#but when a term is coined with specific groups in mind

[interstellarsystem]

A plural who is alterhuman for multiple reasons here--one being their plurality itself. As was already stated, alterhuman doesn't mean the same thing as nonhuman, which is why they're separate terms. Otherhearted people are included in the label as well, for example, and they aren't nonhuman themselves either--so plurals aren't the only usually human-identifying group included. I also don't see the medical parts of plurality being reason to exclude it either--our psychosis, autism and other disorders also intertwine and play a part in our alterhumanity, because to a lot of "regular society", those are alternative in some way. And we--and others--reclaim that. Alterhuman isn't meant to be a derogatory or "othering" word, it's a word for those who are othered by society/humanity to come together.

Alterhuman as a label might not be right for you, and that's okay, you don't have to use it. But to us, it's incredibly helpful to have a unifying label that we can all fall under and bond over. I know you're saying that many plurals don't like the label and that's fine, but you can't discredit the many other ones who feel at home under the umbrella or try to act like it shouldn't have been included in the first place. It's okay if you're not alterhuman because of your plurality, but many people are and shouldn't need to be written out of uplifting posts like the OP because other plurals don't want to be included in the alterhuman label, when it was made with their community in mind in the first place.

To all the alterhumans / nonhumans who dont know what to do: now is the time for you to start putting your money where your mouth is.

If youre an animal, it's time for you to be a goddamn animal. Be feral, Be aggressive, fight for your life.

If you're a dragon, then be a terror to Kings, and start burning down the halls of power like the dragons of yore.

If you're a mythical creature, have no concern for the social constructs of man. Stand proudly outside what people even believe is possible.

If you're plural, know you're never alone. Fight against individualism that seeks to divide each body into deterministic boxes.

If you're a fictional character who saved the world, believe that you can save any world. Don't back down now.

Now is the time to really believe that you are what you say you are. People in power are going to try to take that away from you. Don't fall for it.

It's time shed any preconceptions you have about what you're capable of. If you're an animal it's time to fight like one. A dragon that uses gasoline and matches is still a dragon.

All bets are off. If they want to treat us like dogs in a cage then im gonna start ripping fascists' throats out like one. And I'd better see y'all there with me, on G-d.

[bonefall]

Hey, what makes a character a 'plot device but not a character'? And how do you not do that? I'm trying to do it on purpose but also I need to still make them interesting because it's on purpose, yknow?

A good skill to pick up is to learn to criticise criticism itself. A "plot device" is simply a thing that moves the plot along, it's a neutral literary analysis term! Usually, when people are angry that "a character has been used as a plot device," it doesn't mean they hate plot devices. It means they're gesturing at something deeper.

Runningwind and Bumble are equally plot devices in their deaths. They are both killed by the antagonist to escalate political tension. Runningwind is rarely "accused" of just being a plot device, and yet, we're talking about Bumble for the same thing.

So, why?

Well, Runningwind is just a background character, but in life, he was a part of the community. He was characterized as impatient but responsible. Yet, he wasn't SO important that he died with a bunch of unresolved plot threads.

He is mostly an extension of the entity of ThunderClan. His killing by Tigerstar, and the fear and paranoia that settles on the group after this, feel like a progression of the story insteas of something forced.

Bumble, on the other hand...

Is hated immediately by Gray Wing, when she's established as Turtle Tail's friend. Bumble's abuse at Tom the Wifebeater's hands invites even MORE investment. The rejection is shocking and upsetting. There's a story there about our main characters being imperfect; jealous, bigoted, and judgemental.

But, she is simply killed off. Everything they set up for this character is gone with little personalized fanfare. It's not a tragedy with a lesson about cruelty, or something anyone regrets.

It's just... plot. Gray Wing whinging that no one will like his shitty brother now that his body count is 2.

More than that, in the discussion of women in particular, "Fridging" was coined to give a name to the way women characters often don't get their stories told at all. There is a CULTURAL trend of female characters facing disproportionate violence, for the sake of advancing male plots.

