#but it’s a decent assumption considering her past trauma

[glossamerfaerie]

Gwyn 🤝 Azriel

Insomniacs who exhaust themselves with training until they fall asleep.

***

When they get together, I can think of a better way for Gwynriel to exhaust themselves if they can’t sleep. 😌🥵🔥 If they’re going to be sleepless, might as well be productive. 😂

[neversetyoufree]

Since we'll hopefully be getting out of the VnC hiatus soon, and this new arc seems to finally be turning the spotlight back to Noé and calling out some of his more troubling traits for the first time, I've been thinking a lot about him recently.

I've talked before on this blog about Noé's inability to recognize or process bad things when they happen to him alone. He bounces back from and idealizes almost any experience as soon as it's over, even when he absolutely shouldn't. It's one of my favorite traits of his, and it's been lampshaded a couple of times in-manga. Louis calls out how weird his attitude toward his kidnapping is during the mémoire 9 flashback, and the "be a little bothered" from Vanitas and co in mémoire 57 has the same effect.

We also recently got a whole extended sequence of Vanitas and Domi complaining about how Noé also never anticipates harm before it might come to him. He waltzes into dangerous situations like it's nothing, almost as if he thinks he's unkillable. Combined with the above, this is just more of his strange brand of optimistic denial. Everything is fine in Noéland! It can't possibly not be fine! He always trusts and thinks the best of people and situations by default, never wanting to expect they may do wrong, and so long as a given event doesn't involve harm to external innocents and/or Noé's loved ones that he can't rationalize away, he compartmentalizes and denies harm once it's done. Thus he carries on in blissful ignorance, his past suffering having no effect on the blithe trust with which he treats the world.

But in addition to all that, Noé is also very notably divorced from the consequences of his own actions. It's not that he's *incapable* of considering his own effect on people, and he certainly tries to be kind and decent, but much of the time, it just doesn't seem to occur to him that people will have reactions to the things he does. He does as he sees fit, and when his deeds impact the people around him, especially if they produce a reaction that could upset him, it bounces off his mind in the same way that potential traumas do.

On the more lighthearted end of the spectrum, this leads to things like Noé never noticing when people are attracted to him. It may also have something to do with his airheaded messiness—the way he's always thoughtlessly making a mess of the hotel room and incurring Vanitas's wrath in bonus materials. On the heavier end of the spectrum, this causes a lot of genuine problems for the people around him. He's largely oblivious to the depth of Dominique's mental health problems until she's pushed to her breaking point at the amusement park, despite the fact that he's inextricably entangled in the cause of them. He also completely loses sight of Vanitas's reactions to him when he gets caught up in his protective rage at the start of the vanoé fight, and it takes an outside reminder from Jeanne and a literal mirror to make him realize that his own actions are part of why Vanitas has devolved to such a state.

This lack of self-perception on Noé's part feeds back into the other problems I laid out at the top of this post, his obliviousness toward his interactions with the rest of the world helping to facilitate his denial. It's part of the happy little insulating bubble that he interacts with the world through. And as the other side of that coin, his automatic, unthinking denial of things that could hurt him is part of what enables him to ignore his own impacts on the people around him. You can't reckon with or worry about harming other people when you live in Noéland where everything must be fine. I think the fact that he wants to be a good person that doesn't harm others actually makes it harder for him to confront the truth of how he impacts the world, because him hurting others is a Bad Thing that would cause him mental harm.

We've seen Noé mess up, understand his mistake, and apologize for it before. He apologizes to Vanitas for making assumptions about him after the bal masqué, he apologizes to Vanitas again at the end of the amusement park fight, and he apologizes to Riche for speaking with ignorance about dhampirs. However, I think the bigger a mistake of his is, the more harm it causes other people (and the more understanding would hurt him as a result), the harder it is for Noé to comprehend his wrongs. He's clearly trying to make things right with Domi, and he's told her that he values her, but I don't know if it's yet occurred to him to conceive of their mess as a situation where he's done her active wrong. He also literally passes out on her mid-conversation, leaving Domi and Vanitas to carry him back to bed when he was supposed to be comforting her.

But I think the most fascinating example, the moment where all this comes together into Noé's most feeble and blatant act of denial yet, is the first time he sees Misha after clawing up his face. The anime actually changes this detail, which is its own can of worms to get into, but in the manga, when Noé sees Misha's injuries in the light of day after attacking him, he immediately fucking turns around.

At the end of his wits at the amusement park, Noé claws a child across the face in a fit of anger and protectiveness. I'm not interested in condemning Noé for this, especially given that the child in question was actively trying to stab Vanitas at the time, but I will say that his actions are quite extreme. Given Vanitas's response and the way Misha's injuries are portrayed, I think it's clear that the manga wants us to see how Noé hurts Mikhail as something troubling and extreme. He gives that kid a pretty horrible injury, and Misha will likely have scars on his face for the rest of his life.

And regardless of how justified he may or may not have been in hurting Misha in defense of Vanitas, it's clear that Noé himself is upset by the true extent of what he does to Mikhail's face. When he looks at him in the light of day, when he sees a numb-looking child with his face wrapped in still-bloody bandages, though we only get to see a small segment of his face in that moment, he looks sick. He knows that he's done something troubling, and I'm sure he feels all kinds of heavy and unpleasant emotions.

This is one genuinely bad thing he's done that Noé cannot deny. He can't rationalize this one away and make it all copacetic. He can't conveniently forget the emotional reality of suffering and harm, because that reality is standing ten yards away from him. And he can't just apologize for things either, because apologies cannot undo physical harm, and frankly, I'm not sure he'd be able to give an honest apology for his one. Sickness at the results of his actions doesn't mean he fully regrets hurting Misha, at least not at this moment when emotions are still raw.

But Noé, confronted with this undeniable source of guilt and pain, is still ultimately unable to look the pain he's caused in the eye. A problem piercing through the happy veil of Noéland and forcing him to acknowledge it doesn't mean he's capable of reckoning with that problem. Instead he just. turns away from it.

Noé, forced to acknowledge a harm he's done and unable to employ all the many layers of automatic insulation that usually protect him, physically turns around because he cannot bear to look at the person, the child, that he's hurt. He employs the very last possible form of avoidance available to him, even though it's useless in the ways that matter. Not looking at Misha doesn't mean he gets to un-know the fact that he maimed him, but he simply cannot bring himself to look.

Noé is extremely good at playing "I do not see it" with things that hurt him. He's good enough that I think he has genuinely no idea he's doing it a vast majority of the time. Whatever mental shield he has that's protecting him is automatic enough that the badness that could hurt him doesn't ever even seem to cross his conscious mind. But no matter how automatic and subconscious, this tendency of his is still, and the end of the day, nothing more than an unhealthy coping mechanism, and this moment helps to put that to our attention.

What's the difference, really, between him cheerfully acting like Jean-Jacques and Chloé's assaults never upset him and him turning around so he doesn't have to look at the wounds he gave Mikhail? Noé can't look at pain, can't acknowledge the things he finds upsetting (at least not things that cause him alone pain, as others' pain often triggers his savior complex and spurs action). This scene with Misha throws that into the light, forcing Noé to desperately cling to his avoidance in an obvious and physical way.

