#and stop being afraid to be more nuanced about your own thoughts on certain topics

[liquidstar]

hi with this post going around i wanna copypaste some replies i left in response to another reblog too. the rebloger was saying that its also okay to enjoy problematic content (which, to be clear, i agreed with on a base level, but felt it needed more context since that can often be code for something much less nuanced)

this one should come with a bit of a disclaimer about whatever the thing youre enjoying is and in what way though. thoughtcrimes arent real, but actively choosing to watch lolicon hentai is a conscious decision. though ik thats not what youre talking abt here, i just feel like its something important to bring up, bc of how these types of discussions can get warped to mean "my frozen incest fanfiction is actually totally ok and if you disagree youre harming ppl w OCD" which i dont want the take away to be. i dont want ppl to use vague stereotypes of my disorder as a talking point to justify that kind of shit- because thats not the point and also doesnt help people with OCD at all! esp with POCD to be lumped together with... that crowed. again ik thats not what you mean im just saying it to clarify the slippery slope before someone takes it there for real! critical thought is important at all turns and such. and people with OCD are not incapable of critical thought, or understanding when media can actually be harmful in the real world. we still know how to separate the two, as should most people. that's what i mean by the response to it mattering more than the act of consuming. we might struggle a bit more with aspects of this, usually in the mental side (ruminations and obsessions) and thought crimes arent real! but actual actions are!

unfortunately, you wont actually see these replies if you check the comments (which is why i added them here). because i was blocked seconds after leaving them. apparently, even though i gave the responder the benefit of the doubt with the whole "slippery slope" of "yeah! fiction doesnt effect reality! lets all draw explicit content of children!" i checked and they... actually did in fact write what seems to be voltron pedoincest fanfiction and had "antis dni" in their bio (i missed that somehow, honestly thats on me). i think they also deleted their reblog, so i doubt people will find them. which is for the best because im not trying to get harassment sent anyones way either.

but this is still exactly what i was afraid of- our disorder being used as a talking point for the same stupid pedantic tumblr discourse that was the issue to begin with. being used as if we're not autonomous people who can make our own choices regarding media consumption, but rather an objectified hypothetical to get a moral one-upping in the black-and-white view of the outgroup. stop that shit. if youre here to do that either way YOU are part of the problem. you are not helping those with OCD this way. and the second that is pointed out you will delete the post supporting them and block the op? fuck you!

and the thing is, in terms of OCD, ANY mentality with a set of morals presented as all-or-nothing black-and-white is harmful. if youre seeing this and thinking it "dunks" on the other side of the discourse, youre missing the point. because the other side does the exact same shit. in this case, the argument with that "pro" crowed is basically "either all media depictions of xyz are good, or all media depictions of xyz are bad, and since i enjoy some depictions of xyz then they must all be good, and anyone who says otherwise is an evil anti" (aforementioned black-and-white thinking).

so with that, you posit the idea that anyone who has any sort of critical thought or issues with certain tropes of depictions of sensitive topics in any piece of media ever, must be an Evil Puritanical Conservative, ergo you have to never voice critique in media or the way it's engaged with. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT BETTER FOR PEOPLE WITH MORAL OCD? YOU ARE JUST AS BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

dont you dare use this shit as a talking point in your pedantic discourse when the whole point of the post is THATS THE ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH! this shit is just as much the root of the problem as what i was talking about in the post. dont use this shit to outright tell us that we cant think for ourselves and have to go by your stringent unnuanced discourse as a guide. thats the issue. thats the problem i was talking about to begin with. YOU just as much are the voice of the fictional tumblr discourser inside our heads, youre just using different buzzwords. and this site continues to be awful to people with OCD. fellow OCDers do yourselves a favor and, like me, get the fuck out of these groups.

look this site really is awful for ppl with OCD so i just wanna reassure anyone that you are not Tainted Forever for consuming a piece of media with questionable content. the fact that youre able to recognize it speaks to your critical thinking skills, which is good, certain depictions should be critiqued. but you dont need to ruminate on it to the point where you begin to feel guilty for simply witnessing gross or creepy writing choices. you dont have to vindicate yourself to the fictional tumblr discourser inside your head, saying that youre now a bad person bc you watched the wrong anime. your actual response to it still matters of course, but thats that and this is this. just seeing it is neutral, you didnt commit a thought crime. its literally fine.

[pbscore]

Gotta be honest, y’all:

I can’t stand people on here who will root and rave about ‘using kindness’ and ‘kindness is better than being aggressive uwu’ but then go and be a WHOLE racist, homophobe, transphobe, ableist, and/or all around biggot.

Like, what kind of hypocrisy is that?? Y’all are aware that people can SEE the fact that y’all don’t live by your own codes, even online, right?

Saying that you’re ‘soft uwu’ and asking people to ‘be kind’ to you in your bio...and then you’re out here calling aces and aros ‘turbo virgins’ or calling trans women ‘monsters’ or telling people of color that they’re being ‘too sensitive’ over something racist you said/did does NOT, in fact, make any sense and I’m still so salty that tumblr allows people like this to thrive.

People who are hypocrites like this CONSTANTLY get praised and have thousands of followers on here because the people of tumblr prefer to SAY ‘nice things’ rather than BE a ‘decent person’.

As long as someone has similar views to you and has a fun ‘uwu aesthetic’ or posts popular memes, y’all will completely overlook these people’s shitty behaviors towards anyone who even slightly disagrees with them.

[needtherapy]

soaring, carried aloft on the wind...continued 6

A story for Xichen and Mingjue, in another time and another place.

The Beifeng, the mighty empire of the north, invaded more than a year ago, moving inexorably south and east.

In order to buy peace, the chief of the Lan clan has given the Beifeng warlord a gift, his second oldest son in marriage. However, when Xichen finds out he makes a plan.

He, too, can give a gift to the Beifeng warlord, and he will not regret it.

The story continues...

Part 1: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / … HOME

It’s on AO3 here if that’s easier to read.

NOTES: This story starts out G but will eventually be E for Explicit.

For translations of the entirely fictitious Beifeng language, you’ll have to scroll to notes. I’m only going to translate something that’s not clear in the text. Sadly, there’s just not any other good way to do it on Tumblr!

Chapter 6

Huaisang returns the next morning, the next afternoon, and brings Xichen his dinner, but he seems distracted and only asks if Xichen is well before leaving. Truthfully, Xichen is relieved to be left alone, and quite glad not to be reminded of the warlord’s existence—or his kisses—any more than necessary.

He writes letters to Wangji—I am safe, don’t worry, please be happy—but each time he tries to ask Huaisang if they can be sent, the words stick on his tongue. If Huaisang says no, Xichen will be disappointed, and if Huaisang says yes, Xichen will be afraid it is only for the chance to read his words. He doesn’t want anyone to see his apologies.

But after three days alone, after reading two long histories, playing every song he knows, hours of meditation, and trying to practice sword forms with a calligraphy brush, he wonders if he’s been forgotten. He is so bored, he considers making an escape attempt just for something to do.

When Huaisang asks Xichen if he would like to ride one morning, Xichen is tempted to hug him with relief. There are already horses waiting outside the door, and it’s almost funny that Huaisang was so certain of his answer.

If Mingjue is younger than he first appeared, Huaisang is older, perhaps even older than Wangji. He’s small, nearly a full head shorter than Xichen, and dresses more frivolously than anyone else Xichen has seen—loose, colorful layers, thick silver rings on three fingers, a bahnzir on his thumb, several gold hoops in his ears, and a bright scarf, ends fluttering behind him as they ride. It is not the wardrobe of a soldier. But although these two masters of the Beifeng army are not as obviously brothers as Xichen and Wangji, with a thick wool hat disguising his light brown hair, it’s easier to see Huaisang’s resemblance to Mingjue, especially around the eyes and mouth. Rather than many braids, though, Huaisang wears only one that reaches the middle of his back. 

Huaisang is also something more than merely a translator. He sings loudly as they ride and jokes with nearly everyone they pass, sometimes translating them, sometimes telling Xichen laughing stories about the men and women they see. But Xichen is an expert at reading minute facial changes, and he sees the deferential nods and glances the soldiers give Huaisang as they ride through the camp. At least twice, a warrior in full armor stops them and has a whispered conversation with the young man.

Xichen notes the looks people give him as well: sly, curious, and occasionally lingering, but not necessarily censorious. 

“They think you’re interesting looking. You’re very pale,” Huaisang mentions after one young woman’s open admiration flusters Xichen. “Don’t worry. No one will ever touch you here. They would invite Ipira’orhew Ikira’s wrath, and not one of the Beifeng would be so stupid.”

Xichen tries the words. “Ipira...Orhew...Ikira? What does it mean?”

Huaisang hums thoughtfully. “Vermillion Sword Master. Or maybe Crimson Sword Lord. It doesn’t exactly translate. In your language, you might call him Chifeng-Zun. It’s his title, not his name.”

“What is his name in your tongue?” Xichen asks.

”Etikuntiga,” Huaisang answers. “Etikuntiga means ‘visualizing success,’ and that just didn’t have a very pretty sound in your language, so I chose something more poetic, as your people like to do.”

