turn the other Cheek" approach when he is the only one getting bullied (unless things go too far or if others get involved). To be fair, it is important to know when to pick your battles, but this tends to lead into other areas as I feel like he doesn't really share his problems and tends to keep personal issues to himself. I personally see him as the kind of guy you really have to pry to get him to talk about what he is feeling as he would much rather bottle it up to not cause any trouble. I also feel like he rarely is one to ask for help and tends to try and solve it all on his own, especially if he is worried that others may get hurt. The issue is, he doesn't seem to worry about whether he would get hurt.

Takes on Too Much - I also feel like this connects to another flaw as he tends to take on too much and constantly puts himself in risky situations. Whenever a life-threatening situation comes up that could help everyone but is extremely dangerous, he is usually the first in line to do it. It feels like Mickey doesn't even consider his own safety or limitations at all. Sometimes it feels like he is overconfident in his abilities and just believes that he will be okay, which works until it doesn't. It also doesn't help that Mickey has a hard time saying "No", so even if he didn't want to do something or knows he is not capable of doing it, he would probably still do it, not wanting to disappoint anyone. He rarely thinks of himself. And seldom considers what would be best for him. Usually, his friends are the ones to think about his safety and needs.

Need to be Perfect - Though I feel like part of the reason Mickey takes on so much is his need to be the hero. He feels like he has to be a perfect, selfless, and brave role model who does everything without a single complaint. I feel like he overexerts himself because he is afraid of what happens if he doesn't. He is afraid of not being needed or wanted. He is usually the underdog, a small mouse in a world with characters twice his size, and if he isn't constantly proving himself people will leave him behind. I also feel like he has a hard time admitting to mistakes (which connects to his stubbornness) because he feels like he can't make mistakes, or that would show that he isn't as capable as people think. I also think this explains why he has more of a heated rivalry with Mortimer. Mortimer somehow taps into his insecurities in the ways others don't. I feel like Mickey is kind of jealous of Mortimer because he tends to be taken seriously (at first) while Mickey usually needs to earn it. I also kind of wonder if he is worried that if he starts messing up, Minnie and the others will leave him for someone like Mortimer, so he feels like he can't mess up. Ever.

Lack of Self Worth - Unfortunately this means that he is very reliant on others for his self-worth. Luckily Mickey is really good at making friends. But he tends to rely on the existence of his friends for his worth. I can imagine that if for some reason they all stopped existing, I don't think he would even know what to do with himself. While he doesn't need everyone to like him. He does need at least one person to like him to help ground him or I can see him going into a deep depression. I feel like he would really struggle with being alone for too long unless there was some hope of being able to be with his loved ones soon.

But yeah these are the bad qualities that I feel like Mickey generally has. There are probably more, especially ones more specific to certain interpretations, but these are the ones I was able to come up with. As nice as Mickey is, he isn't perfect and his insecurities, overthinking, stubbornness, and curious nature tend to get him in trouble. But fortunately, he is also just as capable of getting out of trouble.

I would honestly love to see other people thoughts on this as well.

[ask-an-epidemiologist]

So how do you change an anti-vaxxer's mind, anyway?

First, understand that sometimes, the answer is simply: you can't. Some people are very firmly entrenched in anti-vax narratives, and will become extremely aggressive in response to challenges.

Second, understand that in this case, saying nothing is better than saying the wrong thing. Becoming hostile, or expressing judgment (no matter how well-deserved) is likely to entrench them more into these conspiracies than it is to make them see reason, making them less likely to be receptive to even gentle challenges in future.

Third, understand that change isn't something that happens after a single conversation. It takes repeated discussions, and a lot of building up trust, to start making people change their minds.

So, then, how do you change an anti-vaxxer's mind?

First step: understand why anti-vaxxers feel this way. This can be summed up in one word: fear. Irrational fear, but fear nonetheless. There are a lot of reasons they may have gotten to this point. They may be deeply distrustful of physicians due to past experiences. People of color in the United States are very prone to vaccine hesitancy and refusal, not because of conservative views, but because of the racist history of the medical institution- in particular, the atrocity known as the Tuskegee experiments. Some, particularly those in the United States, are very prone to distrusting the medical-industrial complex, and extend that skepticism to vaccinations as well. Some may have encountered misinformation, such as the infamous Wakefield farce, which convinced them that children were in danger of being autistic (which is still heavily stigmatized) if they became vaccinated. There are also other reasons, but these are the most common.

And how do we deal with other fears people have? Empathy.

How to have an empathetic conversation about this issue:

First, you need to do just that: have a conversation. Ask open-ended questions, and listen to the answers no matter how much they anger or upset you. The most important and most simple: "what are your reasons for not trusting vaccines?" Other good questions are, "why do you feel this way?" "Are you interested in receiving information about vaccines from me?" "How can I help you work through these difficult feelings?" You need to then tailor your conversation according to how they respond.

You need to build trust with the person you are talking to. If you are in a position of privilege over them, particular if you are white and they are black, you cannot attempt to speak over their concerns about bias in the medical community. This also includes disabled people who no longer trust doctors to have their best interests at heart. Empathize with their concerns, don't erase them, and then segue into the facts. "This is an unfortunate reality, and should never have happened to you. May I share a counterpoint about (specific issue), with the understanding that this does not erase the systemic biases in the medical community?" It is worth noting that breakdowns in trust in the doctor-patient relationship are a key factor that leads to the development of antivax attitudes. This person already feels they can't trust their doctors or the government, and they have, in desperation, turned to a community of other afraid people to be heard. If you remember this, you will have a chance here to gain their trust and be an ambassador for vaccination.

Another way of building trust is to emphasize to them that your goals are aligned. They want what is best for them and their kids, even if they are misguided, and so do you. One rhetorical strategy (that is, incidentally, also used by lawyers in jury trials) is to ascribe positive traits to this person, and then challenge them to live up to it. "I know you love little Tommy very much, and want him to be healthy. I want him to be, too. I am sure, since you care for him deeply, you will look into this issue thoroughly."

That last point is also key. You need to start small, as counterintuitive as it might seem. Don't come right out and say for them and their children to get vaccinated; they need to make that decision by themself. Instead, say that you have information about vaccines that you would like to share with them. It is especially good if you have something saved for a particular claim they made. If, for example, they believed the Wakefield study, there are many refutations out there you can show them. If they are concerned about mercury, you can explain that the kind of mercury in vaccines isn't the "bad" mercury that we find in tuna- and even if it was, there is less mercury in the vaccines than there is in tunafish. Keep it focused, and keep it neutral; one claim at a time.

It is very likely that they will respond to you with a study of their own. Read it carefully before responding. "I noticed that the Wakefield paper has since been retracted. Here is a peer-reviewed study that reaches a different conclusion; it seems worth examining."

You need to show that you are actively listening to what they have to say, and that you appreciate them talking to you. "Thank you for trusting me to talk about this." "Thank you for showing open-mindedness." No vague-posting about anti-vaxxers, no eye-rolling, and no distractions while talking to them.

Another key for showing empathy is to make sure you acknowledge the root of each claim. You don't need to repeat it like a parrot- but for example, using the mercury example above, "it is understandable that you fear mercury! Normally, it is a dangerous substance. Thankfully, there are different kinds of mercury, and the one that can make you sick, methylmercury isn't the same as ethylmercury, which is the one found in vaccines."

Don't start right with debunking myths; always begin with an affirming statement ("that must be scary" or "I know there is a lot of information out there; you must be overwhelmed trying to sort through everything!") before pivoting to correcting misinformation.

Keeping your tone positive in nature is also very helpful. You don't have to be shooting rainbows from your mouth/keyboard, but positive statements help build trust and make people more receptive.

Remember that debunking myths is only one part of what you are seeking to do here. If the person you are talking to starts to feel like you only want to hear their thoughts so you can correct them, they will stop sharing them. No one likes to talk with someone who only wants to be right, even if they ARE right!

Unfortunately, these steps may not work. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the person won't be receptive. That's okay. Simply tell them again that you are here if they have questions, and you wish for the best for them and their children. Let them come to you if they change their mind.

And please remember, above all else: while these are important conversations, you are never obligated to accept verbal abuse. You have a right to have your boundaries respected just as much as they do. If the person you are talking to name-calls, uses bigoted language, mocks you, wishes bad things on you, etc, it is okay to walk away. Maybe they'll be ready to hear it one day, maybe not, but you don't need to set yourself on fire to keep anyone warm here.

I hope that this guide helps you if you are interested in discussing vaccine hesitancy and refusal! Please let me know if you need anything clarified.

[ballgame]

I made it long enough ago that I won't bother myself with finding it, but I remember making a post about how I was amused by how, during a Twitch stream, when giving an example of how some people over-scrutinize certain aspects of Undertale, Toby mentioned people looking for smiley faces in things. I found this ironic since smiles are actually a pretty important motif in Undertale, all things considered.

At the time, I was frustrated that I couldn't find a clip of this or the stream itself, but now I have! And I've taken the liberty of transcribing this conversation to the best of my ability.

(For context, Toph is one of the hosts of the stream)

Toph: How does that make you feel, when people ascribe their own sort of meanings? Does that make you happy, or does that make you feel a little weird? Like, "Oh wow, people are twisting what I intended." Toby: It's strange when people read something into it that's not good. I don't even wanna say usually people find something that I didn't intend, because there's so much in this game. Basically, a lot of the time it's like- Obviously there are times where people ascribe things to me that that I didn't intend, like they go really far. But I feel like, when they do that, it's kind of what I wanted, to some extent. I wanted to create something that was so "Undertale" that people wouldn't know what was intended and what wasn't and they could just keep looking deeper and keep thinking "Woah, this keeps going, forever?!" So, I guess to some level, to some extent, that sort of thing is validating. It's only bad when they read into it and they get something weird out of it, I guess. Toph: Okay, any specific examples of getting something weird out of it that are not spoiler-y? Maybe not, maybe that answer is just no. Toby: I don't know, there's people that try and find every secret in the game, so they put random things into spectograms or something. So they take a random audio file from the game and they put into a spectogram and it's like- "Look at this guys! It looks like a smiley face! There's a message here!" Or something. Literally every file that you put in there is going to have a smiley face in it, if it's just random static noise. Toph: Right, right, right! If you look deep enough, yeah. I get that's cool, that people are, y'know, willing to look that deep. Toby: Yeah and some of them still believe it. It's like, woah. What that says is that I've made something where people are willing to believe that I would do that on purpose. So, it feels like a credit to me mostly. Toph: That's really funny- I'm just reminded of Hideaki Anno, the creator of Evangelion. And y'know, people have just written articles, upon articles, upon articles, upon essays of all these religous symbols from that game. And he famously was just like, "Y'know what? Honestly, I just think Christian religous symbols just look cool. But hey, if you guys are into that, whatever. Keep theorizing." But that's fine, I guess I'm part of the experience too. Because if you're- You can go into something and if you can find meaning out of it and have it enrich your life, hey that's cool. We take those. Toby: Yeah and I'm not gonna say that there aren't a ludicrous amount of things in this game that were not intended. Because there are a ludicrous amount of things in this game that are intended. Again, who knows where it begins or ends.