Even when there's no way to deny the harsh reality of having done something he finds horrific, Noé Archiviste cannot make himself look directly at a painful truth, be it others wronging him or his own wrongdoing. It takes an external hand to step in and force him to turn his head and acknowledge/reckon with a problem. And even then, who knows if intervention can always be successful.

The start of the dham arc so far has drawn a lot of attention to this pattern of behavior, with Vanitas having to sit Noé down and explain to him in detail why his words said in well-meaning ignorance make Dante so upset. This is Noé being forced to look at a harm he caused because he couldn't or wouldn't look at and comprehend the problem (his fellow vampires' racism) in the situation he was in. But upsetting Dante is ultimately a low stakes problem for Noé. He put his foot in his mouth and offended a peer; he didn't shred Vanitas's little brother. He's able to accept his wrongs and feel his discomfort without resorting to physically turning around and avoiding the issue.

I want to know what Noé will do if/when this arc forces him to confront a source of pain he can't handle in a context that's more high stakes than a social faux pas. I want to see what he'll do when something really forces him beyond his ability to believe that everything is fine. How badly would he have to be hurt to lose his ability to filter an event/events through rose colored glasses? How badly would he have to hurt someone else? Or is his instinctive shield good enough that he'll never get out of it on his own? And if so, who else might step in to make Noé own up to reality?

Teacher and the Archivistes are becoming plot-relevant now, and our attention is being drawn to Noé's issues. I think there might be something coming soon that even Noé can't turn away from and cheerfully pretend isn't hurting him. Teacher even ends his appearance at the amusement park with a little speech about having to "wake and face reality," which makes me even more certain that a wake-up call for Noé is imminent.

Either that, or Noé's going to mess up and hurt somebody even worse than he hurt Misha later this arc, and in that case, we might get to see a feat of denial even worse than him literally turning around to avoid looking at the wounds he caused.

[distopea]

She couldn’t help but slightly laugh at his comment, as surely, he was more than those brutes she had entertained in the past. Still decently relaxed, she observed him with a compliant look in her eyes. “Ah, who’s getting smooth at complimenting others now.” She indicated, while even if she appreciated those, she could determine that they were often far from being sincere. Mostly polite, but in these situations, it was a rarity to ever earn something genuine, and she wasn’t the first born rabbit to ever believe in those soft words. It was pleasant, but Bastet knew where she was standing; he was definitely changing the rules of the game. He seemed to like it though, and while she believed it wasn’t too dangerous - perhaps she was wrong, of course - she decided to tag along, at least until she felt it could lead to a more threatening situation. It was him who was doing the show, and by the way he was holding the bottle, she wondered if he wasn't trying to prove her something. 

“Oh, but I do sing.” She answered with the same confident smile, before she raised an eyebrow. “I guess, though, that depending on the level of alcohol in your blood, you might find it either very pleasant or find another form or torture.” She observed her glass of alcohol, finding an enemy right here. She didn’t like to drink at all, the effects of those beverages were still a profound trauma for her. She had been drugged more than once through the apparent innocence of those drinks, and she felt quite reluctant to ever pick up her glass. Yet, for the parade and the show, she still had to prove she was inclined to escort him. 

“Would you truly consider yourself like all of those customers? It’s been a while since I hadn't attended someone personally. Forgive me if you find me too rusty.” She answered, tapping her nails against her cold drink for a second. She sensed she had her walls up again, but not because of his attitude; it was more about her own need to protect herself. It could also be a bit of both as well, so she was still prudent. “If I have to be honest though, it’s because you know how to elude important questions. I find it intriguing, so I couldn’t stop making assumptions. That’s why I compare you to a mama. But it’s only a guess, not a judgment. I have a profound respect for those who owe to protect others.” She listened to him and nodded, certain that he was right. The world couldn't be binary, there was good and bad in everything. She often witnessed both, and she surrendered to both as well. Protected and sacrificed. She believed him; he certainly knew well when he needed to be a sword or a shield towards others. 

“Han-sama, are you afraid someone here wants to mess with you?” She dared to ask, and took her first sip of alcohol after that. He was now too close, she felt slightly frightened, so she preferred retracting herself to a safer distance. She didn’t want to play with fire too much, not when she wasn’t aware of the burning risk on her side. She had no instructions from Astra, if not trying to understand Han’s temper and character a bit more. 

rather than grant her with a verbal response, he simply smiled & gave her a hard blink, as if his stare alone should convey his answer. a quiet agreement from his part. sometimes, even the simplest of gestures said a lot.

"you're right. i'm not." he admitted without trouble, lacking any intention to lie about it. his smile spreading across of his lips. "but it's nice to receive some compliments here & there. especially from a beautiful lady." the latter, he added as if to emphasise his words. eyes turned into slits when the corner of his lips raised slightly, meeting with that half-lidded stare. it was as dangerous as it was seductive—his intentions well hidden behind it. now, it was him who played the role of the host by picking up one of the bottles & pouring some more into her glass. some liquid courage to encourage this intrigue that she displayed ; leaning forward as if she was captivated by him. she better be, he thought. his hand held with expertise onto the bottom of the bottle, tilting it & letting the alcohol flow so flawlessly. not a drop was spilled. his own glass was filled as well.

he hummed. "i wouldn't take you to be much of a singer anyway." his comment was nonchalant, even friendly in tone—like something you'd say to an old acquaintance. a chuckle would erupt past his lips while holding onto his drink. the cold beverage felt nice underneath his fingertips. "is that a question you ask all your customers, or did something in me inspired something so oddly specific?" han could tell that her real intentions were showing. his suspicion about mr. donnel's sudden disappearance remained at the back of his head. his body relaxed nonetheless ; leaning back against the cushion. his head, somewhat sinking in-between his shoulders with how comfortable he had become. "things aren't as black & white as some paint it." he began by saying, which wasn't saying much. "i'm someone that sees the grey areas because i was born neither here nor there." not of japanese descent, but neither accepted by the korean communities that existed back then. "i look out for my people no matter what it takes." & as he says this, his glass is swayed in a circular motion ; eyes fixed on her even when he takes a sip from it. his lips don't last long on it, though—putting it down & leaning forward like she did. the distance between the two closing even more. there was an underlying feeling of threat. "i'm not someone people should mess with. same goes for my people."

[asterekmess]

1/7 I’m actually a fan of the idea behind Scott and Stiles’ friendship and the story Scott told. Scott and Stiles worked together well when they first started in Season 1, because they were obviously complementary. I even liked how Stiles was able to shrug off Scott’s jealousy and possessiveness and kept putting up with Scott despite Scott treating him like trash (“I just made first line! I got a date with a girl who I can’t believe wants to go out with me, and everything in my life is perfect!