“How did you learn my language so thoroughly?” Xichen wonders aloud. Huaisang is right, Xichen’s native tongue, Yuyan, often chooses metaphor and poetics over practicality, but it is a nuance many of his countrymen don’t even notice.

Huaisang laughs, a shout of mirth that turns a few heads toward him. “Zewu-Jun, I fear it would horrify you. There’s no better way to learn a language than in the arms of a willing teacher. Or two,” he grins.

Xichen can feel the red heat creeping up his neck, and he distracts himself by turning to watch a pair of birds circling overhead. Hawks, he thinks, and then is surprised when one of the birds folds its wings and plunges down as though it will crash into the ground only to pull up and land on a man’s waiting arm. Xichen has heard of hunting birds before, but he’s never actually seen one.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I actually have shocked you,” Huaisang apologizes, sounding entirely unremorseful, the amusement still in the back of his throat. “It is true, but it’s also true that I am just very good at other tongues. Zewu-Jun, do you require anyone to assist you? On a daily basis?”

The change in topic is abrupt and startles a laugh from Xichen. “I do not have anything for anyone to assist me with,” he says, and Huaisang purses his lips.

“Would you like me to find something for you to do?”

Xichen counters with his own question. “Am I allowed to leave my tent?”

Huaisang looks genuinely distressed. “Of course! Of course you are. Zewu-Jun, I apologize if that wasn’t clear. You are not a prisoner. You are Ahora'ipa. You may go anywhere.”

He says the word like it is also a title, and Xichen is too embarrassed to ask what it means. 

“Then yes, I would like something to do. I can…” He thinks. What can he do? He has been trained as a musician, as a mediator, and with all the practical knowledge necessary to lead his clan, but only in his own language. His skills do not seem like assets here. 

“I can heal,” he finally decides, and Huaisang beams at him.

“Healing is always valuable, Zewu-Jun. Thank you.”

They eat lunch together in Xichen’s tent and Huaisang leaves, promising to return for dinner. He could never be a replacement for Wangji, but he seems like he could almost be a friend one day. It gives Xichen the courage to unpack one trunk. It does not feel as much like a chain as he thought it would.

Xichen is entirely nonplussed when Mingjue arrives for dinner with a bird riding on his shoulder.

“I saw you watching the munaku today, and I thought you might like to meet one,” Huaisang says, not quite laughing at Xichen’s expression. “Her name is Kitingi. She is technically mine, but she is rather fond of my brother. Probably because he’s taller.”

The bird is barely bigger than one hand span and her feathers are a dark grey, speckled with dabs of white and orange. She tilts her head to peer at Xichen, and he has to resist the urge to tilt his head back at her. 

“Will she be joining us for dinner?” he finally manages to ask, and Huaisang laughs so hard, the bird flutters her wings in annoyance.

“If you don’t mind, Zewu-Jun. She is a very polite dinner guest,” he answers, and indeed, the little bird doesn’t move from Mingjue’s shoulder throughout dinner, occasionally accepting small pieces of meat he hands her, her hooked beak surprisingly gentle.

As with their last meal together, Mingjue has a never-ending stream of questions for Xichen to answer and Huaisang to translate. He asks if Xichen has horses, and Xichen has to admit that he does not ride often, which seems to alarm and concern the man. He launches into a defense of horses and horsemanship that Huaisang can barely keep up with and at least once, rolls his eyes at. Mingjue catches him and pokes him in the arm, but Huaisang is undeterred, smirking at his brother’s grumbling. Their easy and affectionate relationship is so at odds with what Xichen expected from the Beifeng, at odds, even, from his own family.

Something occurs to Mingjue, and he cocks his head curiously like the hawk on his arm, asking a question that Huaisang hesitates to translate. The brothers have a silent conversation about it before Huaisang sighs and apparently gives in.

“What do you love so much, if not horses, Zewu-Jun.”

How can he possibly answer that question? The part of him that is still angry with his father, angry with his clan, and angry with this man for forcing him into a life with no choices thinks that he loved his freedom most of all. He doesn’t know what he has left to love anymore. The words are on the tip of his tongue, but he bites them back.

“I love the sunrise on the mountain,” he says softly. “I love my brother, and I love playing the guqin. I love the feeling of bones knitting together under my hand, of learning something I did not know yesterday, of magic flowing through me. I love to win sword fights. I love to read books and listen to the wind at night, rustling through the jasmine...”

He stops. He’s said too much, and he can’t finish the sentence. He won’t ever hear the rustle of the heavy jasmine leaves behind his house again, or smell their thick, sweet perfume in summer. It is pointless to even think of it. The tent is utterly silent when Huaisang finishes the translation.

Abruptly, Mingjue stands and barks something at Huaisang who shakes his head, not a refusal—more like a reprimand. The look he gives his brother is indecipherable to Xichen, but Mingjue narrows his eyes as though he knows exactly what the younger man is thinking. He repeats his order, and with pursed lips, Huaisang reaches out a hand to Kitingi. She hops gracefully to his fingers, and they leave.

“I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have…” Xichen begins, but he isn’t sure what he’s apologizing for. Being honest? Missing his home? It doesn’t seem like the warlord is angry, but Xichen can’t tell. It’s so frustrating to know every tiny shift in his father’s or brother’s faces, but feel so lost at understanding the huge, sweeping expressions that animate this man.

Xichen hadn’t realized he was within Mingjue’s reach until the warlord pulls him into his arms, his mouth hard and bruising against Xichen’s. Mingjue’s hands burn like hot irons, and Xichen is vividly aware of every single place he is being touched, places he had never once thought were flammable now feel like they will consume him—the nape of his neck, the inside of his knee, the ridge of his hip. 

His legs are suddenly weak, and he braces his hands against Mingue’s chest, clutching his shirt. When he touches Mingjue, the man groans against his mouth, slipping his tongue between Xichen’s lips but...oh...oh, the hand on his back, sliding over his buttocks...it is...the tightening clench in his gut is suddenly more than Xichen can take. He is a traitor to his people as his body is a traitor to his mind.

“No, stop,” he whispers, shoving away the chest he had so easily, so shamefully, fallen against. He’s suddenly afraid that Mingjue won’t understand him or won’t let go even if he does.  

He panics.

He fills his hands with power, the heat familiar like resolve.

He pushes at the same time Mingjue lets go.

Xichen’s gift is a strong one, and although he tries to curtail it in time, it is effective enough. He does not throw Mingjue sprawling across the tent, as he’s capable of, but the man rocks back nearly a full body length, knocking over a chair and dropping to one knee with a grunt. Mingjue looks up at Xichen, blinking dazedly.

Xichen gapes at him and looks at his hands.

What has he done?

Xichen searches Mingjue’s expression frantically, examining the lines of his face for anger or retaliation. He thinks of his uncle clipping leaves from orchid stems. His nephew who has just begun to swing a sword. His brother. His brother. In only a few days, has he managed to destroy the treaty that protects his family? 

Xichen’s hands are shaking and, in fact, his whole body is trembling. A white cloud is filling his eyes and he needs to sit. Regardless of whether or not he killed the man, or even injured him, he just attacked his captor. What warlord would stand for that?

Mingjue touches his chest gingerly and tilts the corner of his lips. He cocks his head at Xichen and takes a half step toward him looking almost...intrigued? Xichen can’t tell. He can’t tell. 

Xichen sways and Mingjue’s expression shifts to concern, which Xichen does recognize. He catches Xichen before he falls, lifting him effortlessly and carrying him to the bed. Laying Xichen down, Mingjue pulls the blanket over him in a movement so smooth, Xichen wonders wildly if this isn’t the first time he’s soothed a violent lover. And then, thinking of himself as anyone’s lover, much less the Beifeng warlord’s, makes him gasp, suddenly unable to breathe.

Efficiently and with no signs of his earlier overtures, Mingjue loosens Xichen’s belt and robes and starts to remove the silk ribbon from Xichen’s forehead. Xichen bats his fingers away instinctively and then remembers that he should have already removed it, acknowledged that his body—his life—belongs to someone else now, even if they aren’t truly married. He tries to turn away, and his lungs protest, struggling painfully for air. Mingjue rests his hand against Xichen’s chest and pulls the dark smoke of Beifeng magic to his palm. It warms Xichen, opens his lungs, and immediately, he can breathe again. His first full lungful of air catches in a sob, and he covers his mouth.

“Aitapaho, aitapaho,” Mingjue croons, smoothing a hand over the top of Xichen’s head. “Aurum auha, et sika pida auha.” (1)

He says other words that sound remorseful and affectionate, still touching Xichen’s hair, but whatever magic he’s using is swiftly putting Xichen to sleep, and he can’t focus on them. Before he loses grasp with consciousness entirely, he covers the hand still resting against his chest with his own.

“Not your fault,” he says, the words blurring together. “Thank you.”

Xichen doesn’t know why Mingjue is being so kind, and the gratitude muddles with regret and self-recrimination. He is not a child. He chose this, knowing what it would mean. He has a duty to make every effort to ensure the warlord—Mingjue—is happy, and his family is safe. A duty. Only a duty.

Tomorrow, he will ask Huaisang for a language instructor. The traditional kind, not Huaisang’s kind.

 Translation Notes:

Aitapaho, aitapaho. Aurum auha, et sika pida auha / Treasured one, treasured one. Forgive me, I was too hasty.