Twitch Link: [X]

[valerileygreen]

Sometimes I just get blown by how much of what Arthur does is motivated by his sense of protectiveness. Even more than his loyalty, though they go fairly hand in hand.

Loyalty means he would never sell or otherwise betray his teammates, nor abandon someone he considers a friend or a job/mission/goal he has already committed to. But protectiveness is his driving force, the real motive to all his hard work behind competitiveness and perfectionism, the thing that informs and shapes how his behaviour and choices during said job. And there are so many instances of it during the movie, how he readily and kindly checked on Ariadne's well-being and tried to reassure her after she was first killed by Mal; how he was the one who tested the new compounds; how he freaking flipped when Eames got shot at even while believing there was no actual danger (though that is symptom of other feelings too); how after all cards were on the table on that first level he immediately sprang up to action to defend the fort and everyone inside; and just about everything that happened in the hotel hallway, his concerned how do I drop you without gravity? and how carefully he handled his sleeping team.

I'm willing to bet, even if it was never shown, that he does all sorts of little things to make the jobs go as smooth as possible and make sure everyone is comfortable. Just look at the warehouse he found, spacious and with a lot of light and well furnished. And he's also very attuned to when the others are flagging and need a break, even though he's crap at following his own advice.

And yes, most of it can be ascribed to his role as a pointman, but I'd argue that it's this basic trait of his, this protectiveness, that drove him to fill in those shoes. It's an extremely important job, research and security, but it's certainly the less glamorous and the most fastidious. I imagine that in normal circumstances, with other teammates, while people would end up being grateful for his thoroughness at the end of a job well done, they would also kind of resent him during the planning stages as he always has questions and finds holes in their plans.

But he took it upon himself anyway. He chose it, preferring to have teammates a little frustrated with him but healthy and safe than the alternative, needing to provide that care for them - maybe because of past trauma when he couldn't protect someone and blamed himself, maybe because he's used to take care of others and actually likes it (the mom friend), maybe because he's just wired this way.

I actually headcanon that he sort of tailored the pointman role for himself, gave it a proper shape and definition, distinguishing it fromother roles, and then it took and spread as an 'official' role after the dreamshare community saw how much smoother things went without having to split research and security among the others.

And maybe he doesn't get to indulge often in other more creative areas of dreamshare even if he has the skill (I love the quite popular headcanon that Arthur makes a fine architect too but filling both roles is too demanding, at least on the bigger jobs we saw him performing), but though he sometimes misses it, it's worth it when the sight of everyone safe and sound puts such a relieved smile on his face.

[halemerry]

I read your meta on the manipulation the Metatron used on Aziraphale, and it was such a great essay laying out every detail. When I watched the end of the episode it was early morning for me and I was super tired and I missed a lot of those details. What did manage to come through in my sleepy mind, was that I was very confused about Why This Happened? As in, I understand now that Az was manipulated, I definitely agree with that analysis, but I don't understand yet if this decision was foreshadowed anywhere in the first 5 and a half episodes. I haven't rewatched the season yet (too busy reading meta lol) but I was wondering if you had any thoughts on that?

I just feel like, other than Aziraphale saying in the first episode that it's nice sometimes to tell someone about something good you've done, now that he's not reporting to heaven, Az doesn't actually seem to care all that much in the present day about his old allegiance. I wonder if maybe that's part of the point? He didn't want Heaven anymore and so he wasn't thinking about it? After all, the show begins with Aziraphale enjoying his new life. As the interviews said, he's living his best life. Good music, good food, and the love of his life.

Because if that's genuinely the case, then perhaps the point of the season is that the soft gentle romance of the first five episodes is Who They Are, and it's just that Aziraphale was rushed and manipulated into something he genuinely did not want even a little bit.

Or maybe he always thought he could fix it, because of the Before The Beginning where Crowley said, "If I was in charge, I'd want people to ask questions." Maybe that planted a seed in Azi's mind. Maybe Azi does want to run Heaven, only in a way that Crowley could be proud of it again. Fix it FOR Crowley. Even though Crowley doesn't want that (and Azi maybe doesn't understand that yet).

I came into your askbox intending to ask a simple question about your thoughts, but I have instead written an essay and asked for one in return. Consider it a quick temptation lol

Temptation accomplished hehe - though a little later than I'd have liked. No though genuinely I love this sort of thing a lot and really appreciate all of it. Anyone please feel free to do this at any time!

But uh so. Since that first meta I've done a lot of stuff breaking down that last scene here and also breaking down Aziraphale and the minisodes from this season here. Both of these operate ascribing to the idea that Aziraphale has been threatened into pseudo compliance on top of the active manipulation the Metatron was doing to him. I'll admit this is the theory I currently favor. But, while that's something I find more thematically interesting and also in more narrative alignment, I do still think there's narrative weight to this on its own.

And I think in the case you've got it dead on with the idea of fixing Heaven FOR Crowley.

Most significantly I think this is viable in the way Aziraphale views Crowley. Like. We know he thinks Crowley is Good and that he has thought this for a very very long time. Arguably his instincts have been telling him this since even before he could consciously put it into words given that even as early as Eden he was being honest with Crowley - a thing he even then did not feel he could do with God Herself. Despite being Fallen, Crowley is safe. Crowley is right. Crowley is Good.

Despite is important here. Because it is notably not and. The lesson being taught here is not that Hell can be Good. In fact Crowley himself actively encourages this idea. I'm not taking you to Hell because you wouldn't like it. My lot don't send rude notes. I need a weapon that could destroy me to keep me safe from Hell. I'm a demon: I lie. A demon could get in a lot of trouble for doing the right thing. I'm a demon, demons aren't nice- You're an angel you can't be tempted. You're an angel - you can't do the wrong thing. All of these things in culmination with the way Crowley talks about his Fall to Aziraphale - I didn't really Fall just sauntered vaguely downward - sets Crowley up as unique in the way he transcends what he is.

Meanwhile Aziraphale has been learning the hard, slow way that the people running Heaven do not necessarily have good intentions and more critically that they are not in alignment with what God actually wants. The problem is the management. The angel who would become Crowley said as much himself.

He has every reason to believe they fix it together too. He now knows that together they can perform archangel tier miracles while they're both actively trying to hold back. He knows that even when they're making mistakes and fumbling through the apocalypse they can help defy the world ending. He knows that they are perhaps the only two beings alive that even remotely understand God's will.

So here's Aziraphale given the opportunity to put himself in charge along with theoretically the single most Good being he's ever met. Of course that's appealing. You could give the person you love the power to create again - something we are explicitly shown at the beginning of this season to bring the angel that would become Crowley more joy and delight than we have literally ever seen Crowley have on screen - and the power to create a world together that actually deserves to have that person? You could undo something that you've slowly been coming to terms with believing should have never been done to him in the first place? You could be Adam, rewriting the end of the world and making it so the Bookshop never burned. All you need to do is change the color of the paint job.

Because he'd never change Crowley. He loves Crowley. Crowley is Good already it's not about making him better. The bit with the Bentley is the scene this season that encapsulates this sort of worldview most. Aziraphale changes the color of the car (which is being presented to us as literally physically linked to Crowley) but not the model. He changes how it looks just like Crowley changes into angel wear without a second thought. Neither change the core of what they are, just the aesthetics. And Crowley is always trying on new aesthetics without letting them change who he is. From Az's perspective why would this be any different?

He doesn't realize that sometimes even if you make it so a Bookshop never burnt that doesn't mean the memory of it doing so ever leaves. You still line the shop with fire extinguishers. You still swap to battery operated candles. The memory lingers as they always seem to do.

Crowley can't ever go back. Won't ever go back. Because the trauma of the Fall draws a clearer line for him both in his own identity and in his worldview than it ever could for Aziraphale who came to his own much more slowly. And because of that it's easy to see a reading of Aziraphale that can't see the specific way what he's saying eats at all Crowley's insecurities because all he can see is what they're capable of together and how that aligns with the greater good. It's all part of God's plan, just like they've always been.

[johannestevans]

watched lovely dark and deep and i'm so grumpy about it

it's important not to overexplain a horror concept because overexplaining or providing too much information can end up removing the fear aspect from your premise

but here it's just like. ok. why would she do that though

if she doesn't want to shoot someone in order to escape, why would she just stay in the woods and let it continue to keep other people? are we to assume that killing a deer is equivalent to a human life - and if so… what about many areas of wilderness, where hunting is permitted? what about the fact that most national parks do allow for some animal death even if not hunting, like necessary deer culling?

especially because this story is explicitly linking itself to and referencing the reddit SAR series and separately paulides' missing 411 work, it seems absolutely absurd to me for the story here to take the premise that the rules of the national park are somehow according to a spiritual law or practice or whatever set by "them" rather than a human thing put on signs to remind people not to litter or to accidentally cause damage to ecosystems within the parks

the problem with some of these films is that they're very attached to a white american's idea of ecology and particularly to like. nature-based spiritualism

and subsequently it ends up like "WELL IF YOU KILL AN ANIMAL… THE FOREST WILL KILL YOU BACK… LAW OF NATURE…" and it's like. no, animals die. humans die. death is fine and normal. humans are part of the broader ecosystem.

if you want as a storyteller to ascribe a higher meaning to humans dying or humans killing, you have to do it for a purpose or with some sort of reasoning in mind - trespassing, spilling blood on specific, sacred ground (not large swathes of wilderness), attach a reason as to why humans are more important than any other animal, particularly any other predator or hunter

because otherwise you end up with this fucking nonsense that's like "mmm mother earth wants us to go vegan because she feels bad for the deer <3" and it's absolutely fucking facile.

