#based on his other attributed quotes

[j-esbian]

my teacher in middle school really liked to give us multi-part assignments that branched across subjects, and approximately once a year i remember the one where we were assigned a Maxim and had to do several exercises related to it.

one part was a basic research and reading comprehension exercise, where we had to figure out what the original source was, hunt it down, and figure out what the quote meant in the context in which it appears—except i could not find any kind of source for mine. based on the other quotes I found from this dude, it definitely sounded like something he would have said!! unfortunately, there was no record he had ever said this exact thing, and i felt like i was losing my mind

eventually, i went to my teacher and told her i was having a problem and asked if she could give me a hint. she just let me use someone else's sentence for that one leg of the project. but to this day i still wonder how the hell she even found it and where it came from, because it seems like it literally does not exist outside of the powerpoint she made to introduce the project.

[kiefbowl]

I was reading an opinion piece on Kate Middleton's cancer diagnosis on CNN by Jamal Baig about the increasing rates of cancer in patients under 50. As far as 5 minutes of googling and JSTORing can lend me to believe, there's nothing illegitimate about Dr. Baig. However, I found this bit in his opinion interesting:

Now, I'm always dubious when reading anything that attributes a very broad generalized idea that changes in diets have caused an increased in cancer, because more often than not it's not pointing to an exploration of, say, increased pesticide use, but the author's personal bias against the quote unquote "unhealthy", especially those who are deemed "fat" by the medical industry.

That being said, I was curious what source he linked, half expecting it to lead to just another op-ed from some other doctor from who knows when, but I was pleasantly surprised! Written by a man named Michael Donaldson, it was an evidentiary review published in a scientific journal called "Nutrition and cancer: A review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet."

Now I wasn't going to give the whole thing a read, but I stopped in each section, gave a quick skim to get a general vibe, moved on to the next section, etc. I was immediately suspicious that the very first line in the abstract was "It has been estimated that 30–40 percent of all cancers can be prevented by lifestyle and dietary measures alone" as that seems to be a bananas statistic to just posit, but it still had the air of scientific integrity, so I did my skim.

The first handful of sections had things that gave me some moments of pause, that this article was in fact another doctor simply cherry picking data to confirm his own biases, but nothing so egregious as to do a spit take. That comes in a few minutes. The first section that made really go hold the phone was when we got to his Flax Seed section.

Compare how he writes about Red Meat...:

(that's all he wrote, btw)

...with how he starts writing about Flax Seed:

Did I just enter a Flax Seed commercial? Does this guy work for BIG FLAX SEED? on and on he writes about Flax Seed, and I start getting a sense that perhaps this man has a Flax Seed Agenda. In any case, he eventually moves on and I quickly skim to get to the end (because it's boring among other things).

So, who exactly is Michael Donaldson?

Girl are you kidding me

The Hallelujah Acres Foundation is a FOR PROFIT company that sells a """biblical""" based diet program called the hallelujah diet and also sells supplements on said site.

Now, in case you forgot where I started with this, this was the link provided as a "source" to a legitimate doctor's claim in an op-ed about cancer that "at least part of the answer" of why cancer is increasing in under 50 patients are the "changes to nutrition and lifestyle that took hold in middle of the last century." Dr. Baig did not read this article, or if he did was not concerned that it was written by the employee of a company that profits from unscientific research it uses to sell supplements and diets. Which is worse, I don't know.

The point I'm making is that you absolutely need to be vigilant all the time. You need to understand that doctors can not only have biases, but agendas. Researchers can have biases and agendas. Scientists can have biases and agendas. And that magical thinking about real health issues that can affect your future can permeate the scientific community because weirdos write convincing enough evidence that support their already determined world view.

This kind of shit is the reason why women go into doctor offices complaining about pain in their abdomen and get told to go lose weight and come back in 6 months. This is why ideas like moralizing eating have huge effects on women's health and influence medical misogyny, and why it's a feminist issue.

[yourplayersaidwhat]

Hey, I don't know if this is important to you, but there's a YouTuber (ZacSpeaksGiant) who reads D&D related posts (from Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr) on his channel, and there are several shorts based on your posts. He includes screenshots of the post, so you're still getting credit.

One that has over 2 million views is https://youtube.com/shorts/_QQkXULKfp0?si=-2H3XFrk_6i2APXh.

Thanks for letting us know! We don't mind people sharing our posts on other platforms as long as they credit our blog and (if possible) the submitter.

In fact, this is exactly what the #shareable tag is for - it lets submitters grant explicit permission for their quotes to be shared elsewhere and used for things like comics/art, school projects, research projects, and so on.

We do take appropriate action when we find someone stealing our (and our submitters') quotes, by removing attribution and pretending to be the original creator of the quote. That's not fair to us, and especially not to our submitters whose quotes are being stolen. But as long as our blog and the submitter are being credited, we're fine with our stuff being shared more widely!

[mariamegale]

More clarification on Dybowski's position within Ice Pick Lodge today from IPL ex-employee Luchin, after yesterday's comments.

Sorry for posting so much in the patho tag, but unfortunately it's what's best for visibility. I have, and will be, using the "Dybowski Allegations" tag for any post on this, so please block that tag if you don't want to see it.

Since my post yesterday on Alexey Luchin's comments/allegations against Dybowski, he has given Reddit some updates and clarifications. I'll summarise the Reddit thread, but quote Luchin in full for transparency.

The thread is on the topic of Dybowski's current involvement with IPL/Pathologic 3. Commenters stated that he has sold the company, and hasn't been very involved with the games since The Void (2008). Whether this is a valid interpretation of Luchin's earlier statements was discussed, and the fact that he's been a main P2 writer and involved with a lot of promo stuff over the years was brought up. Luchin, after being pinged, showed up to clarify:

Russian companies often use a "fake owner" for various reasons, this is the case here. Motivations may be to avoid alimony, to ease money transfers between the main company part in Kazakhstan and the original main company and it's Cyprus subordinary. It is not illegal, and even not a loophole, though. I wouldn't dwell on that much. It's important what people work in the studio factually.

and,

Yep, I'd say it's up to the currently employed to shed light reliably. But in general around after the Void he was more of an broad ideas guy — and a good one, it wasn't my intent to downplay him in that regard. At the same time, game development is a multistage process, and from my personal knowledge, I can attribute a lot of the new games qualities to "fresh blood", and the other co-founders acting more professional. E.g. Alphyna has covered a decent chunk of actual writing on Pathologic 2 and had a pivotal role in maintaining the timeline of events of the game, charater motivations, etc together. Ivan Slovtsov carried the detailed game design and balancing with his team — which gave him a good position in tinyBuild after, etc. IPL is to some extent an autere game company, with the source and numerous modifications coming from Nikolay, but in my time his input was irregural, disrupting, and in my personal opinion wasn't often for the good of the game. At the same time, the fresh blood in the studio grew on the principles on which the studio was founded and successfully carries its legacy already. This is an opinion, though, still. Personally, I'll still play Pathologic 3, it's great, from what I know / have seen. And all my posts here are done with a heavy heart — it's not easy to be dissapointed in a talanted figure such as Dybowsky myself.

So, based on this (keep in mind Luchin himself has stated to have no contact with Dybowski himself since 2018, although it feels fair to assume he'd still be in contact with other former coworkers) the exact role of Dybowski in the creation of these games seems a little unclear. But I also don't think anyone's been debating whether he's been involved up until p3, as much as how deeply involved he is in p3.

Ultimately, it's up to everyone to decide for themselves where they stand in terms of opinion on p3, buying the game, sticking around in the fandom, supporting the studio, et cetera., but that's the new info.

To just give my own personal two cents: I am still in the position I was yesterday, which is that I believe IPL has to make a statement on all of this, and cut ties with Dybowski, before I'll be completely comfortable giving them money. However, I do also want to acknowledge the fact that this is not a black and white situation, and that the discourse surrounding this does warrant some level of nuance. I'm, of course, speaking in relation to the other people working at IPL.

It's incredibly easy to say both, "Dybowski is not his team; they should never be punished for his actions," and "they may have helped cover for him for twenty years; they should be held responsible." Silence is, to a degree, complicity, and if Luchin is to be believed not just in his "open secret" statement but also here, in reference to the student grooming allegations:

That's the Nema-Soda episode around the same time previous accusations surfaced. Well known in the Russian segment of the internet.

That's bad. If this truly has been this out in the open and known, that's really fucking bad, and I want this company - at least its management - to be held responsible for their potential silence and complicity in this.

But, at risk of sounding like I'm excusing any of this, I do also want to remind you that according to Luchin, as well as earlier testimonies including Renata's, this is also a person who is apparently incredibly vindictive. He is also pretty rich by Russian standards, and has held some level of influence in academia and the Russian game dev community for many years. I don't know exactly how his vindictiveness would take its form, especially not against employees, but I've been in toxic workplaces before - it can be scary, downright terrifying, to go after or even up against someone like this. No matter how shitty they are, especially if you're not in a country with good whistleblower laws (and just, in general, a system which will take the original allegations seriously, which... I'm not Russian, but I'm allowing myself some possibly problematic doubt that you'd be able to comfortably know that. I come from a significantly more progressive country, and I would absolutely not take it for certain) it can be incredibly difficult to stand up for what's right and take that risk to your livelihood, safety, and future job prospects. Especially in a job market so (relatively) niche as Russian game development. I'm also pretty damn sure there's not a union, or anything like it, to back you up if you get inofficially retaliated against.