Bumble has a lot going for her. Petal had a lot going for her. Turtle Tail had a lot going for her. Bright Stream had a lot going for her. When they died, they took their potential with them.

It's not always wrong to kill off a character of high potential, mind you. In Gurren Lagann, Kamina's death is sudden and shocking, leaving a massive hole in the hearts of the cast that never heals. Grappling with that loss, but also letting his memory fuel them, is a major theme of that story.

All that to say... there's no formula for avoiding it. You've gotta identify what the deeper issue is, in your specific narrative.

I can't say for certain what that will look like for your story, but here's some things I keep in mind;

When you make characters who exist to die, make sure they're people before you axe them.

Ask yourself; what about them does the cast miss?

If they just miss them because they were (pre-existing relationship), go back to the drawing board.

Fluttering Bird as an example. Who was she? Dead sister. Why do they miss her? Dead sister. No traits until after her death.

Runningwind was short-tempered and helpful. Kamina was a valuable leader who made people believe in a brighter future. Swiftpaw was fiesty and desperate to prove himself. The better characterized, the more profound the loss usually is.

If this is a female character who is dying just to serve the plot, be aware of cultural bias and tropes. How is the gender ratio looking in your cast? Is this happening disproportionately with your girls?

Note how Quiet Rain's litter had both a boy and a girl, but the girl was chosen to be "weaker" and wither away.

And how most of the time in DOTC, whenever a man had to be upset, a girl would get killed for it.

If you ever feel like the character on the chopping block is NOT a full character, ask yourself why it needs to be a character at all. You don't need to spend narrative time building out someone when a literal object of high value might suffice.

"My sister died when I swore to protect her and I can't face my family" = Old. Tired. Ive seen this.

"I lost my heirloom sword when I swore to protect it and I can't face my family." = Fascinating. Why was the sword so valuable? Will they really not take you back? How did you lose it?

When you do kill off "high value" characters, try to make sure you're not leaving too many plot threads hanging. Or at least make a point of how they will never get closure.

[stormsbourne]

alright listen

I know we're all having an evaluation of how eagerly we believe people who present with even the slightest air of authority and frankly good! we all need to be less credulous of people on the internet who tell lies.

but I think there are also other lessons to learn from james somerton. namely about his raging and blatant misogyny, which I've often seen similar forms of in fandom and on this specific site. to paraphrase bombs himself in the ctrl alt del video, if you see shitty behavior within your sphere, it's important to recognize it and try to fix it instead of rejecting it and asserting that no REAL members of the ingroup are like that. and nerds have a misogyny problem. including tumblr. so let's reckon with it.

do you append "white" or "straight" to your comments about women even when those things have little to do with the topic being discussed, just to make your comments seem more legit? (and no, m/m shipping discourse does not give you a ticket to say it's all straight women -- it's fictional characters, james.) do you often theorize about how (hurriedly appended "straight/white/cis") women are responsible for a problem in fandom, nay, all problems in fandom? have you made up a guy based on a single post that annoyed you and extrapolated to say that all (appended signifier to make it ok) women in fandom are like that? do you see women as uniquely fetishizing, uniquely stupid about politics or social issues, uniquely annoying to talk to? do you assume when there's an issue, even a real one and not the fake ones james made up, that a woman is probably at the root of it?

all of this still applies to you if you're a woman. it also applies if you're gay or a person of color or trans. being an oppressed group doesn't mean you are immune from sexism, and sexism is still rampant in everyday life for pretty much everyone.

your shipping and fandom discourse isn't immune from this. no, I'm not talking about how not enough people like yuri. I'm talking about how women who like "bad" ships like r*ylo or whatever are seen as open targets for harassment. how women who are into "bad/problematic" fandoms are seen as idiots and enablers who deserve what they get. how there's an attitude that women who like shitty bad porn must think it's good, must be too stupid to know better, and must need to be handheld and taught about good, acceptable fiction. I've already talked a lot about tumblr's complete refusal to admit that fujoshi wasn't a term coined by delicate japanese mlm to complain about evil women (and I wonder if james contributed to that idiotic concept), but the way I've seen people assert that women into m/m must be straight, must be stupid, must be lying about their identities, must be hurting gay men in real life in addition to wanting some anime boys to kiss ...