[saccharinescorpion]

oh christ i typed up way too many thoughts about the Teal Mask story

spoilers of course

TO BEGIN WITH literally everything here has a big ol’ asterisk with “subject to change” attached to it, i was surprised at how much of a “to be continued” ending the main story had and i’m trying not to get my hopes too high for Indigo Disk, but wowzers

Carmine’s line about tourism… i have a lot of feelings, but the one looming over my head like a fucking sword of Damocles is “did the writers not intend this to have as much weight as i am ascribing to it lmao” because it’s only the one line and GOD i don’t want to be the “reading too much into stories for babies” person all the time but!! But!!!!

(recalls the scene where Nemona talks to you about feeling isolated because of her talent and recalls my feeling of “why was this only in one scene where she flatout looks at the camera and says this”)

well even if it’s not supposed to be “that” important-

1) sure makes the TCG Tournament in Hawaii feel even more bitterly ironic lmao (obligatory yes i know the game writers are not responsible for most stuff that happens in the wider franchise i’m just SAYING it’s ironic)

2) GOSH it sure does make those ugly jokes people kept making about Carmine even grosser than they already were (if you don’t know what i’m talking about, Don’t Worry About It)

As someone on twitter said it feels weird to have this sort of plot point after not exploring it at all in the game with the Hawaii analogue. at the same time i do have to wonder if it was a response to working on those games and doing some thinking. Who can say

God ALL of that was for one line

KIERAN!! Okay, i know i’ve been giving Kieran a lot of shit but his plot progression is genuinely very compelling. recent games have been exploring the “rival who feels inadequate” type of character but this is the first time one has gone off the deep end like this, and i really hope they push it into interesting places

Cutesy shy “oh gosh oh wowzers” pre-development Kieran… in the end i did feel a bit charmed by how sincere he is for the record!

but also i’m genuinely so glad he ended up having Inner Darkness lol

Sorry Kieran i just don’t like it when it feels like the writer is trying way too hard to make me say “i want to protect you”

By extension sorry Wally lmao because he really was the ancestor of this type in the Pokemon franchise

I tried not to take the fact that i really didn’t want the damn Ogerpon too personally lol, this is one of those moments where i really had to force myself to step back and remember that these games are not for me, they are for tiny children who often really do buy into the Gotta Catch Em All thing and probably felt some genuine inner turmoil at this

But god like, please. I have my giant puppy lizard who makes vroom vroom noises. Ogerpon you are so cute but we can never have the bond i have with my bike

Kieran falling to his knees after the last battle genuinely got me, so did him punching the shrine even with the dumb “owie ><” gag afterwards

OKAY talking about the battles damn Kieran and Carmine were tough opponents i had to try Kieran’s last fight like three times (admittedly because i was using my weaker Kitakami team but STILL)

Kieran feeling bad for the ogre was projecting “THIS CHARACTER FEELS LIKE AN OUTCAST” and i picked that up loud and clear, and that was good, but i wish they actually… made him seem like an outcast?

Don’t get me wrong, Kieran definitely has self-confidence issues, issues with talking to others, anxiety issues (possibly), and that can easily make someone feel like an outcast

But i feel like there’s a big difference between that and someone (Ogerpon and her trainer) who is actively shunned and mistreated by the people around them, and i was really hoping for that from Kieran

It’s just the Pokemon thing of finding it hard to depict people really being actively malicious (see Penny and Team Star’s bullies and their enablers all doing their thing off-screen and then leaving off-screen)

But it’s doubly weird because they didn’t have much issue with showing characters in this story being terrible (Carmine)

Carmine!!! Her terribleness was genuinely so entertaining, a lot of the time i was simultaneously laughing and thinking “oh people are going to be SO mad”

But real talk for all my love of Girls Who Suck i do actually kind of get where some people are coming from, she is genuinely very abrasive and unpleasant at times, and though i don’t agree at least i can tell where the character hate is stemming from (unlike some of the absolute batshit stuff i saw about Geeta and Nemona, don’t get me staaaarted)

And speaking of… okay i feel like i’m pushing it even talking about this but i feel it would be dishonest to pretend that i’m not thinking about it

SOOOO the “it’s not like i hit him” line… another case of “did the writers intend this to be as big as it is in my mind,” combined with uhhh writers from a different generation than me, let’s say

For now i will interpret that at face value, but like… damn, i don’t think that reads as you want it to especially in a Pokemon game

Carmine pleaseeeeeee say you’re sorry to Kieran in Indigo Disk please please please i know she apologized for leaving him in the dark but my dearest dream is for her to apologize for being so mean to him all the time. she needs to just treat him better in general. please i will forgive Kieran having to apologize for taking the mask if we can do this please

I know i know cultural differences but we already had Clavell apologize for the failures of the school system, this isn’t THAT big of  a stretch

I am genuinely curious if Indigo Disk will pull a reverse plot twist and reveal Ogerpon’s trainer to be a bad person or reveal that he was the one to attack the Loyal Three first because if not DAMN we’re just going to have some flat out evil Pokemon? that we can potentially put on a team with Ogerpon?????

Ogerpon is a silly lil girl :)

I still haven’t done Perrin’s plot lol

[elizabethrobertajones]

Frog Time

I'm so bad at tagging people so consider yourself tagged if you want to be :)

B A S I C S

Name: Bounding Frog (redacted roe language name because I forgor)

Nicknames: Frog

Age: 18-22 (ARR-EW)

Nameday: 23rd Sun of the 5th Umbral Moon

Race: Hellsguard Roegadyn

Gender: cis woman

Sexuality: Bi

Profession: She has a summer job working with the hippo riders, although that doesn't pay as well as adventuring, so she's looking forward to Dawntrail and doing more than delivery runs.

P H Y S I C A L     A S P E C T S

Hair: maroon and light pink

Eyes: maroon and light pink

Skin: brown

Tattoos/scars: I headcanon the single choice of tattoos per face for roes are meaningful somehow - I chose coming of age, getting her Adventurer Name, and leaving home, so those were fresh porple swoops over her cheekbones in ARR :D I've only known her as long as she's been Frog and looked like this.

The scar on her nose is from being underhand punted like a rugby ball by an older brother back when she was an orb shaped child. Since adventuring the regular healing has stopped her getting too scarred up from any misadventures.

F A M I L Y

Parents: Notable members of their remote mountain community, maintaining an important set of Arcanima wards around an aetherically dangerous geological fault. Of course, they're good at their jobs so this wasn't very scary as an upbringing. They're a lovely couple and make a hell of a bowl of soup. All else I know about them is they're very supportive and Frog writes to them regularly.

Siblings: like six rowdy older brothers. She was very spoiled by this squad of bodyguards tbh. (Ignore the previous comment about one of them maiming her, they DO love her even if they saw her as a cannonball under other circumstances.) A couple of them left to be mercenaries, uncertain if for Garlemald - they don't write home as thoroughly.

Grandparents: Probably, tbh. We're getting out of my limited perception of Hellguard culture and history but I think I can say the remoteness of their village is an excuse for nothing too terrible to have happened to any of them :P

In-laws and other: She was sort of starting to think of Edmont as a potential in-law and he began acting like it after Events so she's acquired some without marrying. He DID also adopt Aymeric informally, so now she's courting him it's coming back around!

Pets: Multiple, even not counting animal sanctuary beasties. Some she drops by to visit where they're being looked after once she'd raised them or sheltered them for a while (the baby hippo was donated to the hippo riders thankfully before he got too large and hungry for example). Others live at the free company house getting spoiled by the staff. The free company is named after the baby tapir who is the best and cutest. :)

S K I L L S

Abilities: In character, she has yet to find something she isn't good at after a couple of false starts. (ooc is much more of a mess depending on my ability) As an all-jobs all-crafts all-gatherers weirdo she's genuinely alarming to contemplate.

Hobbies: crafting/gathering/fishing is more of a wind down respite than a career calling for her. Canonically she's finished the fishing log... ooc I haven't by a long shot :P She also loves visiting bars and pubs across the world that she's visited to drop in on old friends, or go on foodie tours of places she's liberated. They stole G'raha being a foodie traveller in the dawntrail trailer from her actually.

Kinda always wanted to do a in character review of all the drinking establishments in game.

T R A I T S

Most positive trait: determination and everything that went into being strong enough to do the end walk, which did feel like a culmination of all the positive things they ascribe to the WoL. Since she's living the life of box art Meteor with no plot deviations or alterations except what I can put into the downtime and spaces between cutscenes, I can't argue with times when they REALLY show the admirable heart of the WoL.

Most negative trait: She's not going to say no, so if you need a favour just stand near where she wanders by routinely and look forlorn and you WILL get helped to within an inch of your life.

L I K E S

Colors: royal purple, dark reds and deep blues

Smells: fresh baked anything. Probably also the fresh morning smell when she gets up at ass o'clock to do stretches or whatever gross things morning people do.

Textures: G'raha ears >:)

Drinks: black coffee, red wine, milky tea

O T H E R    D E T A I L S

Smokes: tried it with the Vath and hated it. Still has no idea if Fogweed is a drug or not.

Drinks: socially and merrily with a bottomless liver.

Drugs: nothing harder than caffeine and alcohol.

Mount Issuance: her sweet blue chocobo is called Turbulence and threw off everyone who attempted to ride him before that.

Been Arrested: not outside MSQ run ins with the law

[housewarningparty]

my favorite Miorine thing is that she's so laser focused on suletta to an almost comical degree. prospera reveals that she wants to ruin delling's life (like, her dad, who is dying at the hospital) and miorine goes "ok but leave suletta out of this!". near the end prospera goes on a tirade about eri and miorine, pissed out of her mind, says "you have another daugher! suletta, remember??". i love her.

LIKE. YEAH.

I think the show does a really good job acknowledging that 1) Suletta and Miorine both have REALLY different methods of parsing their emotions and expressing themselves and 2) holy shit they're fucking IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER FOR REAL

You really cannot meaningfully analyze these characters and the decisions they make and the way they relate to each other without keeping their toxic relationships with their parents in mind. There's SO much projection going on - Miorine project herself onto Suletta and Suletta projects her mother onto Miorine.

When we meet Miorine she's isolated and miserable and her only concern is to spite her father and secure her own future. She feels at once dismissed by Delling and also oppressed and controlled by him. Suletta and, subsequently, Earth House are the only real connections she's made with other people. It doesn't take very long for her priorities to shift from getting herself away from her father to providing for her groom and gund-arm.

By late S1 she's undergone this massive shift - she's in charge of a project she chose, working with people she cares about. She's got two things she never had before: autonomy and support.