Human being end up in abusive situations and find themselves, for one reason or another, not doing anything about it all the time. SA victims don't always report their perpetrator. Fraud victims don't always come forward. People subjected to wage theft don't always call their union reps. And others, those who witness it, don't always do it either. Sometimes because it's not their place, sometimes because they don't care, and sometimes because they're afraid. I don't think it's fair to assume everyone is in the second category, just as how I wouldn't think it's fair to assume everyone is in any of the others - it'd be absurd to assume every IPL worker doesn't want to out someone else's victimhood, which is why they haven't said anything publicly, for example. However, not reporting is an incredibly common blame to put on a victim or witness, because it's assumed that by not reporting it, they're essentially enabling the perpetrator to do it again. And I personally just don't think that's just - not without knowing what else weighed into a person's decision not to speak up.

I'm not saying this absolves all of IPL. I especially don't think it absolves the people at the top with Dybowski, who would have been more protected than the bottom-line workers. I simply am asking for some honest-to-god nuance. Personally, I'm still not happy to give IPL any money - not until I know Dybowski is not getting any of it, and measures have been taken to protect their other employees. But I'm also not interested in broad brushing an entire company of twenty years as evil, because the employees haven't made (english) publically available attempts at getting this guy out. We know, by his own accord, Luchin didn't - we know nothing of the others. A conversation with a manager that went badly is not likely to become public knowledge. People lamenting their powerlessness to stop someone to their colleagues or friends won't reach us. Someone quietly resigning because they can't do this anymore, but not being willing to put themselves on the line, is not a detail we're going to have.

I'm happy the silence has, hopefully irrevocably and undeniably, been broken. I'm hoping some people, Dybowski in particular, will face justice, or at least consequences. I hope Renata and her son, as well as Dybowski's other children, are safe and happy. I hope that IPL will do something, and move forward as a better company.

I want them to make a statement about this. That's non-negiotiable, for me, personally. I also want to see a change, and a better company with a better work culture going forward, making games and nurturing a community safely away from all this shit.

However, I accept the grim possibility that this will never happen, and am trying to decide on what that means for me personally moving forward with the fandom. I don't have any moral qualms about piracy, that's not what this is about. And that's the wider conversation I think I personally will need more, moving forward, in regards to my relationship with Pathologic.

That's my two cents.

[avelera]

"Weirdness", Decency, and the Historical Echoes of Walz's tide-turning call-out of MAGA

At the risk of writing a high school paper about American politics in 2024, I think there's a historical echo that I'd like to add to the conversation of why Walz calling MAGA people, "weird" seems to finally armed Democrats with a line of personal attacks against MAGA that resonates with voters and seems to have overall broken the spell on this, well, weird behavior by them.

I think the one line of discussion that I haven't seen explored as to why the "weird" attack seems to be working to call out this aptly-named behavior by the far right in America is its similarity to the end of another far right movement in America: McCarthy's Red Scare.

It is popularly attributed that the moment, the quote, that brought about the end of the Red Scare was this:

"Until this moment, senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness . . . . Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Special Counsel for the U.S. Army Joseph N. Welch confronting Sen. Joseph McCarthy (source)

Many historical accounts will say this is the moment the spell broke with McCarthy. That this is the moment when Americans looked around like the naval officer at the end of Lord of the Flies and basically said, "What the hell is going on here?"

I think Walz's "weird" quote is this moment.

I've been waiting for this moment to occur with MAGA for some time. It did indeed feel as if no amount of pointing out the lunacy, the absurdity, of the movement was enough. I think other commentators might be right when saying that appealing to how dangerous they are, how scary they are, wasn't working. I could speculate on a variety of reasons for this, like that people like to be part of the winning side and being "scary" can feel good. Or that because of Godwin's Law it's nearly impossible to impress upon people how serious and swift the rise of fascism can be even when it's right in front of you, because no one wants to believe that "our sort of people" would do that sort of thing.

But calling out the MAGA movement as "weird" seems to be working because it echoes Welch's "decency" attack. It is treating childish behavior with the response it deserves. It's huff of exasperation, it's the admonishment of the social choir saying, "What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you care about other people's personal lives so much? Why the hell are you trying to ban books like the Nazis did? Why are you going after women and immigrants and trans kids? Why can't you just be a good neighbor and leave people alone? At long last have you no sense of decency?"

We're tired of it. The MAGA movement has gone too far beyond the wishes of the moderate "silent majority" (such as it is and that's its own topic of debate) and is now obsessed with its own culture war issues that have grown increasingly detached from anything anyone really cares about day to day except for their die hards. And those die hards are so out of touch they don't realize it happened.

If I may end on one last rumination, I think that part of the reason the MAGA movement has lost touch is because of Trump's skill at marketing. Now, I loathe pretty much every aspect of the man, I struggle to think of any point on which I don't, but there is one thing, one thing I'll give him credit for which is being an arguably generational talent at marketing, branding, and self-promotion. He's good at getting his name on things and making them all about him (before he inevitably runs them into the ground).

But the thing is with marketing, you do a thing called A/B testing. You see which message resonates the most. And if a feel-good ad gets you 30% response and a misogynistic ad gets you 60% response, you go with that misogynistic one because the numbers support it (I actually saw this happen with an ad campaign so it's based on personal experience).

Now, if you notice that 16 year old boys really like your product and if you sell to them, you move more product, even if you lost the interest of everyone else, you're still doing a good job at moving your product (see Hollywood for the last few decades). Because a large, certain audience is better in marketing than trying to achieve broad but tepid appeal.

But the thing in politics is that you actually do have to expand your appeal. You have to get over 50% in the US. That means expanding the coalition, appealing to more people. But that runs counter to the way a lot of product marketing would work, where you'd single out your best audience and market aggressively to them because you'll get a better return. That, I think, is why Trump risks losing the middle even as he has the right locked down. He is a marketer, not a politician. He has his reliable audience. But that reliable audience isn't enough to win office. It's just enough to get reliable buyers of his product. And he doesn't know how to expand beyond them.

To bring this all back to "weirdness" and "decency", I think this too plays into what we're seeing. The MAGA movement has turned in on itself through its constant marketing to itself, always seeking a bigger outrage, a bigger sequel to bring people to the theater. That has put it out of touch with the wider mainstream. It's made them weird, a weird subculture within America that is not in touch with what most people want out of their government.

At least, that's what I hope. We'll find out in a few months now, won't we?

[sideprince]

Snape's Doe Patronus

'Well, when it works correctly, it conjures up a Patronus, which is a kind of anti-Dementor — a guardian which acts as a shield between you and the Dementor. The Patronus is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the Dementor feeds upon — hope, happiness, the desire to survive — but it cannot feel despair, as real humans can, so the Dementors can't hurt it.'

Lupin explaining what a Patronus is to Harry, Prisoner of Azkaban, Ch. 12

The essence of a Patronus, as we see Lupin explain, is hope, happiness, and the desire to survive, though this last point may be specific to the use of Patronuses as a defense against Dementors. It's unclear whether a Patronus has any other use, or was specifically invented to protect against Dementors, and if Dumbledore and the Order's use of them to communicate was specific to them or part of a more general practice and purpose. While I don't necessarily think that extra-textual references have a reasonable place in meta discussions, the Harry Potter Wiki also has the following quote from the Wonderbook: Book of Spells video game that JK Rowling contributed to and is attributed to the fictional character of Miranda Goshawk, which offers a bit more insight:

"This ancient and mysterious charm conjures a magical guardian, a projection of all your most positive feelings. The Patronus Charm is difficult, and many witches and wizards are unable to produce a full, corporeal Patronus, a guardian which generally takes the shape of the animal with whom they share the deepest affinity. You may suspect, but you will never truly know what form your Patronus will take until you succeed in conjuring it."

The key points here are that a Patronus is a projection of a person's most positive feelings, and takes the shape of an animal with whom they share the deepest affinity.