I've seen how some of you people talk about amb*r h*ard, is all I'm saying, and I've seen what you've tried to do to dozens of female creatives that, for some reason, you've decided deserve to be taken down or taught a lesson. I've seen the descriptions you use. shrieking, bitchy, whiny, uppity, shrewish, karen (don't get me started on how karen has been turned into an easy excuse for misogyny). you're not bystanders to what james did and is doing, you're a part of it. sure, you might not have the nazi fetish, but you've said things about women that put somerton to shame.

just a thing to keep in mind while the plagiarism discourse is ongoing. somerton is a shithead for many reasons but this is one that's important to remember because I think people often treat misogyny like a lesser crime, a smaller concern, and it's not. just think of what laws are passing and what views popular movements have of women and then, for one moment, consider that maybe your reflexive need to blame women or pick them apart might have been influenced by the Society In Which We Live.

[thecorvidforest]

DID/OSDD alter roles we’ve coined! this is just for fun, feel free to use.

inspired by @butterednuttered! all credit to them for the idea, we thought it was really neat and wanted to do our own. i hope this is okay!

CERBERUS: a Cerberus alter guards certain alters, subsystems/sidesystems, or locations in the innerworld. they might keep locations/alters/groups of alters from being discovered, keep alters or groups of alters from interacting, protect locations/alters/groups of alters, etcetera.

GARDENER: a Gardener alter provides long-term care to a specific alter or group of alters. they might act as a therapist, mentor, parent, or caretaker to the alters under their care.

ACADEMIC: an Academic alter is an alter who fronts to handle academia & education such as homework, absorbing information from lectures, study groups, research, etcetera.

HELLFIRE: a Hellfire alter is an anger holder. they might not act on their anger, but they exist to process and feel anger for the system. their anger may be extremely intense and never fully fade due to their role.

JESTER: a Jester alter uses humor in order to diffuse tension. they might tell jokes, pull pranks, pretend to be extremely clumsy, etcetera to get others to laugh at them or with them.

TREASURER: a Treasurer alter is an alter who handles finances for a system. they may do things like hide passwords, budget, make sure others aren’t spending money, etcetera.

MIRROR (specific to autistic systems): a Mirror alter is a form of social protector who mirrors others in order to mask. they might study mannerisms & expressions in media, create and memorize scripts for social situations, absorb and mirror the mannerisms and language of others, etcetera.

HOLLOW: a Hollow alter is an amnesia holder for the system. their amnesia is more intense than baseline for the system, such as experiencing blackout amnesia when the system normally experiences grey-out amnesia.

WATCHER: a Watcher alter is an alter who doesn’t show themself to the others, but is always watching. they may be at the corner of the system’s mind, but other alters may never get a grasp on them unless they choose to reveal themself.

LOCKBOX: a Lockbox alter is a trauma holder who continually takes memories of trauma as they happen and is the only one (or one of a few) who has access to those memories.

WARDEN: a Warden alter enforces rules within the system. they may punish or limit alters who disobey or break rules. some may be persecutors, others protectors.

[lullabyalikpoptarot]

BTS Ideal Type Reading

I was pulled to this one, as these guys have a bit more experience in the love department, than our 4th gen groups, so I was curious to see what they get for this.

Jin (The Star/Victory) Umm, does he want to date a celebrity!? He never gave me that vibe lol But these cards give me that. He would want someone successful, that knows their worth and their potential, a shining star in their own right. He wants someone confident, a believer. Someone who believes in themselves and makes things happen. Maybe he won't want a celebrity, just someone who is able to build their own success, by their own terms. Who would want someone who is optimistic and hopeful, which makes sense since he is like that as well, so someone a bit similar to his mindset. Wonder what he would get as a boyfriend whenever I feel like getting to that.