2/7 Why are you trying to ruin it?!”) and ditching him for the popular crowd as soon as he could. It wasn't a perfect friendship, but it worked well enough. The problem, of course, is that through the course of the show, Stiles grew up and Scott didn't. Stiles would lock himself up and sacrifice his own life to save everyone else’s (that’s literally the theme of Teen Wolf Season 3B). Meanwhile, Scott would gladly sacrifice other people’s life to save his own and to keep his true alpha title

3/7 (Scott begging others to do his dirty work for him is literally the theme of Teen Wolf Season 6A&B.) Stiles focused on responsibility and building relationships with other people, while Scott took them for granted; it bugged me how many times Scott would treat people as friends that he could make demands of just because he said so (Stiles, Lydia, Boyd, Danny, Kira) and then abused other people’s patience (Derek, Chris, Isaac, Allison, Malia, Liam.) Scott boasted about being a true alpha and

4/7 smarted off to his enemies because he knew that his friends would have his back. Until the last, for Scott McCall, it was always someone else's fault when Scott McCall fucked up. There's nothing more annoying to me than Pissbaby Scott Getting Pissy in the club in Rave because Allison had the nerve to prioritize saving Jackson’s life over Scott’s jealous fits and temper tantrums.

5/7 There's nothing more pointless than Scott lying about Kira’s fox to control her and then playing up his shitty little chest wound that had long healed just to convince his friends not to abandon him again. Scott was so tone deaf to other people’s pain, traumas and history that it seemed like he was obsessed with minimizing what they had gone through and making it ALL about himself instead. And even that wouldn't have bothered me if they had allowed Scott’s friends to say "Quit it, Scott.

6/7 You're 18, not 8." If they had allowed Stiles to get angry with Scott without portraying it as a crime, or Derek to beat the ever living crap out of Scott for violating and dehumanizing him, or Isaac to clap back when Scott abused him in front of Melissa, or Kira and Allison to shout at Scott when he lied to them. But the production didn't. The show basically said that "Stiles is a hero and a good friend because he lets Scott use him and gaslight him to his heart’s content and doesn't leave.

7/7 The show basically said "Allison loved being yelled at and stalked around so much, she started dating Scott." The show basically said “Derek realized that Scott violated and dehumanized him for his own good, so he doesn’t have to hold it against him.” The show basically said “Isaac accepted being hit and abused by Scott because he deserved it for looking at Scott’s woman.” It didn’t have to be toxic, but it ended up being that way.

A lot of my issues come around to the writing of the show. I honestly believe that we’re a little spoiled in our fandom world. There are so many fics with so much depth. So many writers that put so much effort into making proper foils and character arcs. They wait and wait and wait, revising until they know they’ve got the fic exactly how they want it, and then they post it.

Writing a tv show doesn’t really allow for that. Sure, they write a script and it gets looked over a few times, but there’s no time to stew in it. To consider how that episode’s script and plans interact with previous episodes, to consider how it will effect future episodes and the direction they should go in. The time is crunched, there’s a couple read-throughs and then you get those actors in front of the camera and go. I get it. I hate it, but i get it. My frustration came in my expectations of the forethought that I believe would’ve gone into the show before it ever came out. BEFORE it gets a pilot or green-lit, or whatever the terminology for that is (I’m a stage actor, not a tv actor), it was my assumption, that there would be so much thought out. If I’m working on a series of fics, I have at least a basic plotline for every volume. If I’m writing a 100k fic, I make an outline and I decide on the general plot and then? Then I decide what the character development/arcs will be. Taking a writing class, you get told constantly to think about how the characters should change from beginning to end. You get told to consider turning points in the story. You need to have a concrete understanding of each character’s personality, backstory, behavior, and have a PLAN for what to do with each other them and how you intend for them to grow (be it good or bad)

So when I went to watch this show the first time, I was totally caught up in YEs werewolves! Yes full moons! Yes, fangs and claws and superstrength! YEs even the human gets to do fun stuff! But that excitement quickly faded, because the foundation I thought I was seeing, wasn’t actually there. I saw Scott attacking people and yelling at his friend for trying to help. I saw Derek threatening people and clawing Jackson. I saw Jackson and Lydia being stuck-up and that stereotypical ‘popular’ kind of pompous and cruel. I saw Stiles being vicious and impulsive. Allison showed up as this...perfect person? I saw it and I thought that was the point. That they would all learn and grown and depend on each other and that this show about werewolves that spent so much of Season 1 talking about ‘pack’ would turn these people into a pack. That they would call each other out for their various issues and everyone would grow. That Allison would seem like this beacon of goodness, until she revealed a deep character flaw that she would have to work on like everyone else. And then we got to the second season, and it all just went sideways. Derek just got meaner and Erica and Isaac both joined while being just as mean. Boyd seemed like a decent dude, that voice of reason. And then he was barely there. Stiles kept hitting on Lydia and wouldn’t stop. Scott was awful to Allison. It all got worse and they were suddenly split into Sides. Derek and the other Hales that popped up were never actually a part of Scott’s pack/group. They were always on the outside, even after Derek just sort of...gave in and said Scott was in charge now? It was frustrating and confusing, watching bits of their personalities flip-flop all over the place to suit a plot that felt like it was just trying to cater to the audience, without having any actual backbone of plot. If you write something JUST for other people, it’ll never have integrity. The growth of these characters was constantly either completely skipped (characters going from bad to good in an instant), cut off at its ankles (killed off or sent away), nonsensical (Derek had to lose all his powers to become a full-shift wolf, and that somehow had an effect on his personality??), or it never happened (Scott. And, to some extent? Stiles.)

I find that I have the most fun in this fandom when I take canon and use it as a sort of malleable clay to play with and make my own worlds out of. I get to keep my favorite characters around (Boyd, Erica, and Isaac, and even Jackson sometimes), get rid of characters I don’t like (Ethan and Aiden, usually Jennifer and Gerard, and sometimes Scott), and toss what I’ve got into an au or a canon-divergence and see what they do. I mean, that’s basically what all fandom is, but for this one, it’s a bit like SPN. I refuse to acknowledge anything that happened in SPN after like...season 6 or something. I haven’t even seen past s8 (just like in TW i haven’t seen past S4) and it doesn’t matter. i mold the tv show to make whatever I want.

Canon gave me some good ideas, but I don’t like to stick to it too strictly in my own creative works.

I’m sorry that canon let you down, but fanfic will always be here for you.

[detectivesplotslies]

I saw you mention in an ask reply how Shuichi is an unreliable narrator, and damn right, I'm happy to see other people realise that! I was wondering if you wanted to talk a little more about the kinds of things he misinterprets? I have my own thoughts as to what he's most notably unreliable about, but I'm curious as to what others think on the matter.

I would hope most people realize Shuichi’s unreliable by now, but I know there are a few who don’t, or stubbornly choose not to. Anyways  gonna ramble with a few of my opinions and examples I think fit this. This is in no way a complete analysis, you should look up some others people have done in the past if you’re interested .Shuichi’s unreliable narrator quality I find stems a lot from his misunderstanding of people, their intentions / motivations in actions they take, or what an emotion in someone else could mean. He’s unreliable to us because his opinions on these are treated by him (and by extension those of us reading his internal POV) as if they are fact. That’s not the only way an unreliable narrator can work, we saw it at play with Kaede too, but in a more deliberate evasive nature in hers, with specific focus and denials, omissions and such.

Let’s start with an easy one. 