Based on this information, it makes sense that Tonks' Patronus changed form when her unrequited love for Lupin became all consuming. We see how much it affected her because in all of HBP she's consistently described as sad, downcast, and unlike her usual cheery self. The change in her Patronus is specific to her personal emotional state and isn't necessarily a statement on whether Patronuses change form any time a person is in love. Therefore we can conclude that a person's Patronus changes based on their emotional or mental state, not based on whether or not they're in love. Whether a person is even able to conjur a Patronus is also dependent on these factors. This is supported by the way we see characters who had previously been able to produce corporeal Patronuses struggle to do so when under stress:

The air around them had frozen: Harry’s breath caught and solidified in his chest. Shapes moved out in the darkness, swirling figures of concentrated blackness, moving in a great wave towards the castle, their faces hooded and their breath rattling … Ron and Hermione closed in beside him as the sounds of fighting behind them grew suddenly muted, deadened, because a silence only Dementors could bring was falling thickly through the night … ‘Come on, Harry!’ said Hermione’s voice, from a very long way away, ‘Patronuses, Harry, come on!’ He raised his wand, but a dull hopelessness was spreading through him: Fred was gone, and Hagrid was surely dying or already dead; how many more lay dead that he did not yet know about; he felt as though his soul had already half left his body … ‘HARRY, COME ON!’ screamed Hermione. A hundred Dementors were advancing, gliding towards them, sucking their way closer to Harry’s despair, which was like a promise of a feast … He saw Ron’s silver terrier burst into the air, flicker feebly and expire; he saw Hermione’s otter twist in mid-air and fade, and his own wand trembled in his hand, and he almost welcomed the oncoming oblivion, the promise of nothing, of no feeling … And then a silver hare, a boar and a fox soared past Harry, Ron and Hermione’s heads: the Dementors fell back before the creatures’ approach. Three more people had arrived out of the darkness to stand beside them, their wands outstretched, continuing to cast their Patronuses: Luna, Ernie and Seamus. ‘That’s right,’ said Luna encouragingly, as if they were back in the Room of Requirement and this was simply spell practice for the DA. ‘That’s right, Harry … come on, think of something happy …’ ‘Something happy?’ he said, his voice cracked. ‘We’re all still here,’ she whispered, ‘we’re still fighting. Come on, now …’ There was a silver spark, then a wavering light, and then, with the greatest effort it had ever cost him, the stag burst from the end of Harry’s wand. It cantered forwards, and now the Dementors scattered in earnest, and immediately the night was mild again, but the sounds of the surrounding battle were loud in his ears. ‘Can’t thank you enough,’ said Ron shakily, turning to Luna, Ernie and Seamus, ‘you just saved -”

Deathly Hallows Ch. 32

We know Harry, Ron, and Hermione can conjur a Patronus, but it's their hopelessness and the trauma they've experienced in the battle so far after a year of isolation searching for Horcruxes that affect their ability to do so, or whether or not a Patronus is corporeal. There is a connection between how able a person is to conjur a Patronus based on their emotional state, and what shape their Patronus takes based on the same.

How does this, then, inform what we know about Snape's Patronus? We know it symbolizes Lily, because he conjurs it in a moment when he's trying to prove a point to Dumbledore:

‘But this is touching, Severus,’ said Dumbledore seriously. ‘Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?’ ‘For him?’ shouted Snape. ‘Expecto patronum!’ From the tip of his wand burst the silver doe: she landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears. ‘After all this time?’ ‘Always,’ said Snape.’

Deathly Hallows Ch. 33

We don't actually know if Lily could conjur a patronus, let alone if the shape it took was a doe. We don't know if James could either or what shape it would have taken, we only know that James' animagus form was a stag, and that we are meant to conclude as a result that his wife is therefore symbolized by a doe, and that Snape's Patronus reflects his love for her as a result.

At its core, based on the above definitions of what a Patronus is, we can conclude that Snape's source of hope and happiness was Lily. All we know for a fact, based on canon text, is that they were best friends until their fifth year at school. There are varying opinions on whether Snape also felt romantic love for Lily, but we know he definitely felt love for her as a close friend, and his Patronus alludes to him continuing to feel this way after she ended their friendship and they stopped talking, not to mention how much this was compounded by his guilt for his role in her death.

I would take this further, though, and argue that Snape's Patronus was a reflection of him, ie. that it wasn't a projection of his affection for Lily but rather of the hope and happiness that he felt in their friendship and that, if we're taking the Miranda Goshawk quote at face value, his Patronus reflected his "most positive feelings" and "the animal with whom [he] share[s] the deepest affinity."

This definition implies that Snape's doe Patronus reflects that he and Lily were kindred spirits. That's why they were best friends, and why the doe is both reflective of Snape and symbolic of Lily. This isn't surprising when you consider that they were the only magical children of their age in a small midlands factory town. They grew up in different classes, but the same culture, with the same isolating factor of being able to do magic while surrounded by muggles. Childhood friendships create a strong bond, and how much more so with such factors at play? As a result, I think Snape's doe Patronus doesn't just symbolize his attachment to Lily, but that he was like her in many ways. We see this in the glimpses we get of Lily - that she was a brilliant student as described by Slughorn, that she had a righteous temper as demonstrate in Snape's Worst Memory, and that she was not afraid of what others thought of her whether it was the best friend she was challenging unflinchingly or the popular jock bully who she told off when no one else was willing to. Though we only Snape and Lily's interactions at school as ones where they're at odds, their personalities share many similarities and it quickly becomes apparent why they became such fast, and close, friends.

We don't know if James had a Patronus, but we do know that he's represented by a stag since it was his animagus form. We're shown clearly by the text that Harry's stag patronus is a reflection of his father's spirit living on in him. While the author's intention, I think, was that as a stag and doe James and Lily were a pair, she may not have understood how these animals mate. I'm not concerned with her intentions, though, and the fact that stags and does don't spend their lives together actually offers a more interesting reading of the conclusions the reader is meant to draw from the symbolism of the doe Patronus.

After mating stags leave does to raise the offspring on their own. While this interpretation has been used by some people to circumscribe James as a negligent parent and partner, I'm not convinced of this. James demonstrated selfishness and immaturity in his tendency to sneak out under his invisibility cloak even while he and Lily were in hiding, but ultimately we learn almost as little about James as we do about Lily so it's difficult to define his whole character based on limited information. It's worth noting that he did also put himself between Voldemort and his wife and child, knowing he would be killed, and though he did so while foolishly having left his wand in the other room, this kind of self-sacrifice is antithetical to the reading of the stag/doe symbolism that highlights stags' tendency to abandon does after mating.

There is, nevertheless, an interesting metaphor for the way the two animals come together for a higher purpose - that of survival of the species and continuation of life. In this way Harry and Snape reflect James and Lily respectively. The two of them had more potential for friendship than either was willing to see, and though they were enemies (or at least they had a lot of animosity towards each other - I would argue Harry saw Snape as an enemy but not vice versa) they nevertheless they came together - at times aware of it, at times not - for the greater purpose of defeating Voldemort, ie. the survival and continuation of life in the wizarding world.

And this, the knowledge we gain by the end of the books, that Snape's main purpose in life as he saw it was to protect a child and help raise him safely while working to defeat an existential threat, is what best explains why his Patronus is a doe. In fact, he goes out of his way and risks his life for much more than Harry, fighting for the safety of all the students in his care, and anyone else he is able to save. As the text shows us, just before he reveals his Patronus to be the doe, he has the following infamous exchange with Dumbledore:

‘How many men and women have you watched die?’ ‘Lately, only those whom I could not save,’ said Snape.

Deathly Hallows Ch. 33

If we interpret the doe as symbolic of Lily, a self-sacrificing parent who put the life of her child before her own, how much more so does Snape embody that symbolism, having given his life after risking it repeatedly for the sake of countless people, including the very same child Lily gave hers for? Had Lily's Patronus also been a doe, it would have reflected who she was at her core, and those aspects of her character which gave her strength and hope - and which reflected all she had in common with Snape. Therefore I would argue that Snape's Patronus symbolizing only his unrequited love is a reductive reading, and that it was, in fact, reflective of him as an individual as well, and of the qualities he possessed that were the reason for his bond with Lily.

[sh1nsoukoku]

Pls tell me all dazai autism traits in ur list

OMG I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED, yes yes yes…

I want to preface this by saying this is in no means supposed to be canon facts or a diagnosis, I just think he is a very autistic-coded character coming from my own experiences as an autistic adult!

Long post under the cut because I don’t know how to stfu!!!

We will start with my main reasoning:

As we know, Dazai and his ability are based off of the work No Longer Human. Dazai being similar to the main character Yozo. Yozo is a kind of “stand in” for the real life author Osamu Dazai as No Longer Human contains a lot of real events from the author’s life. BSD Dazai and Yozo’s main similarities are the disconnection from others and high masking. Here are two quotes from the book:

“All I feel are the assaults of apprehension and terror at the thought that I am the only one who is entirely unlike the rest. It is almost impossible for me to converse with other people. What should I talk about? How should I say it? - I don’t know.”

This is incredibly similar to the lived experiences of Autistic people. I used to feel like an alien, or just fundamentally different than others. We tend to also struggle with communicating and other social dynamics. Dazai feels isolated from others, let’s very few people close, and searches for meaning by observing other humans and life and death itself. He quotes this as his reason for joining the Mafia. He also processes emotion differently, at odds with people around him.

“I managed to maintain on the surface a smile which never deserted my lips; this was the accommodation I offered to others, a most precarious achievement performed by me only at the cost of excruciating efforts within.”

This is one of the best descriptions I have read of Autistic Masking. Dazai HIGHLY masks. Dazai is known for not showing his true thoughts/feelings/opinions often in BSD. He can code switch easily, serious in one moment and then covering it with his over the top silly/unusual/maniacal personality. In NLH this is described as “clowning.” I also think Dazai’s genius “always according to plan” thing is sometimes a mask, so he doesn’t show the fact that he’s working hard to pull strings and figure things out.