When Miorine hurts Suletta's feelings by trying to take greenhouse duties away from her, by endorsing her spending time with Elan, she is trying to give Suletta the most important thing she can think to give: autonomy. Freedom to choose how she spends her time and with who. It's a great conflict because it's such a revealing miscommunication. By projecting her own feelings and trauma onto Suletta, Miorine misses what Suletta actually needs. And it beautifully foreshadows the conflict in s2.

Bc the turn in s2 is that Miorine needs to reconcile the version of Suletta that she has come to know and care so much about with the Suletta she was confronted with at plant Quetta. Correctly, Miorine identifies that Suletta is being manipulated and controlled by Prospera. But she takes it further - she overlays her own parental trauma onto Suletta. Miorine sees herself and her father in Prospera's control over Suletta. Worse even: to her father, Miorine was a chess piece in reserve. But Prospera isn't holding Suletta back from anything to preserve her though: she's putting her on the front lines. She's using her as a weapon. And Suletta lacks the perspective to see it.

Suletta is, it seems, incapable of conflict. She can't stick up for herself. We see this all the time but especially in the whole lunch fiasco when she decides everyone hates her because she's too sad to ask for food. Miorine, on the other hand, actually has an easier time expressing conflict and disapproval than she does vulnerability. Calling out Prospera for the way she dominates Suletta makes perfect sense because Miorine has been calling her own dad out for the same things pretty much her whole life.

So, ultimately, Miorine deciding that she has the moral right and authority to make decisions on Suletta's behalf is a great piece of character work. The thing she spent her whole life resenting her father for becomes exactly what she does to Suletta.

Suletta projecting her mother onto Miorine is definitely another part of the dynamic. Again, it's something we see most in s2. Right before the sabotaged duel, we see this moment of total cognitive dissonance in Suletta's thinking. Miorine and Prospera come to hold fully oppositional places of importance in Suletta's world. She ascribes basically an equal level of authority to them.

She loves her mom > her mom loves her > her mom would never make choices against Suletta's best interests > whatever her mom says must be right > if it hurts or if it feels wrong, it's because Suletta has to be more mature. And at the same time she loves Miorine > Miorine is smart and capable > Miorine wouldn't make a wrong decision > if she hurts Suletta, it's Suletta's own fault.

After she loses to Guel, Suletta copes by blaming me herself. She doesn't know how to be angry at someone she loves, but she does know how to feel shame for not being good enough. She wasn't the victim of a cruel betrayal, because her love for Miorine means she CANNOT be capable of doing something that bad. It becomes instead a failure of Suletta's - if she has been better, Miorine wouldn't have abandoned her. It's her own fault for losing and for wanting more than she should have in the first place.

It's the exact kind of broken, warped thinking she applies to Prospera. And it's why Prospera is exactly right when she tells Miorine that she too could get anything she wants from Suletta.

This is why I love the reunion so much. It's so explicitly about owning your own actions and allowing the person you love the space and freedom to decide how to respond. Suletta extends her hand. Miorine decides to meet her there.

Suletta chooses to risk herself in the Calibarn. Miorine alone respects her choice enough to raise the permet score, even if she breaks down immediately after.

Anyway wow I'm fully brainsick about these two. Sorry for that long ass rambling reply but oh my god I'm in a chokehold atm

[allgoldenelite]

NOAH New Year show translations

Rather than reposting the screenshots from Twitter here, I'm gonna make my tls an original post here on Tumblr.

bummers ahead, please proceed with care

Ibushi: (tl link)

"I got scammed by a place called C5 Clinic* that I tweeted about before, which has branches in the whole country. Please be careful, everyone.

I think NOAH will release information about my surgery and bone fractures and dislocation and such. I'm sorry to everyone for the inexcusable match. Everything is my fault."

*this clinic specializes in adipose tissue stem cell treatment

Ibushi: (tl link)

"Sorry for the late message. I think there will be a detailed report from NOAH, but I'm letting you know that my left ankle is a mangled mess, and I'll have surgery for the right [ankle] ligament. I think there will be a release [by NOAH] soon.

I'm really, really sorry."

Ibushi: (tl link)

"I've come [this far] with the goal of getting 20 years [in ring career], so I think it might be time soon [to quit] being an active [wrestler]. I still have a lot of contracts and such left so I'll see those through!

I try not to think too much about the negative things or the future and stuff like that, but I have a lot of things [to do] like taking care of my mother, so when it's time I'll talk about it! Don't miss a single match😊 ‼️ "

Jake Lee: (tl link)

"It's not about whose fault it is or anything like that

Everyone awaits you standing in the ring again

That's what I believe."

more under the cut

Marufuji: (tl link)

"Good morning. [The] Ariake Arena [show] was a couple days ago.

I'm going to assume that you understand that as professionals, we have to share perfection with everyone.

I feel sorry to the fans who, spending good money and valuable time, came to watch what could not meet the expectations, if you listen to a lot of the opinions.

I write "a lot of opinions" because there are people who hold a different opinion than that.

I can't write in detail here about the two different sides, but...

I think among the staff there are probably people from either side.

So there are among the wrestlers.

"As professionals, we have to share perfection with everyone": In the end, I've certainly learned a lot from being unable to share that.

[When you're] going for sharing perfection, it's also important to take big risks.

I myself ascribe to both.

But when you gamble, sometimes you fail.

I think as people, we often want to walk the path that's safe for ourselves. I think there is an incredible amount of pressure on those who challenge themselves to taking big risks with shows that they have a responsibility for because many other people aside from themselves are involved.

I want to convey my thanks to those people. And at the same time, I want to urge [everyone] to work hard so that we, based on what happened, change the things we can change and head for a brighter future.

There have been a lot of developments on the part of the wrestlers as well, so I think it'll be exciting as long as everyone can keep their professionalism.

I wasn't able to watch New Japan's Tokyo Dome show yesterday, but the news were everywhere.

In the end it is frustrating.

And also I, you know [...]

I wasn't able to show what I'm made of at all.

I think personally, I have to try and search for something new. That goes for moves and for where I stand as well.

I feel like if I don't, then [my career] is just going to end like with me as a boring wrestler.

Because I'm a guy who does what he decides to do (I [shouldn't] say this myself]...

Look forward to it."

underneath that post was a reply by someone going:

"I agree with the risk taking thing. But what bothers me is, I think Ibushi is under contract with AEW for the time being, however through this failed gamble he got injured and I worry about how the other side [AEW] is going to react to that. Looking at it that way, I think I can't agree with a gamble that involves a wrestler from another promotion."

and then someone else replied to that:

"Ibushi came into this already injured so you don't have to write that Marufuji injured him or something, do your research before you post"

and to that Ibushi replied: (tl link)

"I was in the best condition I could've been in to walk 500 meters, not exactly [have a] match. But I gave in to [NOAH?] negotiating with me 3 or 4 times like 'can't you please make it work?' It's my fault."

NOAH: (tl link)

"An announcement about Ibushi Kôta's medical diagnosis

As a result of a thorough examination, Ibushi Kôta, who suffered injuries during the NOAH Ariake Arena show on January 2nd, has been diagnosed with a complex injury of the lateral ankle ligament of the right foot, along with a rupture of the tibiofibular ligament of his right leg.

Regarding the left foot, there will be a separate thorough examination and dedicated treatment.

As soon as we learn more we will let you know further.

We deeply apologize for any inconvenience and concerns we caused the fans and every single person involved, and ask for your understanding and cooperation."

[batsplat]

I’m gonna sound like a boomer but we’re never gonna get any rivalries on par with vale’s feuds or actually any pre late 2010s feuds anymore. and I think social media is definitely one of the major reasons why. now you have to watch what you say bc it’s gonna be immediately broadcasted and some your 253655665 followers or insta or twitter are gonna overreact and go hurl abuse in another guy’s comments. and this is so lame.

right there with you anon. I've been wondering about the 'why are athletes these days so boring' question for years (not in motogp specifically) and one theory I've seen touted is just the increased professionalisation of sports, how much more all-consuming it is from childhood onwards - essentially suggesting athletes today don't have the time to develop a personality or cook up feuds lol. and I think there's probably something to that theory - the current demands of professional sports are inevitably producing some singularly single-minded athletes, far more pr-friendly and moulded into being acceptable to the average consumer... but the other part of the equation just has to be the incredible levels of scrutiny they're subjected to. social media and the rabid fanbases it helps cultivate have to be a part of that

I'm always wary of speaking too definitively about the vibes of an era I wasn't around to experience - obviously controversies back then were also, in fact, controversial, sometimes athletes had to walk back their comments, fanbases certainly were rabid... but it's all a question of degree, isn't it - and how relentless the content consumption is, the ferocity of the news cycle, how inescapable everyone's opinions on everything end up being. if you look at the general tone of the alien era, I just don't think that kind of thing would be possible nowadays. it really wasn't just valentino either, and it's always worth remembering the context of the time in which valentino rose through the ranks. his first major feud, after all, was with a notoriously abrasive rider who was hardly beloved by his non-valentino opponents - and let's not forget how he was physically threatened by two riders after his very first grand prix (to be clear, I am not endorsing threatening seventeen year olds and think it's probably quite good they don't do that anymore). god, if casey said some of the stuff he used to come out with nowadays, and not just about valentino either... the discourse, it would be bad. the jorge/dani feud too would surely have reached cataclysmic levels of toxicity

and there's a lot of people who say, 'well, why don't you think competitors can just be respectful to each other, why can't athletes just be tough in competition and friendly outside of it, why do you need everyone to hate each other' - look, I think it's fun! sports is supposed to be about extreme emotions, heightened emotions about these artificial contests that feel larger than life. in one sense, it really isn't that serious, but on the other hand it obviously couldn't be more serious. more important than life or death, as the cliché goes, or that orwell 'war minus the shooting' quote mat oxley is ever so fond of - but that's only because we ascribe it meaning. which allows it to exist in this fun zone where we can live out these bizarrely dramatic stories that are high on emotional stakes, but for all intents and purposes are rather less high on material stakes (certainly for the fan). it's a release of a kind, sometimes an escape. now, personally, I enjoy my drama with a little bit of edge, of nastiness, which I understand is a personal preference but don't think (as is sometimes suggested) means I am any less invested in the sporting side of the equation. it is the substance of the sport that provides the scaffolding for the human interest stories it generates, but fundamentally nobody would give a shit about sports without the human interest element - and to me, a feud is simply an extension of that principle

another probably controversial critique of the 'why can't everyone like each other' stance is that I just fundamentally believe it to be dishonest. or, look, maybe there are some competitors out there who can feel nothing but warmth and love in their hearts for the opponent who has just beaten them - which is very lovely for them, they're clearly far better people than I am. but I don't buy everyone feels that way and I also don't buy this is something that has changed with a generation or two. obviously, the norms within any given sport end up shaping how the athlete approaches competition, what they believe is acceptable to say or do, or even to think or feel. the emotions might be visceral, they may even resemble hate, but the question is to what extent we allow them to be expressed. if these people don't like each other, if they think uncharitable thoughts towards each other, then, y'know, let them have at it as far as I'm concerned. respect is overrated. and even when it's not just earnestly felt emotions, even when they really are just playing games, attempting to fuck with their rivals... well, that's the other question, is it. is it acceptable to deliberately attempt use 'psychological' tactics, perhaps even intimidation, to win a contest or not? to me, the answer is 'obviously yes' and 'that's how sports works', but I accept not everyone agrees lol