Almost every internal comment about Kokichi is coloured with Shuichi’s suspicious bias about him. He doesn’t make an attempt to understand the why, because certain naysayers in the group have already coloured his opinion of Kokichi as a troublemaker, as early as chapter 2. Assumptions about if the head injury was done on purpose instead of serious, reasoning behind the motive video viewing party, behind why Kokichi wants to investigate with him in the 4th investigation. Shuichi’s commentary here is often dismissive, rather than open or unbiased. And of course after that trial it progresses from dismissive to flat out refusal.

Next up, Shuichi’s memory of Kaede is super unreliable, very coloured by trauma and emotion I’d say. He’s not wrong to remember her well, she had decent ideals, but as soon as the 6th trial arises, he switches to calling her innocent. The intent was still there, she made the choice that ultimately ended up in a death. But our narrator here doesn’t actually care to consider that once the other culprit is brought up. Once again more of Shuichi only really making his conclusions based on facts and not thinking as much about motivations or intent?

Shuichi’s statements about Kaito throughout the game are unreliable and coloured with personal bias. A lot of idealization, and a touch of misunderstanding. Shuichi’s internal statements about Kaito are very positive, he doesn’t seek out flaws for the most part because he assumes none. He didn’t see Kaito’s jealousy when it happened, and assumed Kaito hated him instead. He also can’t get his head around motives Kaito would have in chapter 5, possibly clouded with emotion and his own view of Kaito, which gives us a more narrow view of how he approaches the trial.

Some smaller unreliable moments on Shuichi’s part I’m not gonna expand on but wanna mention are reactions to Miu, to the student council’s talk about the necronomicon motive, and a few of his internal explanations of flashback lights.Hope you don’t mind my ramble. I’m a Shuichi fan but approaching his POV and the game critically is important.

[healthgnome]

Dear, Isaiah because it’s come to my attention.

It has come to my attention that the past back-and-forth of abuse accusations have been slowly resurrected and I see now that it is certainly within my time to once more explain my side. I truly wish not to be slandered and lied about on such a big platform and I wish the same for my friends, Ryan and Zayne. I genuinely try very much to be a decent, good, and helpful person. Sometimes I slip up as anyone would but I certainly know that I would never try and genuinely bully or hurt someone. For any time I might have joined in on some fun-making - trying not to go overboard and apologizing if I did end up actually hurting- I once again of course apologize for that. I go with the flow of how I think a dynamic is working and sometimes a dynamic does involve some making fun meant in no big harm. A prime example of such would be the friendships between Mark (Markiplier), Bob (Muyskerm), and Wade (LordMinion777). Where it is within understanding that they are all good friends but Wade gets the brunt of a lot of jokes. Any time there is sincere hurt, not that we have seen- but I guarantee there would be apology.

In Any Case, now that that introduction is out of the way I shall diffuse all that has been said in a post made by former friend Isaiah AKA (currently) @for-abused-kids about myself, Zayne (@thevvytchbytch) and Ryan (@literallyrealdeadstuff).

Not one of us have “stalked” your blog on a daily to find out if you have talked shit. If you mean during that whole giant commotion, sure there was a lot of digging in order to actually provide evidence for the claims we make. After that? Maybe checked out some posts to make sure there wasn’t still any sort of slander on any of our names, or we were informed of such a thing taking place. And yes, you have had their name(s) and mine on your blog in a “talking shit” kind of way.

We did not go to your house after dark, how would you know if you weren’t there. That is assumption. (and you know what they say lol) And a letter was written to your parents coming from a place of concern and explanation. I had not wished any abuse on you to happen.

As well, you are repeatedly saying that we lied to your mother telling her you ripped up the note. It was not meant to be a lie or anything of the sort, we simply had no contact and therefore wanted to make sure the note was actually read.

Hmm. I would really like to point out though that you claim that Zayne had the audacity to go to your home and deliver this note with someone who stole from your home while at the hospital. Do not act like you are not leaving out very important parts to this statement, and that the counterpart, leader, truest perpetrator, and manipulator to this was someone mentioned throughout this letter.

There was a lot of yelling between yourself and Zayne. A lot of it was not meant in harm, which was understood at least eventually; a lot of it was out of anger because something had happened, was done, or was said. And there was a lot of back and forth.

Allan was a friend of all of us for a while until he was slowly let go from all of us because he is a bad person. Personally, I stayed friends because my really fucked up brain could not handle being any more alone than I already was. You had liked him for a long time. Told us about it, or when certain things may have happened; sometimes these feelings went away (which is normal), and sometimes they were strong. I can provide proof for this too. Yes he was an awful person, and I was usually on your side when he did bully you. I did exclaim, and of course I understand how feelings work, that perhaps not being friends would be a good idea. I also told Allan this countless times but he enjoyed messing with you and I am not him nor could I control his actions.

The competition? There was a small friendly barely-a-competition thing going on in regards with Zayne. And it had barely lasted as well. At least from what I understood.

Ah yes the cum stains things. We used the word cum out of what we thought would be respect for your identifying away from femininity. Just as we would use the word “dick” or any variations thereof rather than vagina when referring to most of us and genitalia. Which sounds gross to say but we are teens, most of us horny, most everyone on T, genitals were a common point of discussion. And yes, you did leave vaginal discharge stains, or cum stains or whatever you feel most comfortable calling it, on the futon. And this is a pretty normal thing from what I know. People “get wet” and people have sexual liquids. It be like that.

From what I, and many others know, you do talk to a lot of people, including children, about your trauma.

I don’t remember you purposely triggering Zayne with Ed Sheehan, you did not have control anyway; Allan was the controller and was persistent on having that song on. However, you have attempted to physically hurt Zayne when you punched them. It did not actually hurt because it was frankly weak (not that I could do much better). What next you’re referring to after this is that Zayne was allowed by yourself to punch back; they simply know how to and are stronger than they appear.

Oh god. The Asian thing. That’s a huge bag on it’s own and has been talked about previously, you want more info on this or another post? Talk to me. Here is a link to a post with a bunch of evidence of this and other things & here is a link to a quick post by Ryan. There will also be a couple of photos at the end of this. But simply, Isaiah, your evidence was hardly; you have very white features, two very white parents, and have never presented otherwise, this coming from a very white person.

Congruently, have you seen Ryan or a picture of him recently? He has anything but thin lips. If you’d care for an example of thin, look at me. His hair is quite thick, has varying curls throughout as has been complained about and explained in the past. As well, it does deeply tangle itself if not taken care of daily. I, on the other hand never brush my hair- at the same length- and it barely gets more than a little disheveled. There is evidence of all of this. He does not at all have a small nose. Whilst not the darkest person, the summer provides a pretty good tan, more so in his youth. His father is actually not white- which is a known fact rather than a guess. If he is at least a quarter black, and has those features, I think it’s fair for him to claim that he is mixed on a hookup/dating app.

Oh, and I am quite aware of all of the arguments you’ve had about your father and his heritage. It’s what sparked that one post about the “Native American” 80’s/90s festival necklace. Which was a genuinely funny incident if you look back on it.

I have heard varying things to do with you imagining sex with anyone you are friends with. Just as I have heard varying statements about a lot of things that you exclaim to have or currently happen in your life.