[thestupidhelmet]

I’m trying and failing to write T7S fanfic :(( I feel like I don’t capture the characters voices, you know? Imo you capture them spot on, do you have any tips to do so? Especially for JH, but tips for the other main characters would also be nice...

First, thank you for the compliment! It’s one of the best a fanfic writer can receive. 😊

On your own, you can watch some significant, character-developing episodes for each character and take notes about the kind of language they use when they’re under stress (e.g., angry, sad, frustrated, etc.) or happy. But I’ll give you insight into how I approach each character’s voice.

Hyde

He rarely expresses his emotions verbally without some kind of deflection, misdirection, or concealment. In “Eric’s False Alarm” (4x25), for example, Eric calls Hyde on being the one who stopped Donna and Casey from potentially having sex. He also calls Hyde on one of his true motives. Hyde claims, however, that he “didn’t do it to be nice. I did it because I always wanted to commit a felony. Misdemeanors just ain’t the rush they used to be.”

Eric’s responds, “Well, all I hear is, ‘I love you, I love you, I love you.’”

Hyde is almost all subtext. That is the key to his character. If he does express his feelings directly, it’s very hard for him. It’s like being constipated but emotionally (sorry for the gross analogy, but it’s apt). He’ll have trouble looking the person in the eye or scratch the back of his neck. Or he’ll stick a curse or two while being sincere.

Hyde doesn’t tend to give long speeches. Usually, he’ll say a sentence or two before another character talks or he does some action to break up his dialogue.

He often uses humor, often sarcastic and sometimes cruel, to defuse a tense situation.

He uses the word, “man” at the beginning or end of certain sentences. Don’t do it too much, though, or it’ll feel forced.

Speaking of word choice, this is a key to capturing a character’s voice. For instance, Hyde has never – and would never – say, “Anyways,” with an S. Whenever I read a fic where Hyde says that, I hear the author’s voice, not Hyde’s.

Hyde-specific words include swell and super (when he’s being sarcastic), freakin’ and damn it when he’s pissed or frustrated. He’ll say ain’t instead of isn’t sometimes. He’s called testicles both ‘nads and stones.

Jackie

Jackie is the opposite to Hyde in terms of expressing her emotions verbally. When she feels something, she’s vocal about it. That’s not to say she can’t keep her feelings to herself. She does so when she’s significantly afraid of rejection.

I interpret Jackie’s character as being really insightful beneath her superficiality. Enough episodes depict her this way to support that interpretation, but other episodes depict her superficiality as being more than skin-deep. That’s up to the individual fanfic writer to decide which characterization to go with.

But with mine, I intersperse her insight with moments of egoism and vanity. A prime example of this on the show is from “Jackie Bags Hyde” (3x08). In the midst of offering Hyde a compassionate, accurate analysis of his childhood wounding, she compliments her own beauty.

She often makes analogies when giving advice (to Hyde, to Donna, to whomever). These analogies are created from her own experiences and interests (e.g., styling her hair, having a pet rat, etc.), but they’re apt, nevertheless.

She has a generally romantic view of life, which influences her language, but she also has a more down-to-earth side. So she’ll say both, “Make love,” and, “Doing it,” when describing sex, for example. 

Unlike Hyde, Jackie has said, “Anyways,” with an S, but she mostly says, “Anyway” without the S. She doesn’t curse all that much. When she does curse, she really means it.

Unfortunately, she uses a lot of slut-shaming language. Most of the characters on T7S do. That’s a consequence of T7S’s writers finding that humor funny. I try not to have the characters speak that way unless it’s going to be called out by another character or in a character’s thoughts.

Jackie probably thinks a mile a minute, which sometimes leads her to digress from her main topic while speaking.

Eric

Eric expresses his feelings pretty easily, but he can be hyperbolic. Examples: “This is the worst day ever.” “This is the [FILL IN THE BLANK] in the history of time.”

Like Hyde, he’s sarcastic. According to Red, he’s a smart mouth. Kitty has called him a porky mouth on more than one occasion. In “Burning Down the House” (2x15), for instance, he says about Jackie’s party, “You know what might make this party a little more fun? Sweet death.”

Depending on his mood and whom he’s with, his dialogue can either be compassionate or insensitive and sometimes a bit cruel. Sometimes his wit his biting. Others, it’s corny. E.g., he doesn’t like and resents Hyde’s girlfriend, Jill, in “The Third Wheel” (4x11) and calls her both Terri Tube Top and Yoko.

But he can also be nervous and lack confidence, which will make him hem and haw while talking. He’ll interrupt his speech using, “You know,” several times in one sentence or pauses. E.g., “We … barely knew.”

He sometimes uses antiquated language like m’lady and ‘tis I.

He makes quite a few Star Wars and comic book references.

Topher Grace’s comedic timing and line delivery adds a lot to his dialogue, and it’s possible to emulate that in prose. Again, watch some significant episodes for Eric and take note of his speech patterns and word choices.

Donna

Donna has a quick temper, but she also usually recognizes and owns her mistakes quickly. She has an easy time expressing her anger and frustration, as well as more loving and affectionate feelings. But she’s not a crier. She often expresses her sadness through frustration or anger. Not always, though.

She has a very playful and silly side. She can be as witty as Eric, but in anger she can make some odd metaphors. E.g., “He’s an ass, and you’re an ass – ‘cause the ass doesn’t fall far from the ass tree!” (From “Jackie Bags Hyde”.)

Dillhole and get bent are part of her idiolect. She also peppers her sentences with the filler word like (which should be set off by commas).

Kelso

Kelso’s language is dictated by his impulses, what he’s interested in at that very moment, and his unique POV about the world. He’s very excitable, which leads him to expressing himself as efficiently as possible – in terms of language, not ideas. . E.g., “You gotta see this!” not “You’ve got to see this!”

He comes up with bizarre scenarios and ideas, which is usually adds humor to an episode.

His egoism and narcissism color his dialogue. E.g., “You know what your problem is? I’m too good-looking.”

He’s emotionally immature for his age, and he often speaks like he’s thirteen, not eighteen. (Sorry to the mature thirteen-year-olds out there; I know there’s plenty of you.)

Fez

Fez alternates between using contractions and not using them. E.g., “I do not think you should do that,” vs. “I don’t think you should do that.”

He’ll express his emotions melodramatically. Even when he’s trying to “keep it all inside,” he’s over the top while explaining that this is what he’s doing.

He’ll say, “Ai,” when he’s upset or hurt or worried. I chose the Ai spelling instead of Ay because Fez’s native language isn’t Spanish, despite Wilmer Valderrama being the one portraying him. Just like Jackie’s eyes are brown, despite Mila Kunis’s eyes – at the time of T7S – being two different colors.

On the show, Fez’s dialogue is often used to break the tension with humor.

“You sonuvabitch!” and “Good day. I said good day!” are two of his catchphrases.

He’ll talk about his country, and what it’s like there, without every saying where he’s actually from.

His characterization varies, depending on the season. I’m not a fan of his post-Rhonda personality. In the early seasons, he isn’t a perv so much as someone who doesn’t know how far to push a joke. He’s trying to fit in with his friends, and the cultural differences cause him confusion.  

He can be poetic and romantic.

Red

Red is similar to Hyde and Donna. He doesn’t express his feelings easily, save anger and frustration. To Kitty, however, he can be very sweet. To Hyde, he’ll dispense wisdom (and he practically cried in “Hyde’s Father” [3x03] when telling Hyde he’ll always have a place in his house, etc.). To Eric – well, that is one contentious relationship. 

He was in the navy during World War II and the Korean War, and that colors his POV. He’s not politically correct, but writing that aspect of him … it’s a fine line. He’s not racist so much as xenophobic, which stems from his experiences in the navy and his somewhat extreme patriotism.

Honestly, watch pretty much any episode of his from seasons 2-4, and you’ll understand his voice quickly. The Red of season 1 is quite different, more nuanced  – and I actually prefer it, but alas. That Red makes a guest appearance in “Hyde’s Birthday” (4x23), but he’s more of a hardass post-S1. After season 4, his character begins to become even less nuanced. And during season 7, he’s sometimes very OOC.

Kitty

She’s compassionate and a little cartoony. She’s wise in certain areas and naive in others. She’s smart and savvy – until the show devolves her in the later seasons.

To get her speech pattern and idiolect, “Vanstock” (2x06), “Kitty and Eric’s Night Out” (2x18), ,“Red Sees Red” (3x01), and “Kitty’s Birthday” (3x17) are good episodes to watch.

I hope this helps! :D

[un-tide]

Rupi Kaur Taught Me DIY

(TW for mentions of sexual assault.)

Last year, I wrote a short essay on why I hate Rupi Kaur. Not just why I hate her work, but why I hate her as a writer. Maybe even as a person. I had never (and still haven’t) met this woman, which should have been my first clue that there was something underlying these emotions that probably wasn’t fair to her. But I was comfortable in my hate, even more so when I could articulate everything that was wrong with her in a way that was logical and academic and had nothing to do with me—so much so that I was unable to see that my disdain for this woman did, in fact, have almost everything to do with me.