I have particularly little patience with this stance in motogp, I think, because the belief that 'riding in a manner that could physically hurt another human being' is an acceptable element of competition but 'not conforming to social niceties afterwards' is not feels viscerally absurd to me. now, the former just has to be countenanced to some degree or other as part of the moral calculus you are performing in even engaging with the sport, because fundamentally you cannot 'objectively' determine how much risk riders can acceptably put each other in before it crosses a moral line. as far as I'm concerned, then, you might as well have at least some patience for the latter too - we're already morally firmly in the grey here. and intimidation still happens, after all, mind games are still all the flavour... but there's this constant need for subtlety, to keep the nastier side of competing hush hush, that I find deeply tedious. sure, sometimes subtlety can be nice, but at this point it feels less like a personal preference and more an ironclad requirement. and this is the thing, right. sometimes, people are arseholes. professional athletes certainly are. sometimes, just like their fans, they feel violently extreme emotions. especially if they've just been competing. but of course, if every single controversy attracts such out-sized vitriol from fans, a moral referendum on everyone involved, a boiling pot of feverish partisanship... well, it's unsurprising if athletes try to steer clear from all that, isn't it

I also don't think we're going to get another feud that can get mentioned in the same breath as valentino's offerings any time soon, though perhaps next year we can have a good go at it. (ironically, of course, this is still an extension of one of his feuds - you have this built-in vitriol which I reckon at times allows it to worm its way past the filters all of these people have developed.) which, you know, I don't need them to artificially cook up feuds just for the sake of it. beyond broader trends between generations, obviously this is also a question of individual personalities and how they happen to interact with each other. if valentino's feuds are as good as it gets, I can live with that - I do still enjoy the sport plenty, am grateful to valentino for providing me so much good archival material to pour over and dissect, and don't want to ask for too much here. god knows, the current version of motogp is still highly dramatic by the standards of my main sport, and unfortunately I still watch that shit all the time. but it's still a bit of a shame that competitors don't seem to get a lot of choice in the matter these days. and it's a bit of a shame that fans seemingly prefer it this way, going by the vitriol they heap on athletes over any and every offence. it's also a bit of a shame that it feels like there's no real escaping the relentless partisanship of online fan spaces. personally I'm not all that into discoursing about whether things are 'good' or 'bad' and more into establishing whether something's 'interesting' and then thinking about it some more, which doesn't feel like much of an option if you for some reason ever get struck by the desire to interact with other fans online. but it is what it is, y'know. at least we'll always have that time valentino put a curse on a guy

[crazyexdirkfriend]

Okay, I've got a sincere ask, since you've got an insanely bright head on your shoulders and I need you to dissect the hell out of Dirkjake so I can use it as a hand guide to navigating smthn in my personal life but like- in one of your posts you state that Dirk's inability to communicate with Jake is (inherently the problem) where as Jake isn't as much at fault (you tagged it with Half Joking, so im treading lightly here) but i was wondering if you could elborate on that? Unless you were actually joking. If you weren't, I'd sincerely like to know why Dirk's communication issues (in terms of fault) highly outweigh Jake's affinity for denial and ignoring all of his issues outright. Are they not both equally at a disadvantage? Is Dirk actually The asshole for his inability to express himself properly?

Hi! Thank you, thank you I'm glad you think so but my supposedly bright head is mush atm. So my opinion on this rapidly changes wrt to post-canon, but that is my opinion on HS proper more or less. I'm not like, super serious on it bc as I've grown up I'm way less hardline on what was basically a messy teenage relationship. But I was very very opinionated on it when I too was 16. I don't remember when the post you're referring to was exactly so just (vague hand wavey) Basically my point is that in HS proper, Dirk and Jake are both bad at communicating, though people typically attribute Jake's lack of communication as being at fault for the ultimate relationship breakdown, alongside Dirk's clinginess. I don't think any of that causes the relationship breakdown as much as the channels of communication being broken on Dirk's end, so I think it's important to look at how Dirk and Jake communicate before any of that.

Okay so for starters, they don't. Dirk and Jake never have an on screen conversation so all Jake's attempts to communicate with Dirk are scuppered. Jake makes genuine attempts to communicate with the real Dirk throughout the first leg of the alpha kid arc, and is blocked every time. When Jake tries to communicate issues via Dirk proxies, he's shut down entirely. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking when Jake tells Hal about Brobot being "tender." Now, I don't ascribe to the belief that the robot is being inappropriate when he says this. I believe Jake is attracted to Dirk and the robot treating him more gently is sending his mind places. However, Hal's immediate response to this is to shut off novice mode, leaving Jake to fight the robot on the harder mode. Hal is not doing this because he legitimately believes this will make Jake more comfortable; he's doing this to fuck with him. Jake speaks up about an issue and is immediately punished for it because Dirk or Dirk-proxy is defensive -> Jake is less likely to speak up. (Side note: a lot of people say that Dirk is not aware of what Hal is doing and does not condone it. This is contradicted in the text when Dirk says he knows Hal is fucking with Jake and thinks it'll teach him to be less trusting in people, and does not contact Jake back himself. Dirk's issues with Hal interfering with Jake only arise later.)

Since they don't communciate, we don't have much to go on about how their conflict styles mesh aside from via Dirk proxies. Which is basically stuff like the above. So when we get to their largely offscreen relationship, the information the audience really has to go on is that Jake appears to have upped and left without saying anything and is hoping the whole problem really just goes away without having to text Dirk back, and Dirk is frantically trying to communicate with him, and assuming that he's too clingy. We don't actually know if Jake HAS communicated with Dirk. All we know is that he's not currently doing so.

My personal belief is that it's a bit of a leap to think that Jake has gone from being vague, dancing around issues, but bringing them up when the issue is actively on the table (brobot, Jane's crush, etc.) to immediately packing a bag and going to the hills without saying *anything.* I just think that Jake is less likely to press the issue if he thinks Dirk is going to take it the worst possible way, and to the worst possible extreme, and Jake is less likely to press an issue if he thinks he's upsetting someone. If "I think the robot is a bit tender" leads to "Ok I'll put the robot on *waterboards you in the sea and beats you unconscious* mode," then "I think I could use some time to myself for a little while" leads to "Ok, guess if you need space so bad I'll stop bothering you and we can just stop hanging out altogether." And Jake, despite wanting space, is very very afraid of his friends all deciding he isn't worth the hassle and abandoning him permanently. So he'd immediately recant and drop it (until he cracks)

Now since we don't know what happens between Dirk and Jake in that gap in the narrative, I'm conjecturing. I suppose my point is that assuming that Jake doesn't communicate to Dirk is also conjecture, and not the natural conjecture I would make based on his actions up until this point. He's avoidant of conflict, not avoidant of conversation. I also don't think Dirk being immediately receptive to Jake asking for space is in line with his actions up until this point- I believe his response would be the above, or continuously "fixing it" until Jake drops it.

My point basically is that if you take all that in isolation, it's a sad miscommunication between an insecure boy who takes things to extremes and another insecure boy who doubts himself and can't stand up for himself. No one is the asshole for that. But it's not in isolation. Dirk allowing AR to interfere with his communication with Jake shuts down the channels of communication before they ever date. If I remember correctly, Jake says at one point that he can't remember when the last time he spoke to the "real" Dirk was. I just don't think it's overly fair to blame Jake for the culmination of a communication breakdown that was months, if not years, in the making on Dirk's side. It's less that Dirk is THE asshole and the only one who did anything wrong, and more that generally when people say there was fault on both sides, Jake is the one who receives extensive criticism on his communication skills. Now ultimately: I'd take this with a pinch of salt. They're kids and their first relationship doesn't work out, it's not hugely important to ascribe fault one way or the other- this is all semantics tbh. I only really argue the point for three reasons. 1. I think it makes for a better narrative reading of Jake repeatedly trying to communicate with Dirk and getting a blank wall pre-game and that wall ultimately crumbling around Dirk's persona during the game. It reads better as a cohesive story 2. I think viewing Jake as "the problem" skewered a lot of people's reading of later scenes in the text, especially when HS was actively updating pre-gigapause, and the portrayal of Jake as "the one who can't communicate" leads to a wooden reading of the other alphas by association. and 3. Hal gets the blame for a lot of stuff people don't want to put on Dirk, which also skewers readings of Hal's actions later on. Now if we were talking EPILOGUES...then absolutely Jake's issues with denial, avoidance, and lack of communication (and terminally low self esteem) are going to play a primary, if not inciting role, in their ultimate relationship breakdown. But that's a whole other post and I'm aware I'm rambling at this point. Caveat: If this is an issue concerning your personal life though as your ask sorta suggests, I'd triple take this with a grain of salt because this is a very specific HS situation and HS is ultimately a story with a plot and characters have to act a certain way and do certain things bc it makes the story go zoom. Real people who may resemble Dirk and Jake are not necessarily going to have matching issues, communication problems, and robo-clone answering machines

[omegapheromone]

do you have any advice for someone who is struggling to figure out their misce identity?

personally i’ve always just assumed that i’m an omega (because i’m a smaller person and more submissive?) and gone with that, but after thinking about it more i really don’t think i am?

i think that i have a lot of “typical” or “normal” omega traits, but i feel much more like an alpha? so uhh yeah hopefully this isn’t too annoying

Hiya! Not at all annoying, this ask is a great opportunity for me to talk about some topics I've been wanting to talk about for a while, actually! I will write a longer post but here's everything, VERY shortly:

First of all, ask yourself why you ascribe specific traits or features to specific dynamics, and WHY in your mind being small and submissive means one HAS TO be an Omega. Does this mean that absolutely no omega ever can be tall, muscular, strong, dominant? Does this mean that not a single alpha ever can be small or submissive? Where did these mental associations come from? Could it be that you have subconsciously taken the most common and stereotypical fictional traits of "alphas and omegas", even if you know logically it doesn't work in real life, and are trying to force those stereotypes onto yourself? Would you tell anyone ELSE but yourself that they cannot be an alpha because they are small and submissive? Or would you tell anyone else that they cannot be an omega, because they are tall and strong and dominant? Or are these things you're only trying to force on yourself because you think you should fit some stereotype that's completely based on fictional characters?