We have called you straight as you have called yourself straight or straight-passing because of the fact that you were or are masc-aligned and would now prefer to date fem-aligned individuals due to trauma. But considering you are not mono-attracted to only men/masculine leaning individuals, you are not completely gay either. So if you can call yourself one you can essentially call yourself the other since you seem to be comfortable enough doing so. (I’ve recently seen a word to use for nonbinary-straight attraction! it’s “strayt”; similarly, there is “gai.” I bring these up not to make-fun or cause harm but they may be useful to you.)

In regards to Ingrid, as far as you have spoken to us and as we have seen, you have changed what you claim to have identified as whilst dating her. From secretly trans, to a cis girl, to questioning (not in this order, necessarily). Regardless, for many reasons it seems as though this was an unhealthy relationship.

You have taken stories right out of others lives and claimed them to be your own, these would be delusions, dear, not hallucinations. And it is at least a possibility that a lot of other things are delusions, too. This coming from someone who has had experiences with some sort of psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, gas lighting (from yourself, Isaiah. as well as from others.) and other such things that I can explain more if asked. And there is evidence of this all, as well.

I have never been abused by my parents. They are wonderful individuals who also try to be good, decent people. They have taken in my friends (including you, Isaiah) and done a lot to help them in times of abuse and need as well. That being said, there can be, from what I’ve seen, varying degrees and methodologies of abuse that different groups take part in. They are all horrific and I absolutely, full-heartedly, condemn all of it. But that is a fact given by apparent evidence. This being said, your parents have Not admitted to doing all of this, at least not to yourself, but to your sisters. I am genuinely curious as to why, if they’d admit doing harm to them both to you and in writing, why would they not come through with all of this to yourself?

On this topic, Stockholm syndrome, while something truly awful, is a kidnap-specific symptom. You can google how it affects others, but those websites are a lot less trust-worthy. We both went through the Hell of the junior research project and you are an academically intelligent person, you should be able to tell the difference between a trustworthy site and an untrustworthy one.

As far as your gender, speculations have been made based upon a lot of things you have said, and some seeming fetishization of nonbinary people. This is not said to invalidate your feelings or anyone else’s for that matter. It is simply that you are a rightfully suspicious individual. Again, this coming from trans people both binary and non- alike.

Regarding what I’m pretty sure is the video of you sitting on my legs, Isaiah, I don’t remember if there was an apology (whether or not in the video) but this wouldn’t be the first or last time something like this had occurred.

Finally, you have abused me. You have done me harm and I now understand that. I have tried to do a lot for you but you have done a lot to and taken advantage of me and my mental state. 

Once again here is a link to a post with A Lot of evidence. Want more? Contact me.

As always, best regards to your mental health,

former friend, Alana.

PS; Please, for the love of everything, do stop misgendering Zayne and use *their* correct pronouns ( they / them ) !

The photo below contains obviously curly hair, not-at-all thin lips, a not-at-all small nose, etc. You can see.

[vulva-o-queef]

@hestiaq​ (making a new post because I don’t want to keep reblogging a long threat)

I’m really sorry for what you were put through. I sincerely hope you’re in a better situation now and doing okay. That’s horrific.

I remember the Ted Bundy bit you’re talking about- and she’s…. honestly quite right? If enough men have NPD/ASPD a few of them are going to seem intelligible, I think. I don’t really understand what you’re saying about Ted Bundy- if it’s tongue in cheek or not.

Okay, like I said, I haven’t seen this post she made. necromancerdoll just said that larps said sociopaths/psychopaths “can’t perform well in society/function with others.” I know aspd and being a sociopath are often considered the same thing, and I know a lot of them are pretty transparent assholes. Psychopathy isn’t a formal diagnosis at all, but criminal psychologists do use the term, and there’s a pretty solid consensus on what it means. Some people say psychopaths are a subset of sociopaths, and other people say it’s a similar but distinct thing, but in either case, one of the main characteristics of a psychopath (which a sociopath doesn’t, or doesn’t always have) is that they’re smooth and charming, and they use those traits to manipulate others.

My comment about Ted Bundy was sarcastic (and probably not in very good faith, but also wasn’t really related to the main point of all this), because saying psychopaths “can’t perform well in society/function with others” is the opposite of the truth. Ted Bundy was charming, socially adept, approachable, and likable, which was exactly how he managed to lure in many of his victims. He would put on a fake cast and ask women to help him get things into his car, which is what that scene from silence of the lambs is based on. Larps might be totally aware of all that and just phrased something too broadly. The only way it would be relevant to the rest of what I’m saying is, if she really meant to say that psychopaths are socially inept, it would be another example of how she tries to speak as an authority on mental disorders she doesn’t understand. Mostly I was just poking fun.

Women are over-diagnosed. But I don’t understand how Larps pointing out shitty behavior is the same as “diagnosing everyone”. Also, she’s talked about how borderline personality is over-diagnosed and often ascribed to women who are dealing with trauma. She’s also not talking about it from a “I don’t personally like them” only- “these people” are people who are cruel and vicious and play victim when called out on their cruel vicious behavior.

Clearly, you and I interpret the things she says about bpd and��‘cluster b’ in general very differently. For one, diagnosing anyone over the internet is absurd. In my first response to her, I did agree that she has made some good points, mostly about the link between autogynephilia and narcissism. But that’s about noticing an overarching theme within a specific population, and there’s already a decent amount of academic writing about that link. Case studies done by real psychologists. Actual studies done with controls and statistics and so on. And even with stuff like fucking “trans lesbian” dating profiles that larps points out herself, there is some solid evidence there due to the sheer repetition of entitled attitudes, fetishism, etc, the list goes on. My issue is with the way she thinks she understands BPD when she clearly doesn’t, how she applies “cluster b” or bpd to an awful lot of people, largely young ‘transmen’ or radfems she doesn’t like, and how whenever anyone she’s put down for having BPD tells her to cut it out, or tells her that she’s wrong about them, she dismisses anything they have to say by citing “people with bpd are insane,” or telling them they’re being irrational due to their disorder. Basically she’s using it as a shield to avoid being held accountable for the things she says. “Anyone who’s telling me borderline people aren’t irrational is only saying that because they’re borderline, and therefore they’re irrational!” I’m not saying she’s diagnosing “everyone.” And regarding transmen specifically, there are a lot of psychological factors involved in that situation, and for someone who’s so vocal about the cultlike, exploitative, backwards nature of the trans movement, you’d think she would understand how absurd and frankly just plain egotistical it is to think she can simplify all of those psychological factors and dynamics down to “cluster b.” Again - remember that she’s talking about people she’s never met in her life, usually judging from one blog description, a handful of posts, or sometimes nothing more than a fucking selfie.

Even as a younger girl with supposed “BPD” (who even identified with the label)- I wouldn’t have found this stuff offensive, and if it did (which I might have, and sometimes still do)- it’s really that easy to log off or go outside.