Growing up as a young girl whose first love was books, I found myself torn between worlds. On my top shelf, I kept some of my favorite series—Percy Jackson, Pendragon, Artemis Fowl. These were books my parents approved of, holding imaginative, fantastical worlds and morals of bravery and friendship. Under my bed were my other favorites—the ones my parents didn’t approve of—The Clique and The Princess Diaries. These kinds of stories were adventurous in a way that was relatable to me, with the struggles of teenage friendship and the perils of mean girls, but they did skip over many of the lessons I got from my more “gender-neutral” books, and they did not have fantastical or imaginative worlds unless they came with a borderline-abusive romance.

Early on, I learned another kind of lesson: as a woman, I will constantly have to choose between books that tell stories that are inspiring and creative, and books that tell stories about people like me.  

When I first heard about a young, South Asian, feminist, second-generation immigrant woman who wrote openly about her identity and her story, it was if my childhood prayers had been answered. It seemed too good to be true—I am also a young, South Asian, feminist, second-generation immigrant woman. If I was ever going to find a poet I could relate to, Rupi Kaur was it. Finally, there was poetry being written by people like me for people like me, and I didn’t have to choose between quality and relatability anymore. Imagine, then, how it felt to open up one of her most famous books and read this: “how is it so easy for you/ to be kind to people he asked / milk and honey dripped from my lips as i answered / cause people have not /been kind to me.”

I was dumbfounded. Surely I had picked up the wrong book. This was a book of 2014’s 25 saddest tweets, and the #1 New York Times bestseller Milk and Honey was somewhere else. Where was the symbolism? The wordplay? The rhyme or meter? Even the line breaks had no apparent significance. And above those basic elements of poetry—where was the deeper meaning? It’s a sad conversation, but one that, rather than sitting in a book of supposed poetry, would fit better on a teenager’s Tumblr post, or somewhere else you could read it very quickly, frown a little, and move on. And I did just that.

I returned the book to the stack of fifty just like it, and from Rupi Kaur's Milk and Honey I re-learned that same lesson I learned as a child: good books do not tell your story. Move on.

I won’t pretend that my knowledge of poetry comes from more a few college classes, but if there’s one thing I learned, it’s that understanding a poem takes time. Poems hold secrets—alternate meanings and obscure allusions—that you can only discover when you read them again and again. Their meanings can be argued and refuted using symbols and allusions to books written one-hundred years earlier and a comma placed here instead of there. Sure, over-embellished poetry sometimes does hide more than it reveals, especially to the young or less educated reader, but Rupi Kaur’s work strips an idea of all layers beneath its surface.

Some call Kaur’s style accessible, but I call bullshit. Accessibility is about delivering complex concepts while breaking the barriers that typically surround them, whether those barriers be based on education, class, gender, sexuality, or race. Tossing a sad thought you had in the shower to a young audience does not break barriers to feminist or survivor literature of any kind.

On a personal level, I do hold some empathy for Kaur. Her poems attempt to address difficult topics like heartbreak and abuse, and I imagine she has been through some trauma that many women are familiar with, myself included. The meaning of the poem I read in the bookstore was not lost on me: sometimes people are kind because they are already acquainted with cruelty. But simply stating something true or shocking does not make it well-crafted, and it certainly does not make it poetry. Much of Kaur’s success comes from stating the obvious in the most plain way possible, taking a complicated idea and hollowing it out into a pretty painted shell.

To put it simply, Kaur’s work is shallow. It seems to lack effort as much as it does depth, and despite her education, it displays little mastery of imagery or symbolism or poetic style. It is less poetry than it is bite-size food-for-thought possibly conceived in a trendy hipster cafe and posted on Instagram as the caption for an aesthetically pleasing but disappointingly grimace-inducing over-sweet cup of milk and honey. Kaur touches the surface of ideas before shying away like a cat from water, and in doing so fails to teach her audience of young women and girls—many of whom might have fallen in love with poetry had they not been alienated by mainstream misogynistic and white-centric classics—how to analyze and write complex ideas that are pivotal to their recovery, their self-esteem, and their survival.

If my school had taught more female-friendly literature when I was in high school, I wouldn’t have begun to hate reading. The books we read that actually included women were traumatic at worst and voyeuristic at best, and my teachers seemed oblivious, perhaps simply starstruck by the stubbornly unwavering fame and brilliance of the classics. Nevermind that 1984 featured a protagonist with a burning desire to rape the book’s only notable female character. Nevermind that the sexual liberalism in Brave New World had my elderly, white, male substitute teaching us that the World State was—despite its female citizens’ complete lack of reproductive autonomy and a suspicious absence of female Alphas—a feminist society. Nevermind that The Handmaid’s Tale, despite actually being a feminist novel, depicts a misogynistic hellscape a little too realistic for comfort. 

The older I grew, the more it seemed that very few of the classics were written with women in mind, and almost none of them seemed to be written for women’s benefit, education, or—god forbid—enjoyment.

Disappointed by the classics, I returned to popular fiction as a teenager, desperate for a story with a protagonist I could relate to, or at the very least did not want to strangle every time they opened their mouth. At my local flea market, which I frequented every first Saturday of the month, I had come across a well-stocked used-book stall. While making my way through The Princess Diaries series dollar by dollar, I stumbled upon a book that I can only imagine was placed in flea market stall that day by the Devil himself just so he could have a laugh: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I won’t give away any spoilers, but I’ll give you one guess what happens halfway through. I am not ashamed to say I stopped reading anything other than The Princess Diaries for some time.

I wish I could say my high school experience was unique. There is a profound need for contemporary literature and poetry that not only does not alienate women, but caters to us specifically. We deserve to read books that do not hurt us more than we already are hurting, that address our trauma but don’t weaponize it against us. We deserve to witness other women powerfully and passionately explore and understand our shared experiences and shared pain. We deserve to learn how to explore these ideas for ourselves. The feminist subjects of Rupi Kaur’s poetry deserve nuance, because the more precisely we are able to articulate our experiences and ideas and traumas, the more understood they—and we—become. Much like I was as a young child, the girls devouring Rupi Kaur’s work are still scrambling for crumbs. She had the opportunity to feed a generation of girls starved for poetry free of white men’s hunger, and she didn’t.

Kaur, at first, seemed to me to be nothing new in a world of successful yet seemingly talentless women who continuously fail and profit off of the next generation of starving girls (the Kardashian-Jenner clan comes to mind). But only on my own journey to becoming a writer did I come to understand that Rupi Kaur might be different, that she might actually be trying very hard--that she might be hiding something. As a reader, I never understood that a fact that I am painfully aware of now: writing makes you vulnerable. The more I wrote, the more I began to realize that what I perceived as lack of depth was, perhaps, a terribly relatable inability to be open.

It’s what I hate the most about writing—displaying yourself to the world when your childhood scrapes are still scabbing over and everyone is certain to see under your skin. I’ve never been good at being vulnerable, which makes me a reluctant writer on a good day and a liar on the rest. People do weird things when they’re afraid, like write mediocre poetry or channel all their anger at the world towards someone they’ve never met. I could not do, or at least have not yet done, what I ask of Rupi Kaur. What would I tell her, I imagine, if I ever met her? I could deflect: “Hey Rupi, your poetry about your suffering needs some work.” Or I could be honest: “Please, Rupi, tell my story for me.”

Because isn’t that what I always wanted: a story just like mine, read to me like a mother would read to her child at bedtime, a story about people like me that teaches me I’m not alone. I had waited for representation so long that when it finally arrived, it felt like a betrayal when it fell so far short. I don’t hate Rupi Kaur because her work is bad—I hate her because her work is bad and there are almost no other options. I hate her because she is my generation’s standard for how to write stories like hers and mine, and it does not do them justice. I hate her because I wanted her to do what I didn’t yet have the courage to do myself.

Maybe I’m projecting; maybe Rupi Kaur is exactly as shallow as her poetry suggests and no amount of openness will make it better. It doesn’t change that I expected someone else to be the writer of my story simply because we have a lot in common. I wasn’t fair to Rupi Kaur when I wrote my 300-word-long-rant about theintolerable injusticeshe was inflicting on young women and girls—which I posted, and I’m aware of the irony, on Tumblr and Instagram. I placed the burden of my vulnerability on her shoulders.

I stand by my criticisms of Rupi Kaur, but I also owe her some gratitude, because she taught me another lesson: I can’t rely on other people to tell my story, or stories about people like me. I can’t rely on other people to fill a void in literature or poetry or to fix any other problem I insist needs solving.

If you want something done right, or even done at all, sometimes you just have to do it yourself, even if—especially if—that means opening up about experiences you’d rather keep hidden. If Rupi Kaur is any indication, the bar for young women’s contemporary poetry and literature is evidently on the floor, which, on the bright side, means that any woman who has the courage to openly, honestly, and vulnerably tell her own story—even if she gets ripped to shreds by mean girls like me—will still be doing all of us a favor.