My tone there isn't meant to sound harsh at all- I go WAY more in detail below, but the post is long, like, genuinely very long, and I'm just trying to summarize the simplest and most important point as concisely as I can in a string of questions to ask yourself- the point in ALL of this is that your identity should be dictated by what feels right and good to YOU, not what stereotype you fit into. People are always more complex than stereotypes, and if you feel more alpha, then that's all you need. Physical traits, personality, sexual preferences, etc- none of these things dictate what your dynamic is or should be.

That being said, I have to give a fair warning. This post WILL end up being LONG.

Another thing- I personally am an omega and have always identified as such, so I'm gonna tag @pack-the-pack and more specifically @miscealignment a.k.a. Null's more misce-focused blog- not only do I find his opinions interesting and generally insightful when it comes to all matters misce, but I think Null will probably have more to say about the alpha part specifically. I'd also like to tag @beta-adjacent for similar reasons! Further down, I'm going to talk about my own personal perceptions of the dynamics, and my point if view as an omega only goes so far, ESPECIALLY when I've never really questioned the fact that I am an omega, even when OTHER people have (more on that way, way later.)

With those out of the way, my actual response will be posted under the cut just so I don't clog anyone's dashboard too much! Once again, prepare for rambling and a LOT of text. Sorry in advance (；´∀｀)

About Misce- Your Mental Image;

a.k.a. let's start with a little imagination. ...or lack of, maybe?

Firstly, I would ask you to evaluate what you think of when you think about each of the dynamics. While you're completely free to your personal interpretation as is everyone, I tend to think that if your mental images look something like "Alpha=dom, top, strong, masculine", and "Omega=sub, bottom, feminine, dainty and emotional" and "Beta=side character", you're not REALLY looking at misce dynamics, rather, you're more thinking of a highly stereotypical and (subconsciously) heteronormative version of omegaverse that is (often) used almost exclusively only for the sake of making mpreg possible in m/m fiction. And to be clear, yet again: Misce is NOT Omegaverse.

This specific way of interpreting alpha/omega/beta dynamics is literally just straight people gender norms repackaged to be forced onto gay/queer people, and is not in any way realistic to 99.99% of irl gay/queer relationships, nevermind people. A lot of misce folks are also some flavour of lgbtq+ anyway, and you can see why it could become an issue to impose heteronormative roles onto people who do not, by definition, fit said roles. Here's what I mean:

"Alphas are tall, big and strong and handsome dominant leader types who provide for the physically weak, dainty and small and traditionally attractive, emotional, submissive omegas. Omegas bear and raise the children, while alphas work and earn money. Omegas are at a social disadvantage because of their dynamic, and alphas often benefit from theirs, therefore it's not unusual to see omegas being exploited by alphas. And Betas are the 'other people' who don't fit these roles, I guess."

Now switch "alpha" to man, and "omega" to woman, and read it again. (And for an extra spicy take, switch "beta" to "lgbtq+ folk"... just saying.) See what I mean?

This is a common portrayal in a LOT of omegaverse fiction regardless of what biological sex/gender the characters are, and I'm SURE you've seen portrayals like this many, many times. In fiction, there's nothing wrong with interpretations or depictions like this! I know some people are unable to read works of fiction critically and think that using portrayals like these is somehow inherently bad, and sure, this specific market is definitely oversaturated as well- but the thing is that for many authors and creatives, applying these existing (male and female) roles and forms of discrimination onto imagined secondary genders such as alphas and omegas is a way to explore gender discrimination, homophobia, misogyny, social issues, etc in writing. But the crucial part is that this ONLY WORKS IN FICTION. Omegaverse is fiction, so it's fine. But Misce is not fiction. Misce is identities and people.

About Misce- Identity, NOT Tropes Or Roles;

a.k.a. let's not base real people identities on fictional stuff (or sexual preferences, for that matter).

You cannot apply those previously discussed concepts to real, living people's identities. This much is obvious. Cathegorizing real people into "alphas are the strong and big and dominant ones", "betas are the in-between ones", and "omegas are the dainty and small and submissive ones" doesn't work and should never be done to begin with.

You also cannot cathegorize people based on their sexual preferences- "Alpha" does not automatically mean they top or dom. "Omega" does not automatically mean "bottom" or "sub". Beta does not automatically mean vers/switch. Sexual preferences are separate from dynamics, and you should not assume anything based on someone's dynamic to begin with. While misce has its sexual aspects to many, it's almost never ONLY sexual. In my experience, if anything, it's a very small part of being misce to most people I know.

This is all to say- your sexual preferences do not and should not determine your dynamic in any way- so whatever you like in bed should not make you feel like you need to identify with some specific dynamic. You could be the most submissive bottom on earth and be an alpha and that would not be weird or "wrong" or "strange". I think just about any misce person could tell you this- anyone who understands that misce ISN'T "just an irl larp of omegaverse", at least.

This is a good opportunity for me to segway into the next part- misce is based on a LOT more than "just" the most stereotypical omegaverse roles. For a lot of people, being misce connects to other forms of non-human identity, whether that's being otherkin, therian, alterhuman, whatever. I'm not actually all that familiar with those things, as I've never bothered getting involved or familiar with said communities. I've never felt human either, but I struggle to figure out the specifics of it so I just don't bother- I'm content like this, and don't feel the need to label it or try to "pick a specific animal" or whatever. I'm happy being just... a being (lol) and that's enough for me.

About Misce- Deeply Nonhuman Humans;

a.k.a. there are two wolves inside of you...

...However, I recognize that with this part- me not really feeling like my misce self is connected to animal-type nonhumanity specifically, I am NOT in the majority.

I believe "miscecanis" and "miscelupus" were the first(?) terms that utilized the now-popularized term "misce" in them, and they specifically refer to canines (any, but often dogs) and wolves. Considering omegaverse itself is also based on that (proven to be unreliable/misinformed) study on wolf pack structures from ages ago, it makes sense that many misce folk would also identify with canine-adjacent creatures- I do too, I just dislike using those labels since that's nowhere near the most notable part of my own sense of non-human-ness. But I digress. A lot of misce folk, especially ones who identify with specific animals, have created their own labels to match the animals they identify most with- miscelapin, miscevulpes, miscefelis, etc. The catchall term for most misce folk, esp ones who feel that their "animal-identifying side" is strongly connected to being misce, tends to be misceanimalis.

Personally, I just say "misce" since a non-animal-attached term doesn't seem to exist at the moment and to me, being an omega isn't necessarily a non-human animal-identity thing at all- but that's just me and I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" way to personally interpret and "be" misce.

All that being said, generally, the misce community tends to lean towards a more instinct-based social model, pack dynamics and emotional/non-verbal etc communication. I think that much is pretty obvious anyway. So, naturally, the dynamics themselves are often interpreted through that lens- "what's the 'pack role' of any given dynamic?"

Generally, everyone has their own interpretation of this, and that's totally alright- misce looks a bit different for every individual, and definitions are fluid enough that the answer you get depends on who you ask. Speaking of which...

About Misce- Dynamics;

a.k.a. this is the part where podcast bros get so confused

So, while I'm going to now list a few generic concepts/roles/tropes/traits that TEND TO be associated with specific dynamics, just know that it's completely fine to interpret them differently and come up with your own stuff for your own identity. Misce stuff is generally kind of vague and definitions depend on the person you ask anyway- Should you ask someone else to explain what kind of traits they associate most with various dynamics, you might get a different answer- what, in my eyes, is a "commonly omega trait" might be a beta trait in someone else's mind, and so on.

These summaries are based on my own personal experiences combined with speculation, and include a lot of generalization in places- if you identify as any of these dynamics and feel that my description of said dynamic is "off" or not accurate to your lived misce experience, please know that I'm not at ALL saying your experience isn't valid, or that your identity as that dynamic is being questioned. As stated before- everyone defines things differently, and there is no right or wrong way to define or BE misce.

Also: I'm going to go through both positive and negative traits for each dynamic based on my personal observations of patterns I've noticed. I WILL include a "worst case scenario" thing about each dynamic, just to illustrate how sometimes traits may manifest as genuinely bad/abusive behaviours. Every dynamic is capable of being abusive and toxic, and there is no specific dynamic that is "more likely to be abusive" than the others.

☽ ALPHAS • [ α ] ☾

"Providers, protectors, guardians and defenders, responsible for the pack staying safe, well and the members having their needs met."

Often, alphas are seen as the more physical/tangible providers, "mirroring" the more emotional/psychological form of nurture provided by omegas (more on that later). This DOES NOT mean Alphas are always "the breadwinners"- it takes many forms. That COULD be working to provide a stable income and housing, sure, but it's equally as possible for an alpha to prefer being a homemaker- making food for the pack, cleaning and organizing, etc can be just as much a form of "providing" as working for an income could be. The distinction here is that where omegas commonly tend to show their care in a more emotional and intangible way, Alphas are (often, not always) the ones who will buy their friends little trinkets and souvenirs that remind the alpha of them, cook up meals to provide and ensure the physical wellbeing of their closest ones, offer to help with menial tasks and so on. It's all about trying to ensure the people closest to them are well, and doing what they can to keep it that way.

Alphas often get a reputation for being protective over their loved ones, and while in fiction, esp omegaverse manhwa/manga/webtoons/etc this tends to get portrayed as "possessive toxic masculinity" type tropes (looking at you, 'Terminus', 'Kiss me, liar' and 'Night by the sea'...) this also has many forms, and isn't at all limited to Alphas only.