That’s good for you, and I respect your perspective. And you’re right, I could just log off and ignore what larps is saying. You can say that about anything anyone says on the internet, and technically it’s true. But I didn’t. The things she’s saying are ignorant, I find them personally hurtful, and I think she’s spreading misinformation, harmful stereotypes, and regressive thinking. I see that she’s saying dehumanizing and belittling things to women on this site who deserve respect, and probably worst of all, I see that there are a lot of people who look up to her, ask her for advice, sometimes idolize her a bit, and many of them will believe pretty much anything she says. She’s feeding them bullshit and some really vile ideas about mental health stigma, and how people with certain disorders (mainly BPD) deserve to be treated. I don’t think she’s the devil incarnate, and I don’t think she’s out here ruining lives and destroying families. I think she’s an asshole with an inflated sense of her own insight and knowledge, and I decided to say something. I could have logged off, but in this case, I didn’t. That’s all.

...I don’t understand how Larps memeing on a Tumblr blog and often posting insightful ideas about personality disorders is “insulting, ignorant, and dehumanizing”.

Yeah I don’t know what you consider “insightful,” but posting the definition of “insane” and copy-pasting a list of bpd symptoms and saying “see? these people are insane,” and tagging her response to my post with #have u ever noticed how all of these people have personality disorders (callback to “anyone who’s telling me borderline people aren’t irrational is only saying that because they’re borderline, and therefore they’re irrational!”) ...doesn’t quite cut it in my book.

She doesn’t bring up cluster b whenever she “feels” someone is acting unreasonable and dramatic- they… are unreasonable and dramatic- at least in whatever context, and people don’t have to dig deep to see who someone really is to be able to just say “no that’s insane, bye”.

Mmmm... I realize you see the situation differently from me, but am I acting insane? I mean, at worst, I’m making the undeniably blunt way she talks to people into something bigger than it needs to be. And yeah, I know... classic cluster b, amiright? But even if that’s the case, even if I’m misinterpreting her views, surely you can see where I’m coming from. And there are quite a few people who have the same objections that I do (mostly radfems, radfem adjacent women, terves, etc.). When she wrote that tag #have u ever noticed how all of these people have personality disorders, isn’t it clear that she was referring to me, as well as the rest of the radfemmish women who have been speaking against this behavior from her lately? Isn’t she making an assumption that I have a personality disorder (which I do not)? 

Do you really think my objection to the way larps talks about bpd is an indication that I have a personality disorder, and that I’m insane? Unreasonable at worst. But yes, she is absolutely using the excuse that those who object to her saying borderline people are irrational are saying so because they’re borderline/irrational. And like I said, I’m hardly the only example of her saying things like this. Someone just reblogged the original post of all of this and said #I just blocked larps bcuz shes been reblogging random old posts from me calling me a cluster b as bait #as far as I know I’m the only quote on quote crazy bihet that doesn’t have a pd? Someone else wrote #I really looked up to larps hence I’m so torn about this #if I didn’t believe she was a smart and decent well meaning person I wouldn’t care. That’s just on that particular post, within the last few hours.

People with personality disorders are diagnosed because they’re anti social and cause harm to those they “love”/interact with and the cluster b community (that I hung around) spend most of their time groveling in misery- despite often constructing their own fantastical narrative of people horrifically abusing them and demanding to be coddled for every emotion.

Some of them, yeah. Not all of them, and not enough to justify making assumptions about people you’ve never met.

What I mean is- the pain that they’re feeling is an offense to ego a LOT of the time. And other’s shouldn’t have to walk around eggshells to make sure that they don’t injure others egos.

Agreed.

Like it’s not real, rudfems don’t enable or contribute to violence against women. None of these women, no matter how mean they are, contributed to the pain I experienced in childhood for being called BPD- actually it was always men and handmaidens.

I didn’t accuse larps, or any other ‘rudefem’ of contributing to violence against women. I know that men were the reason ‘hysteria’ could be diagnosed in the past, and I know that men are the reason bpd is being overdiagnosed in women today. And I’m honestly not even trying to say larps is being misogynistic to the women she says this stuff to (though re-reading, I realize it could easily sound that way). Misogyny or not, dismissing someone’s perfectly measured, reasonable objection as irrational just because they have a bpd diagnosis - which in several cases, dr. larps diagnosed all by herself - is unacceptable, is the same pattern and circular justification used on ‘hysterical’ women in the past, and is particularly bad because, as we agree, bpd is too often being diagnosed as the new version of hysteria. She’s re-enforcing age-old stereotypes about mental illness, and she’s buying into it so completely that she really believes that borderline people are so unreliable that she knows what’s going on in their heads better than they do. Hence saying that borderline people objecting to her backwards stereotyping are doing so out of a kneejerk reaction to a damaged ego, rather than because they know what she’s saying is false.

Also - she isn’t talking about everyone with “diagnosed” BPD.

If that’s what she means, then she’s the one who needs to say it, not you. Again, I respect that you have a different view of this, and I understand your perspective, I can’t believe what others say about her intentions and supposed read-between-the-lines distinctions, when she doesn’t say it herself, and the things she says and the way she acts do not communicate what you’re saying about her.

Meaning, there’s a distinction between people who have been diagnosed and are suffering, and people who have been diagnosed (or not) and are cruel and have a total lack of insight and disregard for other people.

Mental health is complicated. You can’t divide people with bpd into two clean categories like that. That’s not how it works. And you CERTAINLY can’t lump people into the “bad” category simply because they don’t like how you talk about their disorder. You can’t see someone objecting to what you’re saying and assume that YOU know that they’re coming from a “total lack of insight.” People are not psychic. Larps is using the fact that some people with pds have a lack of self-awareness to dodge accountability when it’s convenient for her. It’s complete circular logic - something you would think she would be above, no? “they’re irrational, and when they complain about me calling them irrational, I can shut them down by saying that any complaint they make is irrational.” I know I keep saying this, but it’s true. In my first comment, I pointed out that this is her pattern, and what was her response? hashtag have u ever noticed how all these people have personality disorders. fucking exactly what I said her response would be, because that’s the only excuse she has. 

And yes, insight is a qualifying factor that “””exonerates”””” (quite a loaded word in this context????) someone from being “really” BPD. The thing about BPD is that they will not (or cannot) change- like it’s not a fixed part of your personality, and if it is- you deserve to be called out, and if it isn’t and you still behave like that… you deserve to be called out, still.

Again, no. If this is the case, then we need to make a second definition to separate “REALLY bpd” from “sorta bpd,” since currently they both meet the same diagnostic criteria. It’s not up to you, or larps, to create definitive new categories of mental illness.

I went from being told I had “borderline tendencies” to being diagnosed with full BPD, to basically nothing at all, because I became aware of those patterns, learned how to be objective about my thoughts and emotions, and practiced resisting them to the point where they only show up if I’m already in a really bad state. I don’t consider myself to have - or to have had - a personality disorder, because I’ve almost completely gotten rid of those mental reactions. But I know people who do have BPD, who are self aware, who are trying the same things I did, but the difference is that even though they now have the tools to keep them in check, those mental and emotional reactions are still present for them, and likely always will be. To say they don’t REALLY have bpd because they’re able to control it is frankly insulting. “If you’ve been able to improve it through treatment, you never really had it in the first place.” I know that’s not how you meant it, but that’s what it boils down to.

BPD is not defined by a lack of self-awareness. It’s a pattern of ingrained emotional and mental reactions (and, subsequently, behaviors). These often develop as a method of self defense against external abuse. Or sometimes there’s no abuse and it’s there anyways. The cause isn’t always clear. But the criteria calling these symptoms “pervasive” doesn’t mean the individual is unaware of them. People who know they have bpd, and who are working on treating their bpd still have bpd.