He does have some insane pattern recognition though which is also an autistic attribute!

And now for the more surface level reasons:

Repetitive Behavior/Media Consumption: Dazai reads the same book over and over again. The Ultimate Guide to Suicide is a book he’s had with him since his PM days and he tells Atsushi that he already knows everything it says because he’s read it hundreds of times. A very common autistic trait!

Restricted Diet: Dazai seems to have a limited diet consisting of alcohol and canned crab! It’s a same food/safe food he has often. His room was described to be full of discarded cans of crab and bottles. Limited diets are common in autistic people.

Stimming: Dazai stims! He is a very wiggly and stimmy person. There’s several scenes where he is seen humming and singing or making little silly noises.

Dazai and his headphones are so important to me.. he seems to wear them frequently around the office. It could be noise cancelling or auditory stimulation that he likes.

The man never sits normally on a chair which is something I think a lot of neurodivergent people can relate to.

And of course floor time! Shown by him rolling around when stressed, laying on the rooftop and a few instances in Wan! like the marshmallow scene.

Also you can’t tell me that this is not two burnt out autistics after overworking their brains…

[communistkenobi]

I’m reading Late Fascism by Alberto Toscano. I’m still on the first chapter, where he discusses various definitions of fascism and their usefulness for highlighting specific components of fascist rhetoric and organising. And I particularly like this section where he critiques and dismisses the “white-working-class” argument, ie, that the modern bases of fascism can be found in the white working class, who express this fascist consciousness through voting for right-wing politicians (and he is of course talking about the US, addressing this formation re: the Trump base):

This is why it is incumbent on a critical (or indeed anti-fascist) left to stop indulging in the ambient rhetoric of the white working-class voter as the subject-supposed-to-have-voted for the fascist-populist option. This is not only because of the sociological dubiousness of the electoral argument, or the enormous pass it gives to the middle and upper classes, or because of the tawdry forms of self-satisfied condescension it allows a certain academic or journalistic commentator or reader, or even the way it leads a certain left to indulge the fantasies 'if only we could mobilise them' and 'if only we had the right slogan'. Politically speaking, the working class as a collective body, rather than as a manipulated seriality, does not (yet) exist. To impute the subjectivity of a historical agency to a false political totality is not only to unwittingly repeat the unity trick of fascistic propaganda but also to suppose that emancipatory political forms and energies lie latent in social life. By way of provocation, we could adapt Adorno's statement, quoted earlier, to read: 'We may at least venture the hypothesis that the class identity of the contemporary Trump voter in a way presupposes the end of class itself.' A sign of this is the stickiness of the racial qualifier white in white working class. Alain Badiou once noted about the phraseology of ‘Islamic terrorism’ that when a predicate is attributed to a formal substance… it has no other consistency than that of giving an ostensible content to that form. In ‘Islamic terrorism’, the predicate ‘Islamic’ has no other function except that of supplying an apparent content to the word ‘terrorism’ which is itself devoid of all content (in this instance, political). Here whiteness is - not just at the level of discourse, but, I would argue, at the level of political experience - the supplement to a politically void or spectral notion of the working class; it is what allows a pseudo-collective agency to be imbued with a (toxic) psychosocial content. This is all the more patent if we note how, in both public debate and psephological [electoral] 'expertise', whiteness seems to be indispensable in order to belong to this ‘working class’, while any determinate relation to the means of production is optional at best. (pp 19-20)

His critique of the white-working-class argument, that ‘The Left’ has insufficiently persuaded this group and left them to be duped by ‘The Right’, is that in order to conceptualise the white working class as a coherent political group that has become aware of itself as a political group through right-wing (fascist) consciousness-raising, is to argue that fascist consciousness is a form of proletarian class consciousness. As he says, it’s not only incorrect in practical and factual terms, but makes an analytical error in assuming that fascists are primarily mobilising people with regard to their class position. This argument accepts the validity of the “populist” label as a horseshoe catch-all, that left-wing articulations of proletarian class consciousness are equivalent to right-wing articulations of a national/racial pseudo-consciousness.

And as he says, this is also not an argument about class at all - working class means nothing in this formulation, its primary function is to ground ‘white’ and give it apparent meaning. This is how he arrives at Adorno’s adapted formulation of ‘presupposing the end of class itself,’ as class holds no explanatory power and makes little reference to reality (it is only a ‘spectral notion’). In effect, it collapses ‘white’ into ‘working class’, making whiteness a prerequisite of belonging to the working class. This is a hilarious trick given that the white qualifier is at least partially meant to save the journalist or academic from accusations of assuming all working class people are white, but by emphasising whiteness with no regard to the class position that the white-working-class supposedly occupies, race is flattened into working class, reducing class to (the white) race.  

Of course, this conclusion is not derived from any serious analysis of racial histories and economic processes such as colonialism, where this race/class intertwining helps to explain and understand the lineage of race itself. I’m pulling now from Aníbal Quijano’s Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America, who argues that race functions as the organisational system of class in settler-colonial contexts; race refers to and gives shape to the class position in the means of production in settler-colonial societies, where positions such as “slave” and “slaveowner” as classes are enforced and systematised on the basis of race, naturalising class to the supposed “biological reality” of race.

Through this analysis of colonialism and race we see how even more absurd this white-working-class argument becomes, that it concludes that whiteness is a racial barrier of entry to the proletariat; in effect, very roughly inverting the racial logic of colonial capitalism in order to argue that poor whites are the base of fascism. Noticeably, this accepts the basic fascist argument that whites are an underclass being oppressed by a non-white ‘misfit’ bourgeoisie, who achieved their position through social manipulation, trickery, and liberal social justice programs like affirmative action. Where liberals depart from this formulation is merely to argue that a diverse ruling class is the result of meritocracy as opposed to social engineering.

This is a liberal articulation of fascism: an adoption of the fascist logic that races can be activated as a class, that race is a dormant social energy that can be activated in the minds of a white class, but this argument is used as a means of obscuring white supremacy as a tool of right-wing reaction and mobilisation by tacking on the qualifier of ‘working class’ at the end. In this way, working class becomes the qualifier to white, not the other way around, positioning fascism as a purely lower class phenomenon, something that afflicts only the poor whites, the stupid whites, the uneducated whites. This allows for the obfuscation of the bourgeois character of fascism, and provides fuel for “the tawdry forms of self-satisfied condescension it allows a certain academic or journalistic commentator,” many of whom are themselves white.

[licorice-and-rum]

Your analysis focuses entirely on Snape being irredeemable because he never takes responsibility for the harm he does. Almost all of your quotes in evidence are from his childhood and teenage years, in which he is indeed blind to his own malevolence.

Except this is the whole point of his story of atonement. He was radicalised into walking down a very bad road, and then tried to claw his way out of it. He does eventually take responsibility - as an adult. He commits himself to a dangerous path of spying to defeat Voldemort. He can’t bring Lily back, he can’t undo his mistakes, but he can understand that he was wrong to join the Death Eaters and dedicate himself to a different cause. If he didn’t take responsibility for his choices, he would’ve spent his days mourning Lily on a beach in the Bahamas instead of willingly signing his own death warrant by joining Dumbledore to protect Harry.

Nobody - and I really do mean this - is beyond salvation. Nobody, even those who have sinned gravely, is beyond waking up one morning and choosing to be a tiny bit better than they were the day before, even if they remain imperfect. Its a fundamental part of humanity. It’s a very dangerous road for go down when you dehumanise young people who make terrible choices, write them off as fundamentally evil, and deny them the opportunity to take a different road. Snape remained bitter and cruel and perpetuated the cycle of abuse, but he did in one very vital respect choose a different road.

https://youtu.be/SSH5EY-W5oM?si=XBskWqOT2X0tl0Am

Okay, that's a valid point to be made, I did focus mainly on teenager Snape but only because I thought adult Snape would be obviously interpreted from that point on. The fact is adult Snape doesn't exactly atone for what he did and what he chose to become as much as it looks like he did, simply because his harmful ways didn't affect only Lily, to begin with.

Look, you're starting from a point where Snape's most serious mistake was to turn on Lily and forgetting what I said earlier on in the analysis: Snape's biggest fault wasn't his personal/individual issues, it was his political agenda and beliefs, and what he did in the name of that.

Fascism isn't only a political aspect, because to be a fascist, there's a series of prior beliefs one has to have to be okay with what fascist governments and political groups will do to stay in power. To be a fascist, to openly advocate for what Voldemort and his followers advocated for instead of just going with the flow (which was not what Snape did at all), you just don't "become radicalized" like there's no one to blame here but some notion of propaganda. To radicalize to fascism, you must seek out information about it, advocate for it, and have prior beliefs of superiority that allow you to relate to it in a deep, core level - all of which we already attributed to young Snape in my analysis.

Let's put it this way: fascism is capitalism's emergency button. It'll only arise when capitalism is in crisis, which we don't see in the HP books because it's neither relevant to the story nor it seems that Rowling has the political knowledge to do so. But more than that, fascism is based on colonialist views of the superiority of one versus the other.