[violetsystems]

#personal

I don’t really know what people claim about me in real life half the time.  I hear echoes from other people about who I am or what I represent.  But the reality of the situation is people both talk to me and don’t.  I’m an extremely forward facing person in public.  This has grown over a three year period sharing my thoughts on the internet.  It’s also as of today the third year that has passed quietly since I quit alcohol.  In some ways it’s only fitting a phase passed with a whimper.  It’s a habit I will never go back to.  Which is sort of a refreshing place to start looking ahead.  It’s true after sharing all this personal information on the internet I’m still very much alone.  I sit in a kitchen that overlooks the train platform like a fishbowl.  My life has become much the same.  Open ended for everyone to read into.  But most people just skim the cover of the book.  Some people are aware of the sprawling Tolstoy-esque monologues I’ve woven over the years.  The images and people that got me through some dark times.  The inspiration I took from them and acted upon in my own life.  I found beauty in myself and explored what that meant.  Then I lived it.  The result is the same as it’s ever been really.  I don’t really compare or measure myself to anyone in this world.  I stand on my own two feet and have proven my worth to myself countless times around the globe searching for bizarre artifacts for my museum.  Some Indiana Jones shit for sure.  I hate nazis too.  But for however much of a superhero I’ve become to some I’m still just that guy who people would rather ignore or attack.  Some years I’d be a little more depressed about it.  People can claim they know all about me.  And yet nobody really cares that I’m spending the holidays alone for the most part.  People here probably do.  Which is why I reiterate the painfully obvious in paragraph form once again.  If I really hated my life right now I’d be less enthused by the fact of spending the turn of the year alone.  I’ve done that for years.  If I can’t be with somebody who respects me I don’t really want to suffer the consequences of being treated less than what I deserve.  I don’t live my life hardcore to hold over anyone’s head but my own.  And I don’t really expect people to understand every nuance I breathe into my life to stay real as fuck.  I do realize people are ignorant and I’ve spent a year policing that behavior in my life.  I got so good at it that it blew my cover wide open.  And then it fades like everything else exciting i’ve done.  I don’t know what the point of getting people’s attention is anymore.  People don’t talk or share anything openly.  It’s all projections and mirrors we are meant to look and read into.  I do have real interactions in the city i live in.  I paid my rent.  I’ve lived in this place for a decade now.  I came from a bad place.  I’ve written about that and nobody cared.  So now I’m here in the present.  My rent got lower.  My ear to the ground even more so.  I still wear esoteric street wear brands that have aged in reverse.  And people still just treat me like a shadow that is neither here nor there.  So slippery that people would rather just use me as a pivot or soapbox in passing than confront me directly.  I’m the boogeyman on the internet to some people.  To other’s I’m a level 120 paladin that’s strong like bull.  And in 2020 it’s apparently very obvious I’m through with everybody’s bullshit.

Three paragraphs.  That was the format.  I wrote every week to you for years.  You echoes in my head like a void.  Is there anybody actually even out there?  I wouldn’t continue if I didn’t think there was.  And yet we’re still echoing back and forth like a blip on a radar.  Tracking movement like a James Cameron film.  Shipwrecked and stranded on a terraformed mining colony.  Slaves to our careers in a crumbling Utopia called America.  My love for you like a sonnet from a William Gibson poem.  If William Gibson decided to risk it all and leave cyberpunk behind and let us live out our dystopia in peace.  I don’t really have anything to show for any of this.  That wasn’t the point.  If I believed I had nothing to show for all this growth I’d be the biggest loser.  I wouldn’t know the value of myself.  I wouldn’t know the boredom I’m supposed to enjoy of staying the course.  My kitchen bubble a literal ship on a maiden voyage into the great beyond.  That’s what happens when you legalize weed I guess.  Some things have changed.  I’ve spent my time organizing my finances and my belongings just as much.  I head back to New York in the same nondescript way again in February.  Around a birthday nobody has ever celebrated in the last three years for certain.  It can be your birthday anywhere.  I tend to spend it in places where it means something.  Nobody knows other than politicians robocalling me to wish me happy birthday.  That happened last year.  That’s the tip of the iceberg I’ve come to expect.  And yet nobody really knows how deep the wounds have been that I’ve been hiding.  I stopped going out entirely in some respects.  And yet I’m everybody’s favorite topic at the local grocery store.  I mean nothing and feel invisible.  I live with that reality every day.  That some people wish they could interact more but are afraid.  And some people just can’t risk it.  So I make myself less risky.  Which is to say I’m far less risky than I was this time last year.  And I was pretty fucking boring then.  I’m not a boring person.  It’s obvious somebody who hops on a flight to New York by himself with no plan is somewhat spontaneous.  I feel comfortable talking to people.  I don’t feel awkward in what I project.  I have overdone it at times.  And sometimes been too much of a ghost.  And yet people can’t stop talking about fractures of things I’ve done.  I didn’t get here in the present day by being boring.  And then again that’s what it feels like.  People who show off are sloppy.  I see the arcs of their behavior over time.  Just like I look back at the last three years with a bit of a smile.  You have to start somewhere.  And you plan your journey to move forward.  I don’t have any resolutions to speak of other than to enjoy and love myself.  Spread that where it’s well deserved and give everybody else the cold shoulder.  How could I cut off the world so viciously like that?  I gave them three fucking years and what have they done?  We’re all still down here in the bomb shelter talking about our feelings.

I don’t have any fears about the new year.  I paid my rent on time.  Actually before it was usually due.  I’m getting better at simply walking through things.  Almost as if the streets were a runway.  There’s people that vogue downtown in public all the time.  Everybody knows that’s not me or my power.  I respect that a lot of diversity feels free to exist around me in the city I’ve come to love begrudgingly.  I also know when to shut the door on ridiculous bullshit.  The trick is not getting upset.  Like you walk down this catwalk with all these eyes on you.  What does it matter.  You have the power.  That comes from within you.  Nobody can take that away other than yourself.  So you get into the zone and march towards your goal.  Or you find a safe space to bow out of the spectacle for awhile.  When faced with the mundane prospect of just living the reality in front of me I’m not exactly bored.  I’m pissed off nobody understands just how much I’ve put into being me.  But why  be the old man yelling at cloud in sky.  I have answers.  I live them every day.  I have two checking accounts.  I have backup plans for everything.  I don’t worry because I come prepared.  Nobody knows just how many notifications I’ve set up for myself I live by.  Nobody knows what certain activity in my dash means to me.  I don’t share my personal life much with anyone.  Nobody gives me the impression they listen let alone process what I say.  I learned this skill traveling abroad where people didn’t speak my language.  Learn to be silent and appreciate human kindness.  Cultivate it in yourself and how you present yourself as a guest.  Curb your power and share when appropriate.  Shine when it’s your time.  It’s been my time for a minute.  I listen to myself enough to know it.  What you do with that time is something only you know the value of.  These days I try to stay happy.  I also don’t expect people to understand the deep realities of why I make the choices and sacrifices I do.  When it comes time to live them I will just breathe.  Live in the moment and act accordingly.  I spent three years and I’ll spend three more being myself.  After awhile what can people really say?  They forget all the good I’ve ever done.  Maybe they’ll forget the times when they talked shit about me.  Maybe I just don’t care about any of it any more.  I just want to live.  I want to be happy.  I want to keep doing what I am doing.  I need to.  And nobody can stop me.  Because nobody cares that deeply about me enough to know where I’m going.  I’ve already been there and back again.  If you’ve been on the journey with me then you know I’m still on it.  It’s as bullshit as it ever was and I’m stubborn as fuck.  Strong like bull.  Allergic to bullshit.  Isn’t that what a tank is supposed to do?  Take the heat while you run interference.  Could use some heals.  Actually don’t bother.  I made a paladin because I knew I had to roll solo.  I stand in the light.  Bubbled up in my kitchen for the next week on vacation.  Not to burst yours or anything. <3 Tim

[reginrokkr]

✩ Eight

Of course, he would take a defensive stand. Ace was one of the best in Class Zero to have control over their feelings. Eight had learned that via his martial art training with his master but Ace somehow had that ability before he even trained–or so Eight assume. Ah..he is assuming again. He did promise him not to assume. He would stop assuming if Ace was kind enough to run his mouth a little. It does not harm if he expressed himself more. Eight is at fault of that since he always calculates his words before saying them. They were, and still trying to not disappoint their Mother, or even let anyone have something on her.

This is the Crystal’s will, to forget so we can move on..huh..He never questioned it once. Why would he question something that sounds, in theory, practical and it did help them come this far? Or was he? The reason he chose this fighting style IS to defy what the Crystal wished for. It just felt…too easy; to kill is easy and to forget is easier. It did not sit well with him. Sometimes, he is afraid to let his thoughts venture past this whilst he upsets Mother. He was, shy at first but, a curious boy when he first came but not all his questions were answered.

Eight chose to remain silent for a while but never moved away even after Ace’s strong defense (or his way of shooing him away.) Victim huh…He can’t say what Ace had said was wrong but for them falling in battle feels like just a five minutes nap. They are not fighting for themselves only, they are fighting for those who can’t wake up from their naps if they were fallen in battle. Eyes darted back towards the card dealer when he cleared his throat. “But why?” he moved his torso to have a better look at the other. “Why shouldn’t I speak with her about this?” a brief pause before he sighed. “Ace, if you can’t confide to me, at least promise me that you will find someone else?” his eyebrows furrowed, worriedly. “All I want is to help you. You have been there for me, for all of us since day one. I feel..” his right hand balled in a fist in front of him, “powerless at times when it comes to you. You always ready to shoulder everything and continue on. Ace, one day your shoulders may not be able to carry all the burdens you have.” Eight then extended his hand towards him. “Share some with me, with King, Seven, Queen and the others. We are siblings, right?” a little tilt of his head as he offered a light smile to him.    