Suga (Queen of Wands/Deceit) Umm, what is this, why did I feel the deceit card would pop up eventually for someone. I did also see the knight of wands popping up too. He wants someone fiesty and passionate, someone fun, with a lot of energy. Seriously Yoongi, why is deceit an ideal type? He likes someone with a bit of an edge. I am getting that it is more about the image of the card, than the word on it, the person seems a bit battered, a little hardened. I am seeing all the red, so definitely someone passionate with a lot of fire, they run on that, so he may be more into people with strong fire placements. I think he would want someone flawed. Oh man, this is so Pisces energy here

RM (The Tower/Door to Personal Healing and Happiness) It seems he may want someone who is willing to change things, or shake things up to find happiness, to restructure their whole set system, maybe to break traditions or the status quo in a sense. He wouldn't want someone to stay stuck in a system they don't like and does nothing to change it. The way to happiness is to create changes. This is kind of specific, so not sure this had to with a relationship in the past or now, but not much else here.

Jhope (King of Swords/Storm Warning) Okay, umm this seems more about him, than an ideal type, like he is the KOS's, he is an Aquarius. This is giving me, I don't want to step into that sh**. He knows the mess he can get into. It is like he is clear of mind and thought. In relationships he may be in a fog, or things just aren't as clear. It is like he is looking away from that mess. You see how I have the cards is the man in the deck is looking away from the storm, he wants no part of it. So, he doesn't have an ideal type. He may not want to be in a relationship at all right now. I just keep getting mess and messy. It is like he knows his mind is clear and sharp when he is not involved in that, strong Aquarius energy showing up here.

V (King of Pentacles/Fourth Chakra Archangel Raphael) Lol, what this is giving me. He also has no ideal type, this is his energy, this gives me, I am focusing on my coin and my money, and I love myself too much to focus on a relationship. That KOP's is him. He is focused on building his career, working on his goals. The fourth Chakra Archangel Raphael is about self-love and acceptance, so it gives me he is fine alone. But the fourth chakra is about love and compassion, it could indicate he is in a place to receive love, but with that KOP's energy, it seems he is focused on the bag. He is a Cap, so it makes sense. It is like he rather focus on himself first, before receiving love, or it isn't a high priority for him at the moment.

Jimin (4 of Pentacles/Cornucopia) He wants someone who preserves themselves and has self-respect, don't understand how that came to me from these cards, but okay. He wants someone who values themselves and knows their worth. He wants someone who is able to count their blessing, someone abundant. I wouldn't say abundant as in rich, but maybe within. They just see the good in things and life and count their blessings for any little thing. He would want someone more reserved and traditional as well. He wouldn't want someone who wants loads of money, like they would be happy with what they have. And they protect what is their's.

Jungkook (The Lovers/ Caring Connections) Lol this boy, he is such a romantic, straight up. He wants the love, the heat, the intensity, it all. He wants a strong bond. Like you got two cards with couples on it, but I can see he wants both the passion and the heat, the pleasure, yup saying it, but he also wants the love, emotions and tenderness, so he would be very loving and passionate, this is not his boyfriend reading, but it popped up, so going with it. He doesn't have a specific ideal type to be honest, just someone who can bring this to him. I don't know, kind of seems healthy to me, but we'll see if anything pops up when I do his boyfriend reading, because I can see a hint of attachment, clingy issues here. But that is an opinion.

Okay, interesting messages coming through. This isn't as messy as the other groups I did, which makes sense, since they are older and more evolved.

[artist-issues]

I'm curious, what do you think of 1st Corinthians 14:34-35?

What we think of it doesn’t matter; what I think of it matters even less; what it says is what matters. It’s the Word of God.

“The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.”

Everyone’s got a problem with that because it sounds like the Bible is saying women can’t ever talk in church at all. That’s not what it’s saying, though. You know why? Because this is two verses plucked straight out of a book that has 437 verses in it. That’s like if I read two sentences out of the middle of one of your emails to a close family member and took issue with whatever those two sentences said. Even though the context determines the meaning, so I have no right to get offended when I don’t understand the context. So what’s the context of 1 Corinthians by the time you get to 14:34-35?