Think about what you know about Iluminism: the first thing I learned about it in school is that it was a dichotomous stream of thought - we have a lot of duality in it. In Art, we have the chiaroscuro technique; in metaphysics, we have the discussion about man versus God; and in politics, we have the "illuminated" man (white, heteronormative, cisnormative, high-class, educated men) versus barbarians or savages (non-white men or women).

The colonialist way of thinking stems from this very deep-rooted belief that some people are more rational, and more advanced - superior - than other peoples, and so it'd be their God-given task to "illuminate" those "savages" through colonialism. Fascism is the elevation of those beliefs to a place of persecution and political revisionism in the newer stages of capitalism. So quite literally, to be a fascist, one has to first have this deep-rooted belief that there are people who are inherently superior to others. A belief system that Snape demonstrates early on in his life that he does have.

And that's exactly what I criticize about JK Rowling's writing and what further supports my point of Snape failing to atone for his beliefs: what she says in her books, basically, is that it's okay to think some people are superior to others as long as you don't do anything against those inferior ones like it's very much exemplified by what happens to the Malfoys after the war. It's where her individual background shows itself in the worst ways - because she was raised in a society that benefited from colonialism, their way of looking and thinking still carries a lot of reminiscent of colonialist thinking. Ask a person from the Global South about Europeans and you'll see what I mean - even when they don't realize, there is clearly a rooted racism in the ways they're raised because of that.

So it's obvious to me that Snape's development couldn't ever surpass the point where his core belief of superiority lies because Rowling doesn't see this as a problem. Maybe as an annoyance but certainly not as a problem when it is, 100%, the problem. Especially if we're talking about a redemption arc because then it means that Snape could never actually make proper amends or be actually accountable for what he has done as a Death Eater.

To break free from this way of thinking we need what Fanon calls cognitive dissonance: an extreme discomfort that is the only thing able to shatter a core belief like that of superiority. Now, we can argue that for Snape a cognitive dissonant experience would be Lily's death, or Voldemort's persecution of he,r because this did show Snape that his beliefs of Lily's exception to the rule were misplaced. However, there are various indications that that doesn't really happen for Snape, especially when we talk about his adult version's behavior and that might be explained by a series of earlier motives.

I'll focus first on the behavior pattern that I identify as cues on the fact that Snape didn't exactly atone for his mistakes in his adult life and then I'll come back to talk about why I don't think Lily's persecution or death was a cognitive dissonant experience for Snape, as traumatic as it may have been.

So I said earlier in the analysis that it doesn't matter why we do something, it only matters that we did do something because our actions are what will have a reflection in real life, not our intentions. And while I stand by that, I cannot in a sane mind say that our intentions do not play a role in our actions - that's simply not true. But our intentions have a different role to which importance should be attributed, and that is in the way we make things. Our intentions have as the main core, our beliefs, and our beliefs will therefore guide our actions.

Now, to simplify, if I believe every human being has the same value and should be treated as such, I'll act with the intention of demonstrating such belief. So I vote for candidates who preach equality, and I advocate for equality in the environments I'm inserted in (even if it's only me doing it subtly, it's still there). I cannot dissociate myself from it, it's a part of who I am and therefore it leaks into all aspects of my life. The same happens with the contrary: if I believe that some people are inherently superior to others because of their birth, then my core actions will reflect what I believe.

See where I'm going to?

Adult Snape perpetuates the cycle of abuse he grew up with, not only in his house but also in his political beliefs and later on as a professor. Yes, it was the abuse he suffered early on in his life that made a core belief of his that there are people who are superior because of their strength (and then it evolved to believe that this strength came from magic and purity) but as an adult who believes in this, it's painfully obvious how he perpetuates it: he defends bullies and is a bully himself.

He uses his place of power to punish and abuse this power simply because he can, he looks down on those he considers weak and acts against them in a show of his own superiority. And that isn't exclusively shown only to his students but also to people who are "below" him in the social hierarchy of the wizarding world, such as Remus.

And yes, I do realize there is more to their relationship as colleagues than just a non-werewolf "picking" on a werewolf out of prejudice but I have to note that if you really broke through your initial core belief of superiority, the very least you have to know is that there are some boundaries you can't break even out of well-placed resentment. And one of these boundaries is using your place in the hierarchy to oppress people who are below you, which Snape does when he reveals Remus' condition to the wizarding world.

Plus, I do want to challenge your statement of nobody being beyond salvation as I do see it as a very naive way of thinking, although that's not my exact point about it.

First of all, salvation and forgiveness are two different things. You can do unforgivable things and still become a better person than you were when you did those things, I do not deny that. But the damage you did is still there, and no victim of this damage is required to forgive you because you became a better person - sometimes our actions are irreversible, sometimes the damage we cause (especially when it comes to fascist beliefs) is too great, sometimes we can't possibly do enough to amend the things we've done. That counts with abuse, with fascism, with r*p*... there are many things to consider before we say so freely that no one is above salvation. It's naive to believe that everyone deserves forgiveness because there are things that cause too much harm to ever be amended again.

And as I said before, salvation and forgiveness are two different things. I do believe people can do better even after doing unforgivable things. I won't say it's exactly fair to the victims but there are abusive people who have become better after a especially bad relationship, there are parents who have become better parents to their youngest children than they were to their oldest, there were supremacists who became much better people with life, I do not deny that. I have no desire to deny that actually.

What I am advocating for, however, is that we hold these people, and characters, responsible for their own actions and uphold the very pillars that will give us the basis from which we should judge the changes in their behavior. And what I am saying about Snape is that he did not fulfill any of these milestones for redemption, it only appears so because he turns against Voldemort but that alone isn't indicative of change because the evidence shows that his core beliefs are still the same and as such, his actions on a personal and general level will reflect that even without Voldemort.

The point I'm making is that our core beliefs are the ones that guide our actions, and therefore, Snape's actions cannot be deemed as completely redeeming because they don't reflect an actual change of behavior more than they reflect a change of perceptions of the people he sided with in the beginning. Snape's actions don't reflect a cognitive dissonant change but on a shallower level, a change in perception: he doesn't turn on Voldemort because he realizes that his supremacist beliefs are frayed but because he takes Voldemort's persecution of Lily with hatred.

I explain: we only hate in three instances, one of them being when the object of our hate directly or indirectly threatens the things we love. As much as I deem Snape and Lily's friendship toxic, I cannot deny the existence of love, so when Lily is threatened by Voldemort, Snape hates him because he is a threat to her. Which is fair, but it's not a cognitive dissonant event for him because of all the points I make above. His change is superficial, his loyalties change out of emotions and not out of convictions, and as much as this doesn't matter when it comes to the actions he has taken - Snape did have a fundamental role in defeating Voldemort and (questionably) defeating the corruption within the system Rowling so much adores - it matters because it'll indirectly impact the actions he'll make around it, hence his role as professor, for example.

As much as I do respect what it has cost him to endure as a spy for Dumbledore, I cannot say that his actions towards Voldemort are enough for a redemption arc because there's no actual change in Snape. He is the same he always was, he just had a change of loyalties out of love, which is noble but at the same time, it still causes damage to the people around him exactly because he didn't change.

[agentc0rn]

Kieran’s story as a loner champion rival character who challenged the game narrative + parallels with the DLC legends - another character essay

Okay, so this is another long rambling of mine that is probably an overthought (and reflective of past analysis) but anyhow, I like to think that Ogerpon, Terapagos and Pecharunt represent certain aspects of Kieran’s arc (albeit not in order). Although Kieran says himself about how he wants to be like PC/us, to be strong like the hero of the story, he outshone others in terms of being a protagonist; not in terms of simply as a central focus of the story but his desire to acquire qualities of a protagonist, which is very evident in his dominant role in the story. Kieran was a protagonist (along with Carmine) but not the main character in terms of the conditions it came along of being one.

To start, Ogerpon being a social outcast due to a great misunderstanding of her display of strength and act of self-defense as a threat is ironically picked up Kieran through his projected image of a strong “oni”; he later becomes this feared champion whose standards pushes out and judges others based on strength. Consequently, other students view him as overly stern and restrictive. He adopts that oni image and its attributed value of strength in who he sees himself as and subconsciously shows to others. Obviously the context of these circumstances are different, but Kieran ends up with a poor reputation just like Ogerpon did (He also takes the "treasure" - in this case Terapagos - like the oni which stole treasures in the tale of Momotaro).

Secondly, terapagos and its too short arc represents the full extent of Kieran’s desire, his potential and who he is; a reclusive, small being who possess great power and status, which, with neglect, caused great changes when it came to the tipping point. Moreover, Terapagos is the "monarch" of area zero, as evident with the tera crown, just as Kieran was the Blueberry champion/king. On another note, his quote of "I don't need my old self anymore - I will show you that I can change again!" resonates with the idea of transforming - physically and mentally - in conjunction with the terastalization, ultimately becoming who you want to be (penny says this as well).

To add further on, Terapagos' berserk state paralleled with Kieran’s monomia of battling and power (demonstrated in his behaviour at the championship match) that long affected his own well-being and his surroundings. The funny thing I personally noticed is that, Kieran took over that role of “control” as opposed to his possesion under dokutaro theories by capturing Terapagos and using it as a final resort to achieve his goal.