Eight’s lack of understanding as to why he better ought to not tell Mother about this comes with no surprise, neither the other’s in the case they never pressed the wrong buttons when talking to her. Let it be no doubt that Ace loves her as if she were his own mother even if the reality is that she isn’t —not that he reminisces having any other parental figures in his life, albeit all of his life prior to being moved to the external bureau facility is null within his mind—. However, there are certain habits he perceived in her that drove the Class Zero’s card dealer away from being openly vocal with her.

If the monk never perceived these nuances in Mother, Ace will not be the one pointing them out to him–– lest he sows a seed of discord in his heart.

The lack of composure that Eight’s nature is often attributed tells the blond that this is a matter that affects him greatly, feeding him with sentiments of guilt for not telling him. “You wouldn’t want to upset Mother, would you?” He chooses carefully to say instead, hopefully that will suffice to not have any doubts of her he shouldn’t have if he never met her on the bad side.

A subtle click of his tongue displays Ace’s slight discomfort with this topic of conversation as he turns his head on the opposite side of Eight momentarily. It is not like he never considered approaching this subject —even if barely touching the surface of the issue— to anyone of Class Zero. Nevertheless, the fear that one of them might inform this to Mother is higher than the pain he holds within. “Human feelings won’t fix the past nor we need them to perform as per Mother’s request.” Words that echo within the confines of his soul from ancient times resurface, albeit Ace is ignorant to this fact for these words sound like Mother whenever she noticed his moments of vulnerability due his more sensitive nature.

“Tell me, what good do you think will do to us to delve in our sentiments any further?” He inquires some more whilst his solemn gaze turns to meet the other’s carmine one. “Not only Mother needs us to perform as soldiers, but Rubrum as a whole. That doesn’t make us any different than weapons judging by the way they use us for our special condition to ignore the imperial’s crystal jammers.”

[azurish]

Friend, I was painting a simplistic account and did not get into the nuances you (somehow, in boundless energy) have expanded upon. But if you had read the links (they were mere further reading, not meant to be true sources - see my new post for the original documents) you would have seen they said what you did - the point was, he was talking about how the bible was to be interpreted, and he didn't have that authority. We're literally agreeing

First off, I really do appreciate your sending such a polite ask!  I enjoyed getting to stretch my history muscles in writing my response to your post: Galileo’s relationship with Scripture is very closely related to a dissertation proposal I’m working on, so this was really just two or three hours delving down a research rabbit hole I’d’ve had to go down next year anyways; and early modern Scriptural interpretation is not just what I study, it’s also something I find fascinating.  I apologize if I’ve gone a bit overboard, but - I’m nerdy enough that engaging with this is both fun for me and good for my productivity on my actual research?  So: thanks for that!

OK, so: I’m afraid we’re still not agreeing.  Although on the surface, it’s true that we both partially agree that Galileo got in trouble for talking about Biblical interpretation when the church reserved to itself the authority to do so, we still disagree on some critical aspects of the matter.  I don’t agree that Galileo didn’t have the “authority” to do what he was doing; and furthermore, I think presenting the debate as solely concerned with who got to interpret Scripture in the abstract obscures the fact that the Church was using its interpretation of Scripture as a bludgeon to prevent scientific inquiry.  The actual question at stake was about who had the authority to make definitive pronouncements about astronomy, of which the debate about Scripture was, as I wrote, a key component.

To clarify: looking back at your original post, we fundamentally disagree about why Galileo got involved with Scriptural interpretation, and the answer to that question is critically relevant for determining whether he ~had the authority~ to intervene in Biblical disputation.  You’ve argued that Galileo took it on himself to challenge church authority by using heliocentrism to oppose scientific truth to the Bible.  This is simply untrue; the Church argued that heliocentrism was and must to be false because of Scripture, and as such tried to suppress Galileo’s efforts to submit proofs of heliocentrism.  Thus, to keep writing about astronomy without losing his head, Galileo had to argue that heliocentrism was commensurable with Scripture; he could not simply agree that proving heliocentrism would be heretical and keep on doing his research.

Galileo was caught in a double bind.  He could not continue his experiments and efforts to engage in scientific dialogue about Copernicanism if he did not prove that Copernicanism wasn’t contrary to Scripture; but he could not prove that Copernicanism wasn’t contrary to Scripture without attempting to interpret Scripture himself and thus violating the Church’s monopoly on hermeneutic authority.  You might fault him for not simply shutting up, assenting to Church authority, and stopping his efforts to prove Copernicanism, but in that case, yes, you’re going to have to admit that the claim in your original post that Galileo’s trial was “NOT (as anti-Catholics love to claim) to say ‘stop it with your science stuff, it threatens our Church’” is incorrect.

Below the cut, I’m going to demonstrate 1) that it was the Church and not Galileo who opposed heliocentrism to Scriptural truth and 2) that the Church therefore held that any effort to study the truth of heliocentrism was heretical, forcing Galileo to answer these objections if he wanted to keep doing science.  In doing so, I’ll be addressing an intrinsically-related concern by showing how your argument that the Church’s objection to Galileo was that he submitted insufficiently evidence-based science is misleading: the Church would have opposed any claim Galileo made for heliocentrism, no matter what evidence he produced, because they could not accept any scientific effort to prove heliocentrism was true, as Biblical evidence had to be interpreted literally and on its own, preempting any other kind of evidence.  Thus, when he argued on behalf of a new Scriptural hermeneutics, Galileo was not just asserting that he ~knew the Bible~ better than the Pope; he was arguing that Catholic theologians did not have the authority to foreclose debate by experts in fields like the natural sciences by making unilateral statements about Biblical interpretation solely on the basis of the literal text of the Bible.  Instead, when the Bible made reference to natural phenomena, interpreters should use the conclusions of the natural scientists as a guide to interpretation, instead of privileging textual literalism over scientific evidence.  So, to return to your original ask: I think the question of whether Galileo could assert the authority of expertise in certain scientific domains against the Church’s monopolistic authority over Scriptural interpretation pertaining to every topic is far from clear.

1. “The Church did not take issue with the heliocentric worldview - it took issue with Galileo saying that a heliocentric worldview was contrary to scripture. It was not.”

This was simply not true.  I don’t know how else to put this; Galileo did not say that a heliocentric worldview was contrary to Scripture; the Church did.

As I documented in the original post, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to one of Galileo’s allies that “to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing [that] injur[es] our holy faith and render[s] the Holy Scriptures false.”  He also added that “not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue … all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.”

Similarly, in 1614, a Dominican preacher named Tommaso Caccini delivered a whole sermon on Joshua 10:13, in which he explicitly attacked Galileo and Copernicans as anti-Christian.

In fact, Galileo’s own defenses of the compatibility of Scripture and Galilean Copernicanism specifically emerged in response to one such attack; Galileo wrote the two letters in which he took such a position after hearing reports that, at a meeting in a Medici palazzo, “the Grand Duchess [had] pressed [his student] Castelli about the apparent contradiction between the Copernican claims and such biblical passages as the one in Joshua where the Lord commanded the Sun and Moon to stand still over the valley of Ajalon to allow the Israelites to wreak vengeance on their foes” (Ernan McMullin, “Galileo on science and Scripture,” in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, ed. by Peter Machamer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 277).  Galileo was forced into this conversation because the Church was making claims against heliocentrism.

2. “If Galileo had stuck to being a scientist and not taken it upon himself to interpret scripture, the Church would have embraced him and his work.” (and also, relatedly, “Pope Urban VIII … said that G could publish on the subject again, but only to discuss it as a theory, not a fact (remember, no one had proof of heliocentrism at the time)”)

In essence: the Church held that Galileo could not continue trying to prove that Copernicanism was a valid theory, because it was contrary to Scripture.  He was only allowed to continue discussing it as a false but useful system of calculations.  Thus, the Church would never have “embraced him and his work” as long as his work involved studying the heavens to try to determine whether heliocentrism was true.  They might have allowed him to continue discussing the mathematical implications of heliocentrism, but they never would have allowed the speculation and experiments he carried out to study whether heliocentrism might be true (although this is a complicated question because of the nature of his specific case - he was eventually personally singled out and prohibited from discussing Copernicanism at all).

A critical part of this turns on your distinction between Galileo discussing Copernicanism as a “theory, not a fact.”  You’ve presented this distinction as one we might be familiar with in modern science, with the problem with a mere theory being a lack of evidence; you wrote that the Church was annoyed that Galileo “stated that the heliocentric worldview was fact before he had proof,” which they thought was “highly irresponsible as a scientist,” and that the reason Copernicanism was only a theory was that it “no one had proof of heliocentrism.”  (Note: I know that in modern science, the theory/fact distinction is a bit more complicated - the terminology might more appropriately be the distinction between hypothesis and theory/law, as opposed to theory and fact - but I’m going to stick with your terms for now.)