The Apostle Paul is writing to a church in the Gentile city of Corinth in AD 53 or 54. That church was a blend of Jewish Christians and Greek Christians. Two completely different cultures were figuring out what the “assembly of the saints,” or “the first church services” were supposed to look like. And to make matters more complicated, they lived in one of the most morally bankrupt cities of that age. Literally, the Corinthian people had a Greek word coined to describe their immorality. So the people who lived there were generally all messed up, in terms of not knowing what was right and what was wrong. That extended to their church services.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians is “what is a church that glorifies the Lord supposed to look like?” The context of the specific chapter, 14, is “what should church assembly that glorifies the Lord look like? What should it not look like?”

How do I know? Read the verses that come before it. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul explains that spiritual gifts are for edifying other people. In fact, everything done in a church service, where the saints are gathered, is not for an individual. It’s for the edification of the whole group. So what might be okay to do in your own home or in private between you and God is not okay, because it’s not mindful, considerate, or edifying to other Christians when you’re in a church service.

Specifically, the Corinthians are all claiming to “prophesy” (get direct revelation from God) and “speak in tongues” (speak in known, but various and foreign, languages) all at once during the service. Everybody’s shouting over each other. Some people are shouting over each other “THUS SAYS THE LORD,” which is a huge deal. Because obviously if you’re going to claim that God has told you something, everyone should shut up, listen, and determine whether or not you’re telling the truth, because what could be a bigger deal than God speaking? But that’s not how the church in Corinth was treating it. Their services were helping nobody, least of all themselves, because it was loud chaotic pandemonium and nobody I was being edified. Everybody was shouting and judging. Including women. By verse 26, Paul is going:

“What is the outcome then, brothers? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has a translation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must translate; but if there is no translator, he must keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted. And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

And then he adds,

“The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it arrived to you only?

“If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone remains ignorant about this, he is ignored by God.

“Therefore, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.”

Do you get it? The point is, “what does this specific situation, which is a church service, look like if we’re trying to do things in a God-honoring, orderly manner? Here’s what it does not look like: women can’t just stand up in church and take up the role of judge over men who are shouting that they are speaking from God, and call certain men impostors and certain men prophets.”

The point is not “all women should never ever speak in all church services because that’s disgraceful, they only get to talk to their husbands and get told what to do.”

If it were, then explain to me why, three chapters earlier, when he’s talking about head-coverings, Paul writes that women can prophesy in public?

“But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.”

(if you want to talk about why the heck a woman has to have her head covered when she prophesies, blah blah blah, let’s talk about that too, but the answer’s going to be the same: context determines meaning, meaning is correct interpretation, etc.)

Additionally, why would Paul be commending the women in the church who have taught their sons and grandsons? How can they teach if they’re never allowed to talk in church, or if their only role in all contexts is “shut up and learn?”

Because that’s not their only biblical role. And that’s not what Paul was saying. Paul was saying, “in this specific context, here’s how a woman (among all the other people groups I’m also addressing) should conduct herself when the goal is to edify the believers in a church service, and not let anything get in the way of that goal.”

Now.

Guess what?

If the Bible did say, “all women shut up and listen all the time, let the men do the talking,” would you listen to it?

You, reading this. Would you have a problem with it? If that’s what God Sid to do, would you sit in judgement over God and say, “no, infinite Creator of all matter and life, You’re mistaken about how You should be worshipped and what these little creatures You made are for, let me correct and educate You with the judgement coming out of the three-pound lump of gray matter, which You designed and graciously allowed me to have in the first place, sitting inside my skull. Let me, the creature, tell You, the Creator, where you’re wrong and what ‘Being God’ should be like.”

I hope not. But I was super convicted reading this chapter for the first time and finding myself a) misunderstanding it and then b) having the appalling gall and arrogance to be outraged by it.

Who in the world am I? Who am I to be outraged, if God did say, “be quiet and spend your life listening to men?” If that were what He was saying, my response should be, “Yes, Lord.”

Why are we so concerned about being allowed to speak? What do we have to say that’s so great, that’s so necessary, that’s so devastating to have “removed” from us, anyway? Why do we care so much about being heard? Is it because we have something to say that could really help men, in the church services? Oh, really? And if we women don’t say it, God won’t edify the men? He’ll be handicapped because we were muzzled?