Likewise with Pecharunt's motive, Kieran was someone who deeply wanted something that resulted in the harm of others and himself (also mentioned in the case with terapagos). Kieran wanted not just strength, but also honesty and appreciation (form of love) from others. As our miscommunication led him astray, it persuades him that his self-worth is only found in strength (physically and mentally as a trainer and person), and that battling is no longer fun but a measure of worth, a trial determining the strongest who would outlive the weakest. He worked so hard to fulfill his goals for his own sake yet simultaneously for you in that sense of being proven wrong.

He gave up so much of himself by devoting his time, energy and studies to bettering himself (which is very ironiccc). Similarily, Pecharunt gave so much in return for its desire to be loved more - it took as it gave. Both have a warped sense of the things they love (or love in general) in their own respective ways. For Kieran, battling was a test of worth and that the things he liked ought to be strong. He went through such a training arc just to prove himself to you (he outright says so). Again, I repeat, Kieran did this all to fight you, ultimately to prove to you and himself that he made the right choice, that the effort for going through all of this was worth it.

Pecharunt went through all the trouble in seeking out the masks just to appease the couple (I would admit this just ties to the theme of treasure and its consequence with obsession in general, but this analysis aims to focus on the connection between the characters on a specefic level). Its grasp of love comes off as materialistic, more so conditional (same way applied to Kieran = battling in which determines one's success that is only found in strength; that to be a friend/rival, he needed to prove himself).

I have no epic quote/ending for this, oh well (it came off better in my head). edit: grammar issues and revised idea phrasing

[an0thergl1tch]

Sanderssides Scale theory/headcanons:

*I have no idea if anyone has talked about this before but I personally think that Janus’s scales are less of a birthmark due to him being literally part snake and more a literal representation of emotional scarring or stress.

*As seen during Selfishness v Selflessness Patton turns into a giant frog because he is under intense stress and pressure. Along with this I noticed during the trial upon being confronted by Virgil he involuntarily hisses while saying suck up. Although definitely could be a snake gag I see it as slightly significant, considering this is the only time Janus has ever struggled with saying a word starting with the letter s. (Although he did hiss in a incorrect quotes short)

*I personally believe that under different amounts of stress, both Patton and Janus gain more frog and snake attributes based on how stressed they are. It would make sense considering both Patton and Janus are connected to Thomas’s morality, and would be more likely to quite literally wear their emotions on their sleeves. Along with that both Janus and Patton are connected with Thomas’s repression of both emotions and parts of himself, and it would make sense that due to this their reactions to stress would be much more intense than the other sides, and they would be much more likely to try and hide the quite literal “ugly” parts of themselves.

*Although fits with his dad personality, I have noticed that most of Pattons outfits are layered, or deliberately hide the shoulders. (Wearing cardigans, his Christmas sweater, a turtleneck in the inside out episode, etc.)

*I have a number of ideas as to why this is.

1. He is a major aspect of Thomas’s faith and therefore has the unconscious urge to “cover up”.

2. A visual representation of repression, trying to subtlety hide himself under clothing.

3. Like Janus, he also has animal skin, more than likely frog spots.

*I personally enjoy this theory because I imagine this could cause some serious tension. Patton is desperately afraid to show them as they are “evil” and are a representation of him at his worst, and I imagine he would even more terrified of Virgil seeing them as he knows Virgil has a troubled history with Janus, and would be afraid that Virgil would cast him out too because he looks like him.

*I imagine there are two ways the scales and spots came to be :

1. They have simply always been there, Patton was lucky, Janus wasn’t.

2. The scales and spots appeared as result to trauma, either the same event or multiple events making them spread. Fortunately patton was able to hide them but Janus wasn’t.

*As to how they work, I imagine that much like emotional trauma, sometimes it dosent bother you that much, but sometimes it flares up. I imagine under high stress the spots and scales start to spread.

*I imagine that this could cause some discomfort for Patton because in the past he would’ve likely had to bear with peoples teasing towards Janus despite having the same issue and simply had to agree because he couldn’t blow his cover. Perhaps that’s why Patton is so kind to him and hey Janus has a soft spot for him, because he knows that fear. Or perhaps they are siblings.

*I also enjoy the idea of Janus turning into a snake, like come on that’s awesome.

[funnier-as-a-system]

uhm, I'm not part of a system, but I use a person in my head who can take over for me and has their own personality as a coping mechanism, and I was talking about her to my brother cause they help so much and he said that I sounded like his ex who was part of a system so I did research and I experience practically no DID symptoms. So should I stop using it as a coping mechanism? Is that bad and mean to people actually parts of systems? And if it is okay, would it be bad to use things attributed to DID? (alter, headspace, host, etc) Cause I don't wanna harm people actually part of systems and make it seem like some quirky little thing, sorry for rambling a little I get rambley when I'm anxious

I don't mean to alarm you, so please imagine me saying this with a gentle tone, but what you're describing sounds exactly like a system. A system involves having multiple beings* sharing the same body, each with their own sense of self**, and typically being able to change who has control of their shared body (or "take over" as you put it).

* These "beings" can be persons, or referred to with other terms.

** I can't tell for certain based on your ask, but based on how you said she has her own personality, I find it likely that this person in your head has her own sense of self and considers herself to be her own person, since personality is generally understood to be part of one's self.

However, it sounds to me as though you don't believe this could be a system due to some misconceptions about systems. So, let's go over them.

Firstly, you don't need to have DID, or any disorder, to be a system. While having, quote, "two or more distinct personality states" (headmates, or in the case of how you described her and likely describe yourself, persons) is required to have DID, the reverse is not true; you don't need to have DID to have two or more distinct personality states. You don't need to fit the other criteria to be a system; you'd just need to fit the other criteria to have DID. You can experience this specific symptom of DID without experiencing any other. You can be a system without having DID.

Secondly, there are plenty out there without DID (or other disorders) who are still systems "as a coping mechanism", as you put it. They are known as non-disordered traumagenic or stressgenic systems, and their systems come from needing to cope with trauma and/or stress. Sometimes, these systems are even purposely created as an active coping mechanism, but other times they occur without any conscious choice. It sounds to me as though your system could very well come from similar origins, or at the very least, help you in similar ways.

Thirdly, while "alter" is generally associated with DID, as it comes from the medical term "alternate personality state", the other terms you mentioned have origins from other parts of the system community. "Headspace" is a term used by many regardless of status of system or singlet, and "host" has more roots in spiritual systems than psychological. You are free to use whatever terms you wish so long as you make sure you understand their definitions and associations, and are comfortable using them for yourself – for example, systems with spiritual origins are less likely to use the term "alter" due to its medical connotations making many systems of this type uncomfortable, but there are others who are fine with using it for themselves. There are other community terms that people misunderstand in this same way, so don't feel bad about this.

While most people hear of systems in association with DID, DID is not the only way to be a system. You can be a system and describe yourself with system terms without having DID. And on the flip side, some folks with DID choose not to describe themselves as systems or with system terminology! It all depends on the system/person/plural in question.

I'm not going to outright tell you that you are a system. But I urge you to consider where your rejection of the idea comes from, as it seems to me that it is coming from some easy to make misunderstandings about systems in general.

In short, no, you're not being offensive, bad, or mean for being like a system (or being a system outright) without having DID. You're far from alone in that boat, in fact, so don't worry about it. If this other person is helping you, there's no need to get rid of her – in fact, I'd discourage you from doing so on the possibility that she is her own headmate, as repressing or ignoring one's system generally makes things worse. Instead, I'd recommend gently exploring the possibility of being a system, perhaps looking into the created system side of the community to see if anything resonates with you or if there are resources you would find helpful. My own system found many resources from that sub-community that we found helpful when we were first discovering our plurality, and we thought we were only traumagenic back then!

It's alright to be anxious. But I promise, the only people who would get pissed at you for using system terminology or being like a/a system without having DID are generally people you'd want to avoid anyway. If having a coping mechanism of another person in your head who can take over your body sometimes is improving your life – well, I think it'd just be hypocritical, rude, and pointless of me to tell you off for that!

Hope this helps!

[ilikekidsshows]

When did Astruc say Adrien was lame for being feminine? I thought he welcomed the gender nonconforming headcanon? Or writing a lame character that Marinette being exceptional would like? I thought he was canonically popular with girls (and boys haha). Are there tweets I missed?

Oh, no, this isn't based on tweets. This is based on things in the show.

If you pay attention, a lot of characters criticize Adrien for being passive, not standing up for himself and being too emotional. I'm a media analyst, so I'm pretty good at spotting patterns in shows, and Adrien being criticized for his feminine attributes is a pattern, alright.

First we get these comments from Gabriel, but, we assume we're meant to disagree because Gabriel is abusive and the main villain, but then other characters get in on it.

Félix, during his arc from villain to hero, repeatedly criticizes Adrien for all of these things, and isn't exactly refuted by anyone. Félix is morally gray at this point, though, so a lot of people take whatever he says with a grain of salt. However, it should also be noted that Félix, after his debut, is the writers' pet who always succeeds in whatever he does, so we can't be too sure that the writers disagree with whatever he says.