Alphas DO tend to feel very responsible/protective over their friends and/or pack though, more than other dynamics do- a sort of "hurt me, I don't care, but hurt my friends, you're dead" type attitude is quite common to alphas in my experience, at least as an omega observer. From what I can tell, Alphas derive a lot of pride and satisfaction from being able to support and lift up those closest to them, and while generally Alphas aren't fond of conflict any more than any other dynamic, they usually WILL go to bat for their friends/pack, argue to ensure their friends are taken seriously, stand up for them, and so on. From what I've seen, at times, it's the Alpha that feels more upset over someone being nasty to said alpha's friend, than the friend is themselves.

Alphas are generally seen as the ones who take care of the physical needs and safety of the pack- "safety" makes it sound like they're out there fighting wild beasts and evil spirits or something, which isn't really the case when you think "modern world", but the point is they often strive to ensure that everyone they love feels safe and comfortable around them, and that sources of stress/anxiety/worry are removed. This could take the form of helping a friend pay their rent when a friend is broke and the Alpha is able to pitch in, or it could be helping someone fill out job applications if they're finding it overwhelming to do alone, or helping a depressed friend clean and cook so that they're less stressed out and are able to recover without the additional stress of having to plan and think about food and nutrition. It could be giving massages to help someone relax, or it could be letting a friend come over just to sleep at their place when the friend is struggling to feel safe on their own.

Basically- some personality traits I've noticed many of my alpha- and alpha-coded friends tend to have, would be that they're generally very caring people who tend to put those most important to them first before themselves. Often Alphas will step in to shield others from injustice and/or perceived threats without hesitation- be that unfair treatment or a stranger being a little too friendly at the club. Alphas may or may not talk about their problems openly, but the ones who do tend to only talk about the problems and how to solve or overcome them, NOT how it has made them feel and if they're feeling alright, but when/if they DO talk about their feelings more honestly, it's basically always a huge sign of trust and closeness. A majority of my alpha friends tend to be either gift-givers who love showing appreciation in the form of presents or homemade food, OR they're silent providers, whose doors are always open (within reason) and will always be there to provide a place for their friends to crash at when said friends just need a break somewhere safe and comfortable. Often, they're both. (Shoutout to my closest irl friend who is very alpha-coded and keeps telling me I can just go to his place to sleep if I want to get away from either family or loneliness at home in a diff city lmao. I always feel like far too much of a burden so I never have, but I genuinely appreciate the offers so much)

Alphas, at least based on my humble observations, have some fairly commonly shared negative traits as well, such as being the type to run themselves to the ground to ensure others are well (especially emotionally- it's a stereotype that Alphas are bad at expressing emotion, but it's somewhat true that often Alphas will try to avoid their own struggles and emotions by constantly rushing to care and provide for others instead of sitting down to feel their emotions lmao). Alphas tend to overwork themselves for the sake of others, and overall share a "neglect self for the sake of others" thing that omegas also have, just. Different flavour.

Some alphas do also tend to have a bit of an ego at times, especially pertaining to things they excel at, and can indeed get jealous of their friends/pack-mates/partners/etc. Occasionally, this manifests as a form of entitlement, often based on the alpha feeling like they've sacrificed so much for the person that they feel like they "deserve something in return". In most cases, it's nothing outrageous- just time, effort, and acknowledgement of all the effort, though I find that sometimes alphas tend to expect others to be able to "read the Alpha's mind" and just figure out what the Alpha needs without ever communicating it out loud (this could be due to a fear of being too "demanding" or too "overbearing" which many Alphas I've known have struggled with, likely specifically because that's often how Alphas get stereotyped, leading to most Alphas trying hard to show they are NOT like the stereotype. I can imagine it's a struggle!).

At times, Alphas may be prone to being sort of control-freaks about certain things. This usually isn't an issue for most, but it sometimes shows through in their personalities as being frustrated if things aren't done "the way they like, when they like". There's various reasons- for some, it's because they're used to doing things one way and feel that it is the best way, for others, it's a feeling of "knowing best", and for some, it's a sense of wanting to have control over how things are done or hoe they happen, because not having that control causes anxiety.

On the darker side of things, some alphas may become genuinely possessive over people, often subconsciously feeling like they're entitled to and feel that they have "claimed" a person, and feel that they should be able to decide things for said person/people. When this happens, it's usually also coupled with some degree of idolization/objectification of whoever is the subject of these feelings, and the alpha may get excessively upset if the actual person doesn't completely match the "mental idealized version" in their head- this could happen for a number of reasons from something as simple as the person deciding to change something about their appearance, to having a personality that doesn't "match" the one the Alpha had "imagined". This can lead to issues with some Alphas being controlling and/or obsessive over everything, and may escalate to worse abuse based on a desire to "control" or "own". This kind of a thing is NOT exclusive to Alphas, anyone can be shitty, but this specific form of it is slightly more common with alphas specifically, over other forms of shitty/abusive patterns.

☽ OMEGAS • [ Ω ] ☾

"Emotional providers and nurturers, often take the role of maternal figures whether symbolically or literally. Caring and loving and very in tune with the emotional needs of those closest to them."

Omegas are often portrayed as more sensitive to pheromones than other dynamics, a.k.a. better at "reading people" and responding to the needs of others before they may even be consciously aware of said needs. Of course, IRL pheromones aren't a thing, but omegas are still very in-tune with the emotional states of others and as such, often, omegas can sense a conflict brewing even before it takes place, and prefer to avoid that if possible- they'd prefer to figure out what the cause of upset is, and address the feelings BEFORE they escalate. While the emotional hyper-awareness is useful in many situations, at times it instead results in excessive overthinking and stressing out over very mundane interactions.

The pack roles omegas are most often portrayed as having are usually things that concern the emotional wellbeing and social harmony of the pack, ensuring that its members are feeling cared for, seen&heard and understood, as well as being the "caretakers" for children/young members in the pack. Omegas are often great listeners, and will do so for hours. They're good at validating and echoing the feelings of others, and many omegas actually derive satisfaction from knowing they were able to help someone feel better- even when there wasn't anything to feel BAD about- just being able to offer emotional validation, comfort, or improve someone's mood tends to make omegas feel happy. In general, many Omegas are able to empathize very deeply, and tend to be good at "seeing things from the perspective of others".

Omegas are often portrayed as especially fond of children and having strong maternal instincts towards kids, both those of others, as well as their own. Stereotypically, omegas are portrayed as wanting children of their own (or, as some like to call them, pups), but this isn't really a "every omega ever" thing. This type of maternal instinct can present in MANY ways, and doesn't always even require children in the equation. Being a "chronically 'mom-friend' type person" can be one manifestation of that, for example, while in other cases, Omegas thrive in older sibling/uncle/etc roles, rather than parental ones.

Omegas are often portrayed as highly emotional/emotion-driven themselves, with a highly developed sense of empathy and compassion. This sometimes manifests as overthinking, anxiety, social exhaustion, hyper-empathy, being easily swayed by the reactions and/or feelings of others, a tendency to seek emotional approval and a likelihood to choose people-pleasing over their own wants and needs. While Alphas are more likely to neglect their emotional well-being, Omegas are somewhat an opposite, and tend to neglect taking proper physical care of themselves in favour of "being there" for someone else. Similarly, while Alphas tend to bottle up or brick-wall their emotions and instead keep physically busy, Omegas tend to retreat and isolate and neglect their bodies when feeling bad.

On the more dark side- which I feel is SO important to talk about as I rarely see people bring this up- Omegas, thanks to their high level of emotional intelligence, are also often very skilled at subtle but devastating emotional manipulation and even abuse. Omegas are great at playing the victim to gain sympathy or pity when it suits them, and are great at appealing to the emotions and feelings of other people to sway them- essentially, omegas tend to make for good liars and manipulators. Omegas are far more likely to utilize manipulation tactics, emotional abuse, self-victimization and mind games, than other dynamics- that isn't to say that alphas or betas are incapable of it, or that this is the ONLY way Omegas may be abusive, nor am I saying that every omega is abusive, obviously- but it's good to keep in mind, especially given the fact that certain medias love to portray omegas as "innocent pure uwu cinnamon rolls who can never do any harm".

☽ BETAS • [β] ☾

Let's be real for a moment and skip the quotation mark description I did for both Alphas and Omegas. There is a reason why I left Betas last, but it's not why you might think.

Both due to the fact that in SO MUCH of omegaverse fiction, Betas are simply nothing but an afterthought in a story about an a/o couple, as well as the fact that people have different ideas of things, a "widely accepted common portrayal of what a Beta is like" doesn't really exist. I feel that it's especially important to acknowledge this specifically because this means that people have VERY different headcanons for betas, both in terms of omegaverse, as well as in terms of what it means to be a beta. It WILL look a little different for every individual beta, likely far more so than it does for the other dynamics. The way I see it, there's both good and bad parts about this- the identity of a beta is less "restricted by" or "bound to" any specific traits or aspects, BUT at the same time, a lot of people may struggle with this as well, potentially feeling like they may not "fit in" or that their personal identity as a beta isn't "enough" or is "too strange". The misce community grows over time, mostly because people who were into omegaverse in fiction come across it and go, "wait, I can just be (dynamic)? Cool!" Which often leads to fundamental misunderstandings, and is an entirely different topic to begin with.

Anyway, what I am getting at is that the more "old school" misce blogs and folk, from what I TEND TO SEE, are far more open to all kinds of beta headcanons and interpretations, while the "new blood" coming in (which, hey, my blog isn't that old either, so)- tends to be people who see betas as "the normal people", basically equivalent to not even having a dynamic at all. So let's start there- let's lose that idea right away. Betas are NOT "no dynamic" or "neutral dynamic". Betas are Betas- and people who are NOT misce, and have NO dynamic identity, are the neutral/no-dynamic ones. Those people are not betas by default.

So, what ARE betas?

Short answer? You tell me.

Longer answer? It's largely up to individual interpretation.

Longest answer? ...

The way I have always seen this is that there are various interpretations of a "beta" and none of them are inherently wrong or right. If you're misce and you identify as a beta in the way they are most commonly depicted as being "the normal people of omegaverse", not having cycles (aside from menstrual ones for afab betas), not having specific traits/skills/etc, and just "being normal (in comparison to alphas and omegas)" then that's entirely valid and just as good as any other interpretation. What matter most is that YOU are happy, feel represented, and have a label you like.

However, if you identify differently as a beta- perhaps you DO have a cycle, whether that is a rut or a heat or a mixture of both, either or, or something completely different- that's also just as good- as long as you feel like yourself. (I didn't spend time talking about ruts and heats in the sections for alphas and omegas, since it's quite straightforward, but I may make a post on that at some point.) For now though- I DO actually believe I can think of at least some commonly shared beta-traits, similar to how I did for the previous sections. They may not apply to every interpretation of misce betas, but that's a given.