“...deserve to be called out”... it’s not larps’ business to “call someone out” for having bpd. She can call someone out for acting like a shithead, but simply having bpd is not a flaw that needs to be criticized. Your phrasing makes it seem like that’s what you’re saying, and although I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant, that’s what larps seems to think.

Not only are neither you nor larps qualified to determine the “category” of bpd that people on the internet who you’ve never met fall into, but even IF that’s how she sees it, then, again, she needs to say that herself, and she needs to reflect that view in the way she treats people.

But to conclude, she really does make that explicitly clear that she doesn’t think everyone with BPD is a “screeching, manipulative, hysteric”.

Where

You made a bunch of excuses for her and I still have no reason to believe any of it is true

However, I’m mostly speaking for myself here because I’ve been hanging around tungle for too long and I mostly want to say that this all doesn’t really matter. Like, so many feminists on here ramble on about “but what about bpd women who get misdiagnosed?” yeah I didn’t face brutality at the hands of snarky women on the internet. These are not the people that even enabled the violence that me or many other women with trauma face.

Again, I didn’t say that. I don’t think she’s destroying lives either, I was just frustrated, saw that many other women are frustrated about her too, and I felt like saying something, so I did. That is the extent of my motivations here. I do think that she is spreading harmful stereotypes and misinformation, but I’m under no delusion that she is causing damage on a massive scale. She is, however, just one more raindrop in the proverbial ocean of mental health stigma. Insignificant as a single drop may be, surely it’s no less significant than any of those people with bpd whose bad behavior you say should be called out. If it’s larps’ business to call them out, then it’s just as much my business to call her out.

It’s not up to her and other women like her to clarify every single thing they say- people DO generalize and we should be able to communicate without having to specify for everyone.

I’m not asking her to clarify “every single thing” she says, I’m asking her to stop acting like a shithead, labeling people she’s never met, acting like she’s an authority on personality disorders, and using her actually wildly skewed perception of these disorders which is steeped in regressive, harmful, and demeaning stigma and stereotypes about mental illness in order to manipulate her way out of being held accountable for any of it. I’m not telling her to stop generalizing for the purpose of communication, I’m asking her to stop making inaccurate generalizations based on stereotypes, and to stop using “cluster b” as a catch-all for bad behavior. Just because someone is a shithead, or unreasonable, or overdramatic, doesn’t make them borderline, and it’s insulting to the people with bpd who are truly good people, who also have to deal with their disorder being an internet trend for self-dx’ers to milk sympathy and excuse their abusive behavior (sounds just like what larps would diagnose as cluster b, I know, but it turns out that many people who don’t have bpd exhibit these traits as well), deal with shitty treatment from healthcare providers who read the diagnosis and think they know everything about you before you even walk in the door (back when I had the ‘full bpd’ diagnosis, a therapist said to my face that people with bpd were considered ‘used goods,’ and my current psychiatrist treats me with an absurd and totally unjustified level of suspicion), deal with the massively pervasive stereotypes everyone else holds about bpd (ranging from ‘serial killer’ to ‘used goods’ to ‘fake trend on the internet to get attention’), as well as dealing with - oh yeah - the actual fucking disorder, as well as often comorbid cases of PTSD, depression, anxiety, bipolar, etc.

I’m just saying, it would be a lot more effective and hurt a lot less people you supposedly didn’t mean to target if you just called out the actual behavior instead of “calling out” a disorder. Additionally, I’m pretty sure that people with bpd who do lack self awareness are far more likely to respond to direct criticisms of their behavioral patterns than they are to respond to the label of bpd being “called out.” They’d just see the latter as more fuel for self-pity. It’s a little harder to justify being the victim of someone saying “hey stop being abusive.”

And if that’s not enough reasons for you, consider: people who have shitty behaviors who don’t have a cluster b disorder (yes, larps, they exist) are just gonna hear criticisms of a disorder they don’t have and brush it right off. Call out the actual behavior, and there’s a chance they might recognize it in themselves. It’s like a quadruple win.

A hallmark of bpd/npd/aspd/hpd is having no insight into that, that people say shit, and you take what you can and leave it-her, or me, or anyone else mincing that up….. doesn’t help bpd women live in a world where nobody is going to mince anything up ever. It did not help me when people coddled me, and I intuitively knew that and was deeply frustrated with it.

You’re right that it doesn’t help to have people make excuses for you or ‘coddle’ you. But not being unfair and pushing harmful stigma is not the same thing as “coddling.” Nor is “not mincing” words the same thing as saying things that are untrue, unfair, dismissive, and insulting. Much like Trump saying blatantly racist things is NOT “just telling it like it is.” (and no I’m not comparing you or larps to trump or calling anyone racist. except trump)

Many of the women who have ‘spoken up’ about larps on tungle, I’ve seen on other mediums (fb, wordpress) and they’re often just blatantly manipulative

Really? Am I being blatantly manipulative? Or insane? And, to reiterate, is what I’ve said on her post enough for her to assume that I - and anyone else raising these issues with her - ALL have personality disorders? Is it justification for her to say that I’m “glorifying” ASPD/BPD?

and will never have any insight to the fact that all of this is really a non-issue

I gave you several examples above, and here's your treasure trove:

https://larpsandtherealgirl.tumblr.com/search/cluster%20b

Notice how she loves agreeing with everyone saying they’ve been abused by someone with a cluster b disorder, or otherwise says something negative about a person/people with a cluster b disorder, makes sweeping generalizations and basically uses “cluster b” with the same tone that you would call someone an asshole - that is to say, using the same logical standards of “you said some shit I thought was rude, so I think you’re an asshole & I’m going to call you one” when talking about psychological medical diagnoses?

Yeah, occasionally she claims she’s only talking about The Bad Ones, but that’s a pretty thin excuse when 99% of the time you make no attempt to differentiate, and post things like screenshotted symptoms (which - if the “good ones” with that disorder actually have that disorder - would apply to the “good ones” too) with captions like “these people are insane.”

Again, I realize you see the things she says very differently from me, but surely you can see where I’m coming from. And I would hope that you can see that my having this perspective does not justify saying I have a personality disorder, that I am insane, or that I am “glorifying” ASPD and NPD. I would hope that the similar shit she’s said about several other women who said things similar to what I said would also strike you as unjustified. You can make excuses that she wasn’t literally diagnosing me with a personality disorder, but you can’t make that excuse every single time she says something like this.

but instead “leave radical feminism because it’s so full of mean lesbian separatists” and make huge texts about it everywhere else and how rfeminism is a cult.

Okay... this is an entirely separate and irrelevant subject and I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. I mean it sounds like you’re saying “people who don’t like being told they’re insane are just butthurt kek” which I really hope is not what you’re saying. I’m pretty sure there are plenty of radical women who would object to being called insane and having their opinions dismissed because of a mental health diagnosis, who would raise their objections and still believe in their politics, probably due to the fact that - in this context - those things have virtually nothing to do with one another.