In fact, the distinction they were drawing was different, although I can totally understand how easy it is to make this mistake.  This is going to get a bit technical historically, so to anyone reading this, please bear with me. using the system as a false but useful mathematical theory (as many scientists before Galileo had) and investigating the possibility that the system was actually a true description of the natural world.  The former was allowed: as long as Galileo admitted that Copernicanism was just helpful math that could never, ever be proved because it was false and anti-Scriptural, he was OK.  But if he tried to prove Copernicanism was true - if he investigated things like the effects of the moon on the waves or the directions of the trade winds or comets to try to see whether he could prove that the earth moved - he had stepped over the line.  He could never have provided a “proof” of heliocentrism that pleased the Church because they fundamentally objected to the possibility that heliocentrism was true.  You wrote that one of Church’s main problems with Galileo during his trial was that he had “broken the previous agreement to refrain from presenting heliocentrism as proven fact,” but in fact their problem was that he presented it as provable fact when their interpretation of Scripture foreclosed that possibility.  (Note: I discussed in my first post why Catholic orthodoxies about miracles also presented a stumbling block to the epistemological possibility of “proving” heliocentrism, but I’m going to refrain from recapping that argument and will simply focus on the Scripture piece below.)

In the officially-commissioned treatise that Melchior Inchofer wrote in response to Galileo’s Copernicanism, Inchofer asserted that “if it is a matter of faith that the earth is at rest, and if this has been adequately promulgated [which Inchofer had “proved” elsewhere in the treatise], then it is in no way allowable to argue for the contrary” (Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial: Including the First English Translation of Melchior Inchofer’s Tractatus Syllepticus (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 156).

Inchofer set up a dichotomy between using Copernicanism for the sake of mathematics, while accepting that it had to be false, and trying to prove the actual physical reality of Copernicanism.  He wrote that “in using Copernicus’s calculations, one can proceed in two ways.  The first is to use them as purely mathematical hypotheses, on which true physical principles are not thought to depend in any way.  The second is to use them as hypotheses which are taken to be the same in kind as true natural principles.”  The first use was acceptable; scientists should begin by acknowledging that the “entire Copernican system” was “false and contrary to reason,” but, after doing so, could use it as a basis for mathematical models, as “true calculations can still be deduced from it.”  However, the second use (treating Copernican principles as “hypotheses” and trying to figure out whether they were “true natural principles”) was forbidden, because one could NEVER attempt to prove that the system was true.  Scientists could “discuss its principles, but only to show that they are false, and that these calculations do not depend on true hypotheses” (Blackwell, Behind the Scenes, 157-8).  This was the case “because of the reasons stated at the beginning of this chapter” - that is, as he wrote at the beginning of the chapter/as I quote above, because it was simply “a matter of faith that the earth is at rest,” on the basis of authoritative Scriptural interpretation.  Again, Inchofer’s own summary of his text is simply devastatingly telling:

(Blackwell, Behind the Scenes, 109)

In the first eleven chapters, Inchofer, like so many Catholic theologians, demonstrated that Scripture simply proved that heliocentrism was false.  On this basis, he concluded that it was not “permissible to argue for the contrary.”  Authoritative Church Scriptural interpretation, which was based only on the literal language of the text, was a trump card; astronomers could not continue to ~stay in their lanes~ and just study the stars if Catholic orthodoxy disagreed with their conclusions.  The only way to open back up the debate Inchofer shuts down in chapter twelve is to dispute his conclusions in chapter one to eleven.

Similarly, as I discussed in the last post, like Inchofer, Cardinal Bellarmine argued that heliocentrism could never be proved because it contradicted Scripture.  Any attempt to submit such a proof - to pursue the question of whether heliocentrism as a “theory” could be right - would run counter to Scripture.  In short,

“None of [Bellarmine’s] arguments leave room for a concession on his part that a demonstration of the Earth’s motion might at a later time be discovered. Bellarmine is not merely pointing to the fact that the Copernicans have not yet come up with a proper demonstration of the Earth’s motion. He is, in his own mind, at least, giving reasons to believe that they never could.”

(source: McMullin, “Galileo on science and Scripture,” 283)

Thus, as Galileo wrote in his letter to the Grand Duchess, his fundamental problem was that many theologians

“pretend to the power of constraining others by scriptural authority to follow in a physical dispute that opinion which they think best agrees with the Bible, and then believe themselves not bound to answer the opposing reasons and experiences. In explanation and support of this opinion they say that since theology is queen of all the sciences, she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her; these others must rather be referred to her as their supreme empress, changing and altering their conclusions according to her statutes and decrees. They add further that if in the inferior sciences any conclusion should be taken as certain in virtue of demonstrations or experiences, while in the Bible another conclusion is found repugnant to this, then the professors of that science should themselves undertake to undo their proofs and discover the fallacies in their own experiences, without bothering the theologians and exegetes.

Galileo therefore argued, as I explained in my first post, that the literal sense of the Bible, as propounded by Church theologians, shouldn’t be taken as an authoritative set of truth claims that could shut down debate in other fields.  This is why I stressed the fact that he wasn’t just arguing about usual issues of Biblical interpretation, he was challenging the hermeneutic principles being used to do the interpretation.  He wasn’t arguing that on their own turf, theologians had something wrong that he, as a lay person, could set right.  He was arguing that on his turf, theologians had no authority to claim that Scripture ought to be applied the way they saw it to matters of natural philosophy.  The problem was that, on the basis of their literal reading of the Bible, in which they interpreted every single word as the absolute and immediately obvious truth, theologians refused to admit that Galileo had any turf.  If the Bible said something like “the sun stood still … [it] stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day,” then the question of whether the sun moved was a matter for Biblical interpreters to discuss, not astronomers.  And these interpreters should only make reference to the obvious face value of the words, instead of looking to other fields - like astronomy - to see how Scripture might be interpreted in ways that accommodated scientific conclusions.

What’s critical to grasp here was that Galileo was making a distinction based on content: he wasn’t interested in fighting theologians for general control over the Bible, but was simply asserting that, in matters that could be investigated by referring to natural facts, natural conclusions had priority over textual literalism as a guiding principle for interpretation.  As he wrote in his letter to Castelli, “in disputes about natural phenomena, [Scripture] should be reserved to the last place,” and its interpreters should “strive to find the true meanings of scriptural passages agreeing with those physical conclusions of which we are already certain and sure,” instead of “oblig[ing] scriptural passages to have to maintain the truth of any physical conclusions whose contrary could ever be proved to us by the senses and demonstrative and necessary reasons.”  He was defending himself and the authority of other astronomers against people like Inchofer, Bellarmine, and the Pope, who argued that their authority was multi-disciplinary and always took priority over experts in other disciplines.

In essence, as David Wootton writes, Galileo was disagreeing with the claim that

because theology was the queen of the sciences, it was perfectly proper for theologians to settle disputes between astronomers. Here Galileo argued that one had to distinguish between the subject matter of a body of knowledge and the expertise of those who studied it. The subject matter of theology, which concerned itself with the salvation of souls, was certainly superior to the subject matter of astronomy, but this did not make theologians expert in astronomy. In arguing in favour of technical expertise, … [and] that there were some choices that were properly the preserve of experts, Galileo was defending a new type of authority.

(source: David Wootton, Galileo: Watcher of the Skies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), Chapter 22 (again, sorry, my edition doesn’t have page numbers for this bit!))

To recap:

The Church argued that its authoritative interpretation of Scripture, based solely on literal interpretations of the letter of the text, disproved the possibility that heliocentrism was true.

Galileo was therefore prohibited from treating Copernicanism as an actual possible hypothesis that he could gather evidence for, instead of a useful shortcut for calculations.

Galileo’s choices were either to accept that the Church’s position on Scripture was right and heliocentrism was heretical and false, and therefore to stop studying whether heliocentrism was true; or to argue that the Church should not use its literal interpretation of Scripture to suppress conversations among experts who studied nature.

Galileo therefore argued that when Scripture made reference to natural phenomena, theologians did not have the final authority to interpret Scripture alone, solely making reference to the literal language of the text and ignoring any natural evidence, and should instead use the evidence of nature, as studied by scientific experts, as part of their hermeneutic principles.

So - do we actually agree that Galileo didn’t “have that authority,” as you wrote in your ask?  On the one hand, he was de facto challenging a competence the Church had historically reserved to itself: the authority to interpret all Bible passages.  But, in another light, the authority he was claiming was the authority of expertise discussed by Wootton - the authority to carry out scientific studies without the Church citing the language of Scripture to shut down all inquiry.  Did he have that authority?  It’s an interesting question, and I’m not sure we’d reach the same conclusion about it - you’ll have to get back to me on that one.  Furthermore, phrasing the question solely as one of Scriptural interpretation obscures a key component of the debate, which, again, is the claim that the Church wasn’t objecting to Galileo’s doing science.  They were objecting to any attempt to determine whether heliocentrism could stand up as a theory, because they held that their authority to interpret the Bible literally superseded any claims made from any other body of evidence using any other set of principles.