Then come the actual characters no one can refute we're supposed to agree with. Kagami criticizes Adrien for not standing up to Gabriel and Félix more. A heroic character, who has repeatedly given valuable advice to our leads, is saying this, so we're inclined to agree. When Adrien agrees with her, the show is telling us that this (Kagami accusing Adrien of being too passive) was good advice.

What really solidifies this is Adrien himself being made to say it. That stuff in Kuro Neko about how he's too emotional and too sensitive. That's Adrien saying the parts of him that are girl-coded are wrong because they cause Ladybug trouble. And Ladybug treats this as fact. She doesn't say she agrees, but she does instantly soften towards him and accept him back into the team after he says it, implying her agreement with the statements.

Astruc doesn't need to say anything. He's the most unsubtle creator I've seen and the show speaks for him.

But, if it's direct quotes you want, the writers' commentary tells us that the reason Adrien isn't in the finale is because he's the 'princess' in their fairytale, they call him the "princess sleeping in her tower". So they're replicating sexist story tropes about "sleeping princesses" with no agency in their stories but just reversing the genders. Sounds like adrien's girl-coding specifically being the excuse the writers use to diminish his role to me!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

“The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check,” declared an angry JD Vance during the debate. This line perfectly sums up both Vance and Donald Trump. Both want to be able to lie non-stop in the pursuit of power. Both get angry when called out for their lies because they want to create an alternative reality that helps them. And both are following the authoritarian playbook. We all know the line, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” That law of propaganda--often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels—is the cornerstone of Trump’s MAGA movement.  This quote instructively continues that “the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” 

Trump understands this instinctively. It’s why he dubbed any media story that criticized him “Fake news” so his supporters would believe him—and him alone—when it come to the truth. As President, Trump took it further in 2018 when he told people at event, “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” adding jaw droppingly, “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”  At the time the NY Times reported about these comments, “Trump is doubling down in his efforts to tell supporters to trust him over the words of critics and news reports.” This also explains why Trump supporters believe his “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen. After four years of Trump telling them what was reality, they were primed to accept his lie that 2020 election was filled with fraud. And we are currently seeing Trump prepare his base for the same type of reaction after the 2024 election with his recent pronouncements “the only way we’re gonna lose” is “because they cheat.” This is also why Vance was angry after he spewed lies about Black immigrants in Springfield, Ohio that prompted CBS debate co-moderator to slightly push back. This exchange came when Vance peddled the lie that, “In Springfield, Ohio…we’ve brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes.”

He then added, “The people that I'm most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris's open border.” After Tim Walz responded slamming Trump for submarining the bipartisan border security bill that would have addressed the issue and more, that is when co-moderator Margaret Brennan stated, “And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status.” Brennan did not fact check the litany of other lies in Vance’s statement such as Harris had created “open borders” or that Harris “brought in millions of illegal immigrants,” etc. Brennan simply stated the truth that the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio have legally entered the United States. Yet that comment angered Vance who believed that like at the CNN presidential debate, he should be able to use a national debate watched by millions to mislead the America public. At that point, Vance raised his voice to interrupt the co-moderators to bellow, “Margaret. The rules were that you guys were going to fact check.”  From there Vance tried to bully the two female co-moderators by speaking over them to the point the microphones were shut off for a moment. That angered Trump and MAGA world. They understand that having a fellow candidate fact check Vance or Trump will be meaningless for many viewers because it appears to be just political rancor. But when a moderator of a respected network calls out a candidate’s lie in real time, it actually is effective at destroying the lie. [...] There should never be a presidential or vice-presidential debate in the future that does not feature real time fact checking. The candidates are not there to be journalists, but to share their vision for the nation. Fact checking after the debate is just about meaningless. But as we saw with the Harris-Trump debate, fact checking in real time flags to the viewers that a candidate is lying about basic facts. This is how we protect our Republic from people like Trump--who attempted a coup, incited the Jan 6 attack and was convicted of 34 felonies for cheating in the 2016 campaign—from ever being elected President.

JD Vance acted like an unhinged sexist bore last night when he got mad at the CBS moderators fact-checking him for spewing lies about the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.

This also serves as to why moderators should fact-check candidates at the debates.

[glacierruler]

Patton Sanders Analysis

Taglist: @januscorner @pandagobrr @icycove @cutebisexualmess @oatmeal-stans-the-trash-rat

@part-time-zombie

Post Under the Read More, it is long!

This is an analysis of Patton Sanders. Putting this here right now, I relate to Patton Sanders a lot. This is of the official episodes, and not the Asides!

Patton Sanders is Thomas’s morality and emotions.

Very important distinction is that he is Thomas’s morality not The Morality. He is not the arbiter of right and wrong, he is the aspect of Thomas that was raised a certain way to believe that certain things were right or wrong.

Within the first episode, Patton is acting as Morality first. This is important because that’s how he always seems to act as first. He always tries to be Morality and then emotions. However, this is not beneficial.

In the first episode he asks Thomas, “What positive impacts do you inevitably hope to bring to this world?”

Thomas is surprised by this, as it seems that Morality is more of a comic relief character in the beginning in his eyes. While probably due to the fact that the series was not initially supposed to be more than a few episodes long iirc, it can also be taken another way. It’s a way to show that Patton is smarter, and does think a lot deeper than how he appears to. Because he’s always trying to be happy (as happy is a good emotion. We’ll get into emotions and morality in a bit). However, when Thomas notes that it is surprising for Patton to say something like that, Patton points to his and Logan’s glasses, noticing that they’re the same.

Why does he do this? What could he possibly gain from doing this? I believe this is because he doesn’t wish to be seen as the deep philosophical side, but as the Happy Pappy Patton (something he says in a later episode). Being deep like this could effect how the other sides see him, and (like all the sides) doesn’t want to be seen that way.

There are a few other things to note in the first episode, when talking about his flaws, Patton says, “you can be a bit selfish with your food and your other belongings.” Which is notably something that Thomas does, but in the section where they talk about his good attributes, the moral side states “you believe there’s good in everyone,” which is something that Thomas thinks. And it’s our first clue to just how hard on Thomas, and himself, that Patton really is. If you can say something you’re doing wrong morally but can’t say an action that you’re taking to do something correct, it begs the question, how hard are you one yourself?

Morality is learned, it is not something you’re born just knowing right off the bat. This is important, because it’s important to keep in mind that Patton’s views are Thomas’s views on morality.

In A New Year of Lying to Myself… In Song!!! Morality and Logic butt heads, Patton is attempting to use his sway over Thomas to have him learn to cook more, while Logan wants him to learn something new. Patton doesn’t seem to quite believe it when Logan tells him that Thomas has “cooked in the kitchen plenty of times” since the WAY TOO ADULT (way too adult), and asks for proof. And I’m struck with why, since Thomas is them wouldn’t Patton be able to see Thomas cooking? While Logan is Logic and contains information Thomas learns, like cooking (therefore it making sense that Logan would be perhaps a little more aware than Patton), Patton is at the forefront of Thomas’s morality. And he had deemed it morally good for Thomas to cook. It would be completely reasonable to assume that Patton would be aware of that. Unless the only reason he deemed it morally correct is because, and I’m quoting to the best of my ability since this is said when Roman, Patton, and Logan are speaking over each other, “The basic essential things, that you need to learn to seriously become an adult to succeed at adulting.” (Again, very much trying to hear what he was saying in order to get this quote, I may be slightly off on what he said). Based on this, he views it as something everyone who is an adult does and knows how to do. Which very much reminds me of how neurodivergents like myself mask. We don’t know how to do something and so we’re hard on ourselves for not being able to do it, yet it’s something that otherwise isn’t important to us or how we function. I think this is Patton’s views on Thomas cooking. He believes it essential to how Thomas can take care of and survive on his own, which is why it’s morally correct to learn, however it isn’t actually something he deems important enough to pay attention to.

Also Patton already has an aversion to lying in this episode. He doesn’t try to seem positive and upbeat in this, or attempt to be gracious to Thomas about New Years goals. He just agrees, not wanting to lie as that’s wrong but not seeing anything positive he could say in Thomas’s defence (which again, leads me to believe he is extremely hard on Thomas and in turn himself. This is corroborated in other episodes as well).

Thankfully Logic, Morality, and Princey reach an agreement of small goals that Thomas could make in that episode. (Which solves that episode’s problems, but not Thomas’s of being hard on himself, this is something I hope to revisit.)

One of the first times Patton encourages Roman, from what I’ve seen, is in I’M IN A DISNEY SHOW!! (I’m in a disney show!!) This is because Roman is excited about the fact that Thomas was in a disney show, despite being there himself. He was achieving his hopes and dreams, and Roman was excited. Virgil tells him “You were there… princey, we’re both factors of his personality.” This prompts Patton to tell Anxiety to let Roman express his emotions. While I agree with the sentiment, I think this is the first we see of the sense of emotions and morality feed into the ego. Which will end up being a problem (As we will discuss later in this essay).