So, what traits are common to Betas, then?

In my experience, I find that many of my beta-coded or beta friends, they all share a certain energy that's hard for me to explain. Betas, in my eyes, seem very lively- not necessarily that they are "more energetic" or "happier" or anything, it's more like, they seem to be very "alive" in some strange way I cannot quite describe, but it makes me feel good by proxy. The way I see it, Betas, regardless of how introverted they are in terms of personality, are almost always incredibly easy to talk to, have really comforting presences, and overall make any friend group feel "complete" and "balanced".

This is actually something I noticed very strongly at Pride yesterday! A bunch of my friends are Betas, a good few are Alpha, and a couple are other Omegas (at least, in terms of how I tend to see them), and without fail, Betas always feel like the glue that makes the group feel complete. In MANY cases, they're the bridge between myself and people I've never even met, and their presence lifts everyone's spirits. Betas make groups feel like teams instead of a handful of individuals sharing a space.

Not only that- they're INSANELY resourceful and prepared. As soon as I mentioned my shoes were starting to chafe, two band-aids were IMMEDIATELY handed to me by one of my very beta-coded friends. If anyone is going to survive the apocalypse, I'm betting on the betas in a heartbeat. They're prepared, they know how to keep themselves AND their friends alive, they're good at organizing stuff and delegating tasks to the most appropriate people. Whoever thinks Alphas are at the top and rule the world are WRONG. It's Betas. It's always Betas. If they stopped existing, the world would grind to a halt in less than 12 hours, I'm calling it now. Betas get shit done and make it work, and not only that, they can gigure out what your strengths are, and can figure out which tasks you'd be best at. I'm 100% certain that almost every competent manager, strategist, advisor, expert, scout, spy, organizer, consultant, etc. Is always a Beta. If you want solid advice and good insights with anything practical, ask a Beta. They will either know the answer, or will point you to someone else who does.

From what I've observed, Betas are clever, resourceful, creative and innovative, good at planning ahead AND coming up with ideas on the fly. In terms of pack roles, it fully makes sense to me to view Betas as the leaders and practical thinkers who ensure things work. While Alphas may be the kind to defend the pack from external threats, the Betas are the ones who will help you avoid the threats in the first place. Omegas may be good at predicting and avoiding conflict and resolving feelings that may lead to internal disagreements, but Betas are the ones who will SOLVE conflicts, come up with compromises, and ensure nobody is treated unfairly.

And honestly, this is why I hope misce betas chime in! Please describe your experiences as Betas and of being a beta in misce communities, what it means to you and who you are, etc. In the notes? As I said many times- my observations only go so far.

About Misce- Personal Experience;

a.k.a. this is the part where I ramble even more.

So, I've talked about various stuff, and this is the second-to-last part. In the last part, I will try to provide my personal advice and takes, so skip there if my personal life experiences do not interest you at all. This part is just something I wanted to include, because while I've never personally really questioned my dynamic identity, I want to talk about things that COULD have made me question it, and why.

Omega.

I've always identified as one so strongly that I confidently named my blog "omegapheromone" and refer to myself online as "Gamie", a play on the word "Omega" itself, just rearranged and one letter off. I identified as an omega before I knew what misce was.

But, the people around me haven't been so confident about it.

I don't know if I'll have deleted that post by the time this one is finally done, or by the time you're reading this, whether that's the same day or a year or more from this post's date of posting- but I very recently shared a selfie, a face reveal of sorts. If it's deleted, let me describe myself in it: an androgynous/boyish person with pastel-coloured hair and clothes.

From that selfie, you wouldn't think it, especially with the angle and such- but I'm actually quite tall (167cm/5'5", almost 5'6" or so). Tall, and I have strangely broad shoulders and back for an AFAB person. I'm actually taller and often more "broad" than many of my friends, and in the past, when hanging out with friends, I've heard the "so are you the 'man' in the relationship" type comments when people have mistaken me and any of my friends for a couple. This is how people, even other queer people, tend to view me for some reason. It doesn't bother me TOO much these days, but it used to, and I still find myself wishing I was smaller, shorter, more "dainty" so that people would immediately think "oh, an omega", instead of assuming I'm an "alpha" (or in the case of real world, assuming I'm the assertive and sexually dominant type). I'd like it if people looked at me and, instead of feeling like I'm the type to care for and protect them, saw me as something they want to take care of and protect. It sounds incredibly cliché, but after living 20+ years with this being my experience (being seen as the type that protects ans dotes on others and whatnot), it's just something that's stuck with me. All my exes have approached me with the assumption that I was a dominant type, often also flat out thinking I was a cis dude (somehow, though I guess in the past my sense of fashion wasn't as "cutesy", and instead was more edgy). They weren't turned off by the fact that I flat out had to tell them, no, I'm very much a bottom and you cannot make me top for the life of me, trust me, it WILL NOT be good for either of us. I'd say "lucky me" but the most notable case turned out to be abusive and controlling, so I can't really say that, either. Of course, as I said above, sexual preferences have NOTHING to do with one's dynamic, for me it just happens to coincide that I'm an omega, a bottom, AND for some reason, have a very assertive/dominant aura despite not being either of those things, and as a result, to me, it feels like people are constantly just mistaking me for the "generic portrayal of an alpha".

As much as I complain about feeling dejected that I doubt I'll ever REALLY have the experience where "oh I want to dote on and protect him" is the other person's very first impression/thought, I've made peace with it. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter so much- there's someone for everyone, or however the saying goes.

Still, it's interesting. For as long as I can remember, people have described me with words like "intimidating", saying that they've been afraid to approach because I look like I'm somehow either "too cool" for them, or "wouldn't want to talk" or whatever. Maybe I've built walls that are just too high after getting bullied as a child, or maybe my general detachment and aloofness have made me come across as cold and unwilling to make friends. It's not true though- I do genuinely enjoy meeting people and making friends. To an extent I'm aloof, and at times I will just disappear for a while before acting like no time passed at all, but that's not me trying to be distant on purpose at all.

Anyway, all of that is to say, I've never doubted my omega-ness. I've identified as one since I was a teen and read my first omegaverse fanfics. It's just something I've known. Sometimes I've wondered if I should TRY to force myself to be more of a top and pretend to be an Alpha, but the idea is just uncomfortable. I'd just be lying, both to myself and any potential partner having to experience it- and I don't like how lying to myself feels at all. It's like playing a character I hate, a mockery or parody of who I actually am, and it just makes me feel bad. I refuse to define myself based on the assumptions OTHER PEOPLE make about me, based on my height, build, "vibe" or anything else. If they make an assumption and are wrong about it, that's on THEM for making an assumption. I'm not going to cut my legs off just to be shorter, and I'm not going to strave myself (again) just to seem "dainty and fragile and weak and in need of protection" either. Fuck that, I have internal organ damage from that already, so no thanks, I'm not going to make that worse.

The Advice

the part where I actually answer the question asked.

Alright, so the question bears repeating since I've rambled so long it literally took an entire day to write this post;

Do I have any advice? Some. Most of it I've touched on already. Sit down with yourself openly and honestly, and question what your concepts are based on. Are you forcing yourself to fit a fictional stereotype thar was never meant to suit real life people to begin with, or do you ACTUALLY identify with something? Sit down with what your idea of misce as a whole is, and question what it means to you, what your place in it is, and take time to get familiar with various portrayals of all different kinds of dynamics, not just the most stereotypical ones. Domestic soft homemaker alphas, CEO boss dom omegas, betas who AREN'T just "normal guy in a world of alphas and omegas". Also even if you find a list of "traits that (dynamic xyz) has always!!!!", take your time to look at it. Are there alternative ways to interpret it? Can some traits show up differently? Does "protective" always mean "possessive"? Could it not mean "caring, concerned of their friends' wellbeing, the type to stay up until 4am to ensure a friend gets home safe and texts them, and if they don't, will physically drive over to check on them"? You get the idea.

"Because I'm a smaller person and more submissive?" - I already talked a Lot about this, but why are these things "inherently omega" traits in your mind, anon? Try saying this out loud: "Every omega is a small person, and every omega is always submissive, no matter what." If it feels uncomfortable to state that confidently as fact, then you likely never believed that yourself to begin with, but rather were telling yourself that you "have to be a certain way because you do not fit the stereotype of the OTHER things". You don't have to fit a mold. The molds are based on fiction anyway- you're you. What matters is how YOU feel, what YOU feel most comfortable with, and what label YOU vibe with the most. You don't have to force the identity of an omega onto yourself if you feel more like an alpha, just because you happen to be "smaller and more submissive". Yet again, sexual preferences don't dictate your dynamic at all either. If you feel more like an alpha, then that's all you need. There's no height requirement, this isn't an amusement park ride. There's no minimum muscle mass requirement, this is not a bodybuilder competition. There's no requirement to be dominant or a top or anything at all- that's not even what misce is about. You are you, and what you vibe with is the most important. If that means being a small and more submissive alpha, then congrats on presenting as an alpha!!! You are loved and accepted here!!! 💕

Love you, anon, I hope this helps even a little, and I hope you find what YOU are most comfortable with!

[kaeyx]

Puppyhybrid!Kunikida…I just see him as a not-your-typical-retriever. Why are you asking him to bring you your slippers? Exercise is important, y’know. Walk yourself.

He’s got the softest ears and tail you’ve ever felt, though! I can see him grooming himself almost as much as a cat. He learns your schedule and will adjust it to what is best for the both of you.

Go take him to the lake sometime, don’t get mad with the fish he brings back, he got them all for you! He’s not a fan of mud or dirty water, but he gets over it rather quickly when he gets to go fishing.

I can’t really see how he would be if his owner had an ovulation cycle or feeling really horny. They smell different…maybe he could help them out, it’s starting to get to him as well.

Oooh golden retriever Kuni.... I think a corgi would work too, maybe a lab in general or a husky? He's very insistent on being a companion dog, he's not here to do shit for you he's here to do it with you. Sure he can take a walk on his own, but you're his owner so you're coming with him on every single one. You need to do chores to his specifications and he's picky about his food, but you have the best routine you've had in years and have never been more active. This doesn't mean Kunikida is squeamish though! He has no problem with getting things off shelves or using his strength to move stuff, the duties he's ascribed himself include helping you out, he just refuses to be a maid. You end up feeling like he's the one that's trained you and not vice versa, like what happens with most other pets.