As a side note, the links to sources you’ve added in your follow-up post don’t really support your conclusions.  You’re right that some of them support my conclusions, but only inasmuch as we disagree.  Your last link, to Blackwell’s account of Galileo’s trial, is actually what I already had cited for the Melchior Inchofer treatise, which demonstrates exactly my point: that the Church was using its authority over Scripture in tandem with the claim that the literal interpretation of Scripture held for every domain to preclude scientific study.  Indeed, even in the selection you’ve linked, Blackwell dutifully concludes that “the issue at hand was whether Copernican astronomy contradicted certain relevant passages in Scripture that speak in terms of an earth-centered universe. If so, it was thought that Copernicanism must be false” (Blackwell, Behind the Scenes, 3-4).  He even includes a quick discussion of what it meant to hold Copernicanism “suppositionally” on p.8-9, explaining, just as I discussed above, that the Church only allowed scientists to discuss Copernicanism as a useful but inherently false and anti-Scriptural means of calculation that one could and should never attempt to “prove” - although the brevity of this discussion might have been a bit confusing/led you to describe as a problem of fact vs. theory, instead of theory-one-should-never-discuss vs. theory-one-could-try-to-prove?  In any event, the Copernicus pieces you linked aren’t that relevant to this discussion, having been published almost a century prior and lacking any context; I provided an overview of contemporary views of Copernicus in the seventeenth century in my previous post.

FWIW, if you’re honestly interested in this topic, you should look at the Ernan McMullin article I’ve cited several times, which lays out some of the key points of the debate over Biblical hermeneutics, showing how it was a debate over interpretive principles in which Galileo had to intervene in order to keep doing science.  The article was published in the Cambridge University Press companion to Galileo, which is a standard and respected reference in the field, and McMullin was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, an authority on Galileo, and an ordained Catholic priest who served at points as the president of the American Philosophical Association, the Philosophy of Science Association, and the American Catholic Philosophical Association.  If you don’t have access to it (academia paywalls are #theworst), I’d be happy to send it your way.

[clairedmaddox]

How to Develop a Trader’s Mindset for Success

Your mindset is the biggest determining factor in if you will succeed at trading or not. It trumps any trading system or indicator.

The mindset of a successful trader is developed through a process of repetition, review and continual improvement. A trader must be willing to keep taking trades, review them in a journal, then take an honest look at what improvements can be made. In addition, traders must continually work on eliminating negative habits and psychological programming. 

There's a lot to unwrap here, so let's dig into the details. I'll go over each of the elements to show you how you can start building the mindset of a professional trader.

Practice, Practice, Practice

The first important concept to understand when learning to develop a trader's mindset is that you have to be willing to practice your craft. Just like boxers go to the gym and runners hit the track, traders have to practice their trading strategies to keep their skills sharp.

There are a couple of ways to do this.

First, you can use backtesting software to download historical data, replay the data and take simulated trades. This is similar to a NBA player practicing his jump shot. 

You can practice your trading methods in simulation when you aren't trading, when the markets are closed, or when you don't have an internet connection.

If you can get just a couple more hours of trading practice per week, imagine how much that can compound your skills over time.

Next, you can also open a demo account and take demo trades alongside your live trades. There might be trades that you don't want to take in your live account, but you can still take them in your demo account, and learn from them like they were live trades. 

Again, this gives you more repetitions and more opportunities to fine tune your pattern recognition skills. Another benefit of using a demo account is that it helps build your intuition.

Not all traders should rely on intuition to make trading decisions. But tracking your demo trades will help you understand if you can trust your intuition, or if you should just stick to your system rules.

Break Through Your Drawdowns

I have a more risk adverse personality, so I've never blown out an account. That might sound like a good thing, but my type of personality profile also comes with a few downsides.

The biggest downside is that I used to shy away from taking trades, especially in a losing streak.

After a lot of review, I realized that this is the opposite of what I should be doing.

Let me clarify that…

I'm not saying that traders should keep taking trades, if their strategy isn't working, or they are not focused.

…or worse yet, if they don't have a strategy at all.

However, if you're confident that you have an edge, then you should keep trading. By definition, the only way to end a losing streak and make up for the losses, is to keep trading and keep applying your edge.

This can seem like an insurmountable task and it might even seem hopeless…or even a little scary.

But it must be done. 

You must embrace the suck.

If don't want to lose more money, you can stop trading your live account and open a free demo account.

Do what you have to do to keep trading.

Yes, it's uncomfortable because you could keep losing.

When you're in this situation, it's also helpful to ask the following questions:

Am I attaching too much of my ego to my losing trades?

Am I insisting on being right, at the cost of being profitable?

Am I too worried about losing?

Am I beating myself up after each loss?

If you answer yes to any of those questions, develop the awareness of when you're doing those things. Work on hitting the “mute button” on those thoughts and learn to review each trade as objectively as possible.

You will learn more about yourself and your trading strategy from pushing through a drawdown, than any other trading activity I know of. 

Once you know that you can successfully overcome a drawdown however, that will give you a ton of confidence that you'll be able to do it again in the future.

Keep a Trading Journal

In order to understand what you're doing right and what you need to improve on, a trading journal is essential.

This can be a simple notebook, Evernote or RazorJournal.

Regardless of which method you use, just be sure that it works well for you and that it's simple enough that you can fill it out quickly. When a trading journal is too complex, you are less likely to fill it out and won't get the benefits.

Most trading journals have the basic information about each trade.

But also consider including these elements:

MaxR

Flash Cards

Missed trades

Trades you were considering taking, but didn't

Profit/loss calculated in multiple of risk

Adding these elements to your journal can help you progress significantly faster than if you don't track them. Review your results weekly and take an honest look at how well you're trading.

Most aspiring traders I've seen don't fill out a trading journal. This is like being an Olympic runner, but not recording your lap times.

You must track your results, in order to improve them.

Improve Your Trading

Once you've recorded your trades in your journal, now identify areas where you can improve.

Here are some staring points that you should explore:

Should you give your stop losses more room?

Are you cutting your winners short?

Do you move your stop losses?

Are you trading at the ideal times of day for your strategy?

Should you be more selective about your trades?

Are you afraid to take trades that would have worked?

Do your entries differ from how you backtested your strategy?

In hindsight, would you have still taken every trade you took?

Even a very simple trading journal will allow you to go back and review these questions. Again, try to review each trade as objectively as possible and look for common mistakes or potential optimizations.

Upgrade Your Mindset

Last, but certainly not least, figure out how to your continuously upgrade your mindset.

Scientists used to believe that our brains could not be changed after a certain age. More recent studies have proven that this is not true and we can form new brain connections and pathways throughout our lives, an ability called neuroplasticity.

So don't feel like you're stuck with what you currently have. It is possible to change how your mind works. You just have to be willing to put in the work to make those changes. 

Here are some mindset challenges that traders often face:

Hesitation when taking a trade

Discouragement during a drawdown

Blaming others for trading losses

Self-pity after a losing trade

Not forgiving yourself after a mistake

Revenge trading

Getting greedy on a trade: either targeting too big of a take profit or not using stop loss

All traders have struggled with at least one of these issues, at some point in their careers. On deeper levels, most professional traders still face these challenges. They have just learned to control them better than amateur traders.

You can read these books and see that for yourself.

So how do you fix these issues?

Here's a simple exercise that you can do to start upgrading your mindset. Human psychology is a very complex and nuanced topic, so I cannot give you all the answers in one short blog post.

But this can put you on the right track to understanding what will help you.

First, write down the behaviors that you feel are having a negative impact on your trading. Then focus on each one individually.

For example, let's say that the first item on your list is: Blaming others for your trading losses.

This might include:

Blaming your broker for hunting your stops

Blaming your family/partner for not allowing you the time to trade

Blaming your job for not having enough time to trade

Blaming an educator for not teaching you properly

Once you have your list, first ask yourself if the opposite could be true.

Is it remotely possible that your broker is NOT hunting your stops? Could it be that you really do have enough time to trade, but you're spending too much time watching Netflix?

Take an honest look at the opposite of your belief.

What do you find?

Next, do the “Why Exercise.”

Keep asking yourself why, until you cannot ask come up with any more answers, or you come to an important realization.

In this example, you might say something like this:

Why do I blame others for my trading losses?”

Because everyone is out to get me

Why is everyone out to get me?

Because the world is a harsh place

Why is the world a harsh place?

Because that's what my parents taught me

Why did your parents teach you that the world is a harsh place?

Because that was their experience growing up during the war

Ah-ha!

So in this example your tendency to blame others, could actually be coming from your parent's experiences. Not directly from your own experiences, or because people are intentionally sabotaging your trading.

Sometimes, just the realization of where your beliefs came from is enough to change some behaviors.

So that's where you should start.

However, there can be beliefs that are so deeply rooted, that they cannot be fixed through realization alone. If you want to dig deeper into possible causes of these roadblocks, and how to fix them, read this post on advanced trading psychology.

Conclusion

So if you're struggling with figuring out how to be consistently profitable, start implementing the actions suggested in this post.

Remember that learning trading strategies is easy.

Developing the mental toughness to overcome drawdowns and internal doubt is the challenging part. This is the reason that most traders quit. 

But if you keep at it long enough, I believe that most people can figure it out.

If you want help with developing your trading mindset, join the TraderEvo program. I coach traders through the entire process of learning to trade and hold them accountable at every step along the way.

The post How to Develop a Trader’s Mindset for Success appeared first on Trading Heroes.

How to Develop a Trader’s Mindset for Success published first on your-t1-blog-url