Patton then proceeds to tell Thomas that “I just want to support you in everything you do. Plus I saw you had some leftover pizza?” While I completely believe the sentiment of that first statement is true, by saying he wants pizza right after he is undermining that first statement. And I think that’s because he only cares to the point of where Thomas is happy when it comes to Thomas’s hopes and dreams. (This is because he Morality and Emotions, this is Not because he Unsympathetic, I want to make this clear. While I am being critical of Patton, I am in no way shape or form calling him unsympathetic!) This interaction is proof that while Patton wants Thomas to be happy and morally in the right when it comes to how he’s happy he doesn’t seem to care.

In The MIND vs. The HEART (The Mind vs. The Heart) is when we get the confirmation that Morality is also deeper emotions and empathy.

I think that this bit of diologue from Thomas himself illustrates Patton’s constant struggle. “Dad guy. You  encourage me to do what’s right and strive to do the most good in this world that I possibly can. And I appreciate that. But a lot of times I spread myself too thin. I also tend to make others a priority over me, and their feelings a priority over mine.” Patton is Morality, he has learned to put other’s emotions over his own. He has learned to put other people before him.

Another problem I believe Patton to have is not listening to others because he believes himself to always be in the right. He is morality after all, he knows what he’s doing, he believes that his default is to be good so therefore he is good. So in a lot of the videos, whenever he’s not specifically addressed, or has some sort of stake in it he tends to go off and do his own thing. If Thomas isn’t feeling bad, and if he isn’t doing something that is deemed morally wrong by Patton, then what is Patton supposed to do.

However, as seen in all of this, he is also Thomas’s emotions. He is not just how Thomas views right and wrong, but how he feels in each and every situation. Having to handle not only what’s right and wrong, but Thomas’s emotions is a hard job. But it’s the job he has. And he can’t be wrong, because if he’s wrong, if he’s in the wrong. Then Thomas is, and then Thomas is a bad person, in Pattons point of view. While one of Patton’s fears might be spiders, I believe an even greater one is if he was wrong the whole time, if because he was wrong and Thomas was wrong, that he led Thomas to be a bad person. And this is only really brought to the front by Janus. While the others tell Patton he’s being too hard on Thomas, Janus shows it in the form of Frog Patton hurting Thomas. I think one of the reasons it’s so hard for Patton to understand this is because he doesn’t want to be anything other than Thomas’s Happy Pappy Patton. Nothing more than the morality and positive emotions that keep Thomas upbeat. If he’s anything other than that then he believes he’s failed as a side. He solves the tinier problems without addressing the bigger ones because he didn’t understand what exactly he was doing wrong.

Yes, he had been told he was being overbearing, spreading Thomas too thin. But he was never told how detrimental that was, how wrong for Thomas it was. He just knew that he and Logan butted heads about it a lot because of Thomas’s schedule. After all, he can’t be wrong, he’s the moral side, the side that knows right and wrong. And Roman, Virgil, and Logan all enhance this idea so much! In Growing Up, they tell Patton to stick to knowing the difference between right and wrong, and then go and ask him for help. They consistently tear Patton down to Just Morality or Just Emotions depending on the video. And at the beginning of the series they barely listen to him as is. I think this fundamentally changes in both MOVING ON (Moving On) parts 1 and 2. This is where they start to realize he’s not just Morality or Happy Emotions. But Morality and All of Thomas’s Emotions in general.

“I feel guilty for still feeling this way for so long.” Patton doesn’t like feeling horrible, especially not for long periods of time. Possibly because he’s been taught that negative emotions are bad, possibly because it makes Thomas feel bad and he feels guilty. But with him being Morality as well… It makes it so that negative emotions feed into the Thomas Is Doing Something Wrong complex, meaning he has to figure out what’s going on and sort that out while dealing with, you guessed it, emotions! It’s a loop, a repeating pattern of events that he doesn’t know how to stop, and It Is Of My Opinion that that is because while Morality is something learned, after a while it feels like something that is engrained into your being.

There is also a habit of whenever Roman is feeling down or bruised of Patton going to and helping him. Which isn’t necessarily bad, however we don’t see the other sides do this nearly as often. In Am I ORIGINAL? (Am I Original?) Patton is the first to reassure Roman that content doesn’t have to be original, after Thomas tells him that he could never disappoint him. And then, in the very next episode, Patton is the only one reassuring Princey after his ego has been bruised. And I think this really sets up a sideline of Patton being there for Roman and helping him out, which makes Roman really rely on him a lot. This is also emphasized in The Sanders Sides 12 SIDES OF CHRISTMAS (The Sanders Sides 12 Sides Of Christmas), when all the sides are getting onto Roman’s song lyric for Virgil, and Patton has to be the one to tell all of them to be nice to the princely side. (Janus also uses this fact in Can Lying Be Good, to try to get Roman to side with him). Now this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if your source of ego is getting fed by only one facet of your personality that can end up being a devastating blow when that part is proven to be faulty or wrong.

While there have been attempts to reign Patton in, I don’t think he fully understood that how hard he was being on Thomas was ultimately harming him. As none of them were nearly bad as the events that transpired to get us to the Selfishness vs Selflessness and Putting Other’s First. “Roman I thought you fought for honor? Why are you pushing Thomas to be dishonest?” This is what Patton says to Roman about possibly lying to his friend’s to go to the callback. This seems inconsequential, but I wonder if Roman would have made the same decision had Patton not said that. In Putting Other’s First, Janus and Patton butt heads, arguing about Morality and Why People Should Do Things. And Roman takes Patton’s side. I think this is due to the fact that while he knew Thomas wouldn’t be happy at the wedding, he also ‘knew’ that it was the right thing to do because Patton is (Thomas’s) Morality, and Patton has to be right about this. Not only that but Patton has been there for him time and time again and he wanted to return the favor. Be a prince.

Yet Patton learned, by turning into a frog, that he was hurting Thomas. That while he might be doing what he believes to be Morally Correct, because of his actions, his beliefs, Thomas was being hurt. And he realized that what Janus was saying was true, and he was able to visualize just how badly he was hurting Thomas. But with how it ended up going down, it came at the expense of hurting Roman, of (I believe unintentionally) shattering the ego.

As per my first(not nearly as extensive) analysis, I said “Patton absolutely believes going to the wedding was the correct choice, but Thomas had been excited to be fulfilling his dreams of being an actor. And so the excitement of his friends getting married was dampened by the fact that he missed out on what could’ve been a dream job. And not only that, but now because Thomas is bummed about missing this opportunity, Patton feels guilty about the disappointment, because his friends are getting married and he should be happy and even excited about it. But he isn’t. And so, while morally Thomas did the right thing(according to Patton), because he isn’t happy about what’s happened, that essentially traps Patton in this circle of guilt. Guilt for the choice that Thomas made not making Thomas happy; and guilt for being at Lee and Mary-Lee’s wedding to celebrate and not being ecstatic for them.”

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?

Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see Section A.5.4). They point out that:

“The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under self-management. “So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working masses. “The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread it.” [pp. 15–16]

Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917 to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes “anarchism … has traditionally found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants.” [Demanding the Impossible, p. 652]

Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, “Anarchism … originated in everyday struggles” and “the Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived its origin from the teachings of life itself.” [Evolution and Environment, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, “the proof” of his mutualist ideas lay in the “current practice, revolutionary practice” of “those labour associations … which have spontaneously … been formed in Paris and Lyon … [show that the] organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the same.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59–60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was “close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon … and the program of the Lyon Mutualists” and that there was “a remarkable convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such workers.” [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 164]

Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based on their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product of working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it:

“There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in action rather than as the putting into practice of an intellectual idea. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership.” [Anarchism: Arguments for and against, p. 18]

In Kropotkin’s eyes, “Anarchism had its origins in the same creative, constructive activity of the masses which has worked out in times past all the social institutions of mankind — and in the revolts … against the representatives of force, external to these social institutions, who had laid their hands on these institutions and used them for their own advantage.” More recently, “Anarchy was brought forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth to Socialism in general.” Anarchism, unlike other forms of socialism, “lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against Capitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law, Authority, and the State.” All anarchist writers did was to “work out a general expression of [anarchism’s] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings” derived from the experiences of working class people in struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society in general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]

However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory, was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism “emerged at the end of the eighteenth century …[and] took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State.” [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 4]) anarchist writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin argued, for example, that “from all times there have been Anarchists and Statists.” [Op. Cit., p. 16] In Mutual Aid (and elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the creation of the “official” anarchist movement and argued that:

“From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal authority… Consequently they developed in the primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild … and finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured to establish their personal authority.” [Anarchism, pp. 158–9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation. He argued that “the labour combinations… were an outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few — the capitalists in this case” as were the clan, the village community and so on, as were “the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the ‘Sections’ of Paris and all great cities and many small ‘Communes’ during the French Revolution” in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and organisations have existed in every major revolution — the New England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian ‘Sections’ during the French Revolution, the workers’ councils and factory committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see Murray Bookchin’s The Third Revolution for details). This is to be expected if anarchism is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then any society with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression and exploitation, a generalisation of working people’s experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal individuals.