My point is- she’s not just saying ppl who criticize her have bpd- they often do because people with personality disorders come out of the woodwork to be hideously angry at anyone who calls them abusive or “wrong” and “bad” (whatever that means at any given moment).

In summary: I appreciate and respect that you interpret the things larps says in a very different way, and I’m not trying to tell you that you should be hurt or anything like that. But I can’t accept what I see as excuses that you’re making for her, since she doesn’t offer any of those explanations herself, and I don’t see any evidence of the intentions you’re attributing to her, in her own words or behavior.

At the end of the day, larps is the only person who can speak for larps’ intentions (much like the people whose criticisms larps deflects by claiming they’re motivated by irrational emotion and a threatened victim complex SHOULD be the only ones who can speak for their intentions).

And at the end of the day, larps didn’t show anything but disrespect and a total unwillingness to even consider that the way she speaks to, and treats, people with bpd and people who criticize her portrayal and internet-diagnosing of bpd, might not be 100% faultless.

At the end of the day, larps read what I had to say about her dismissive attitude and manipulative, circular justification for avoiding accountability. Her response was to double down on calling people with borderline “insane,” and double down on her own belief that googling a list of symptoms makes her an expert on psychology, as well as an expert on the thoughts in other peoples’ heads. She used the exact circular, dismissive excuse I was calling out, yet again said that the people criticizing her were all doing so because of their - well “our,” I should say, since she diagnosed me - personality disorders, rather than their actual thoughts, opinions, and perfectly reasonable objections. And then she answered a bunch of messages laughing about how crazy and terrible “cluster b”s are. No, she didn’t literally say “EVERY SINGLE PERSON with bpd is like this,” but come on. She’s not the only person who can recognize patterns of behavior.

[kinetic-elaboration]

Hey! I saw your Jasper and DNR meta. Interesting points and very well explained. While reading, I thought that another reason for the Arkadians to accept or ignore Jasper's behaviour might also be part of them feeling helpless themselves because they don't know how to help him even if they wanted to. Would you see that as another possibility or is there any evidence against this assumption? Thank you in advance.

Hi! Thank you! And thank you for the question too.

I’ve been thinking about it a lot and it’s brought me down like a half-dozen rabbit holes of barely-related thought so I’m going to try to keep this decently on topic.

The short answer is that yeah, I think that’s fair. They probablydon’t know how to help. I’m pretty harsh on Jasper’s friends but I have to admit, I’m not sure what I think it is they should be doing. I guess in S3 I’d say, cut him off from alcohol and try to find him things to do and then in S4… I just really want someone to engage in his/the DNR group’s arguments. Like not to oversimplify it but I’d like someone to ask outright “What WOULD make life livable for you?” and then go from there. But I admit this is a really difficult situation in the show’s universe and in real life. So it makes sense they’d be a bit at a loss.

I think counter-evidence would have to come in the form of some indication either that they don’t care (they don’t want to help him), or that they do know how to help and they’re just not doing so. I definitely think that his friends care. Even in early S3–a period I generally consider a time of Jasper abandonment–it’s not so much that they’re fed up with him and have thrown up their hands as that they’re easily distracted from his issues. After Jasper’s suicide-by-Grounder attempt, Raven points out to Abby that she shouldn’t let him leave medbay so easily–but then as soon as he does get out of their sight, they’re talking about how overworked Abby is and how Raven’s ignoring her leg. Octavia is there for Jasper when they re-visit Mt. Weather in 3x02 and then again seems concerned in the beginning of 3x04 before Jasper and Monty ditch the Mt. Weather memorial, but she doesn’t quite finish her conversation with them because she’s distracted by the injured Grounders coming into camp. Etc.

Similarly, I don’t think there’s much evidence that the people around him DO know how to help and they’re just refraining for some other reason. They do make some attempts to help him. Bellamy agrees to bring Jasper out with the gang in 3x01 despite his misgivings because Monty thinks it will be good for him (which is reasonable imo–distraction and purpose DID end up helping Jasper, eventually). Monty recognizes that Jasper has a drinking problem, but he clearly doesn’t have the power to do much more than say ‘hey, maybe you shouldn’t’ every now and again when he sees Jasper drinking. And there are similar scenes in S4: Monty is still trying to get Jasper to go on adventures (to Farm Station in 4x02) and still concerned about his drinking (while the riot was brewing in 4x06). I think there’s more evidence of people doing their sometimes-misguided best in 3x02, when Abby seems to think that confronting the past will be in some way helpful to Jasper, when she takes him to Mt. Weather. I couldn’t fathom the rationale for that then and I can’t now but my point is, I do think she was doing her best.

I realize I’m talking a lot about S3 even though my DNR meta and thus I assume your question were about S4… It’s a little harder to parse that out though. I still think there’s something distressing about Jasper’s attitude that his friends can see–I don’t think they’re completely oblivious here. But the situation is so different from S3. I think it’s harder for the people around him to get a grasp on what’s happening to him at this point. First, Jasper’s not as much an outlier anymore. Everyone is dealing with the same problem, that the world is ending again, and it’s a more concrete conundrum than 'everyone has Mt. Weather trauma’ or what-have-you as in S3. When everyone is having a reaction to this distressing new information, it’s harder to say that this one person’s reaction is especially bizarre–what is the ‘right’ way to react to the apocalypse? Further, while Jasper in S3 was showing all these really obvious alarm bell warning signs–personality changes, excessive drinking, occasional bouts of rage or tears, pushing people he loves away–Jasper in S4 is clearly off but in a way that’s harder to pinpoint and thus easier to be in denial about. He’s still drinking when he shouldn’t be and he’s occasionally cruel in a way that S1 or S2 Jasper wouldn’t be, as with his prank in the rain, but he’s also playing much more benign pranks, partying, smiling, apparently happy (in an admittedly distressing sort of… /off/ way).

So I do think it would be fair to say his loved ones are helpless/at a loss what to do with him because now they have a two-prong problem. Not only do they not know how to help him, they’re not even sure, I’d think, what the problem is. That he’s prepared with rational arguments for his actions and seems quite confident in his conclusions muddies the waters even more.

On a related note, I headcanon that the Arkadians don’t really have any concept of mental illness. Maybe that’s obvious–no one really thinks of post-apocalyptic dystopias as bastions of mental health–but I think it’s an observation that’s easy to make and hard to consistently remember when analyzing the world, at least for me. (Just like it’s easy to recognize that the Ark’s judicial system doesn’t really resemble any contemporary judicial system, but it’s hard to keep in mind just how deep those differences run and how they’d likely influence how people in this world actually act.) Not only do I think that no one knows what “PTSD” is, but I don’t think they have a concept of the long-term effects of trauma in general, of the importance of mental health, etc. I don’t think the people around Jasper have the basic vocabulary they’d need to evenstart to evaluate the mental health problems that are all through their community–not that everyone has PTSD or depression but that everyone has dealt with trauma in some form of another–let alone in Jasper specifically.

I really don’t know if any of this answers your question or if it just way way MORE than answers it. Generally, I agree that the Arkadians don’t know how to help Jasper; I think they have a few ideas but it’s a largely and understandably incoherent effort through S3 and into S4. I guess we’ll find out soon if things come to some sort of a head for him in 4x09.

@parapluiepliant