What’s so offensive about being told to stop talking and ask questions to learn, anyway? Why is that so infuriating, to us? We’re fools. The whole point of the Gospel is, “He (Jesus) must increase; I must decrease.” The best place in the world to be is at the feet of Jesus, learning. Humble. Not producing anything of ourselves, but absorbing everything He has to teach us. Who cares if it’s our husbands He plans to do that through? Who cares if we can’t teach men in church? What, we think God can’t handle that? We think He can’t teach them His own way, that His plan was flawed, that they’re “missing out” because God dropped the ball by telling us not to stand up in service and disrupt everything with this great ‘word’ we have, that nobody else has?

Ugh. God forgive me for ever even approaching a mindset that thinks I have something to say, and if I don’t say it, He won’t be able to accomplish His will. God forgive me for ever thinking my Western modern culture knows better than His divine plan. He designed human beings and men and women and what would best serve us before “culture” or “social frameworks” were ever even conceived of.

We all need to be a lot more humble. Me first.

I would encourage you to test what I said. If you read this, you should spend an equal amount of time studying the Bible for yourself and seeing if I was right, and if that’s really what God said and meant, based on the context, which determines meaning, because there is such a thing as “correct and incorrect interpretation” when the God of the universe meant something by what He said. And I could’ve gotten it wrong. And you don’t want to get it wrong.

[velvetvexations]

Okay offering a bit of an alternative perspective, let me establish rn im not a fan of tme/tma either 👍

So i think it gets lost on people that tme/tma was coined SPECIFICALLY to describe intracommunity dynamics, like cis people were simply. Not factored into the coining of the terms, or the topics it was intended to discuss.

Honestly, i think the idea that transfeminine people being oft excluded from integrated community with transmasc individuals is grounded in reality, but it absolutely requires intersectionality for it to be legitimized and elaborated on in a meaningful way. Which, well, transradfems dont like intersectionality very much at all.

And speaking as a nonwhite perisex afab person. The trans women and fems who get excluded from trans men and masc circles are excluded for the same reasons poc trans men/mascs are excluded from those spaces. And you know the people i see doing much of the excluding, whether they declare themselves allies to transfems or not, are middle to upper class white transmascs. Speaking from personal experience, there does seem to be a demographic implicitly ignorant of the transfems they are in community with, and a lot of it stems from what i observe as a sort of inability or unwillingness to reject the politics of the communities they were raised in (lots of liberalism and cultural feminism). They sort of unconsciously reinforce socialization segregated by gender.

It’s a reproduction of a general pattern of thinking you see with cis gay people, who also tend to be white: i cant be that bigoted because im x. Obviously, this is also an issue with white transfems, but not in the same ways as they are with transmascs, and i think anyone who sweeps this issue under the rug are being dishonest with themselves. But my point stands that, within the demographic, certain groups of transmascs can be afforded a specific form of privilege, not because they *are* transmasc, but because theyre *not transfem*. Because at its core, that is privilege— not being subject to certain types of treatment, or being less prone to certain conditions, on the basis of not possessing socially marked traits you dont have control over.

Transradfem discourse fails in that it cant decide whether it truly wants to be about intracommunity discussion or not. Whether it treats transmisogyny as a grand or local narrative depends entirely on what’s convenient to argue a specific point. The only thing consistent about their worldview is that transfems are at the bottom, dehumanized, abused, and cast aside always, with no room for any nuance, because to acknowledge situations in which such totalizing logic fails can only ever be an invalidation of their trauma.

And perhaps the most important thing that should be kept in mind when talking about these things is that other trans people are hardly ever the enemy. Trans people with differing viewpoints on intracommunity relations are not the same as sellouts like blaire white or brianna wu who do the “fuck you got mine” shit. This goes for the transradfems who constantly talk down to “transandrobros”, but it also applies to some of us in that we cant let a vocal minority sway our perceptions of the majority. Most transfems dont give two craps about this.

I do not view "not being a transfem" as a privilege for other trans people, regardless of any nuance or moderation one may take that view with. You may not be subject to some extremely specific behaviors, but to call it "privilege" when one faces oppression on that same axis is highly misleading at best. Exclusion of transfems by transmascs is not worse or more pervasive of an issue than the reverse.

I'm also not a fan of how often intercommunity discourse gets boiled down to The Whites Are At It Again, especially because transradfems are often saying that about transandrophobia believers. Plenty of white transmascs are also excluded simply for their masculinity and to say all (including presumably white) transfems are treated like PoC trans men is, I feel, very dismissive and inaccurate.

[transtalesofdoom]

The Label Thing - personal experience

I've talked previously about labels I've considered, used, or decided not to use in passing. Let's talk about it in a bit more detail!

I like labels. It's a personal preference, and I understand why someone wouldn't, but I like having words to describe myself with. I like having a handful of terms to explain my experiences quickly. I also like knowing that there's more people with these experiences, grouped under my label. Makes it feel a little less lonely.

Before the whole gender thing, I had already picked out the labels of biromantic asexual. Gender never really meant anything to me, and why would I care about stuff like genitals if I didn't intend to interact with them. Opted for bi over pan because it sounded nicer and the flag was prettier.

And then the gender thing happened and I suddenly had an entirely new experience to describe. One that was still developing.

The first day after I had come out to myself, I neither liked the term "man" nor "trans" for myself. Both seemed too solid for what I was. I was a dude or a guy, but a man? There's the whole societal aspect to it, how trans men can get treated poorly for "becoming the enemy", that I won't get into here, but it definitely was at play. And "trans" had an oddly definitive feeling to it. Like I had a gender and goal in mind, when I very much didn't. This was weird to me, because I knew that's not how the label is used. Anything that isn't cis can be labeled as trans. But at first it felt like I was appropriating it.

Nonbinary was a pretty safe catch-all. I was, by the very definition, not binary. Nor did I think anyone else was, but that was beside the point. Genderqueer was another option worth considering, since my gender was most definitely queer, but something about it didn't really click with me. Maybe it was the flag and the fact that certain trans-exclusionists used the same colors because they fancied themselves suffragettes.

I became a little more comfortable with it as the compound of transmasc. That was me. I was transing into the masculine. Not very committal, but a descriptor of what I was up to with the gender.

I still liked the term "woman", weirdly enough. Having watched so many Woman-Power movies (shoutout to Oceans 8 and Birds of Prey specifically), it had taken a while for me to fully embrace that label to begin with, and once I had managed to find it empowering, I didn't want to let go of it again. Even if I was transmasc, "Woman" by Kesha was too good of a song to leave behind. I was a motherfucking woman!

I did a bit more snooping around into other labels to see if anything would stick. I found and read the comics by ND Stevenson, and came across the ones where he describes being bigender. And I liked that description. It resonated with me. Especially because he references the Kesha song, I guess. 'Vibrating between genders too fast to see' felt relatable. So maybe I was bigender?

But I wasn't vibrating between male and female. Those were a part of it, sure, but there was more. And also less. I was every gender and no gender simultaneously. And while that is a possible subgroup of bigender, it once again felt like using the term, although I liked it, wouldn't properly convey my experience.

That night I decided to coin "fuckgender", only to discover that not only did this label already exist, but it also described exactly what I was feeling. (Not to be confused with genderfuck.) And yet, while that was a fun little anecdote, it wasn't what I wanted from a label. And the fact that other people were using it, thereby turning it into a functioning microlabel, made it less appealing to me, somehow.

Instead, I decided to embrace "trans" as an umbrella term for the time being. I didn't really need to define it any further. "transmasculine nonbinary" worked well enough to convey my identity to others. I could elaborate for those who wanted to know more. For myself, the label was the same as my gender. It was kinda there and kinda not, both everything and nothing all at once. More of a general vibe than an actual word.

And that works for now. Maybe that will change. Probably, even. I might embrace bigender, or multigender, I might find my trans experience to be binary enough to go by trans man. Maybe I'll do a U-turn and become a nonbinary woman.

There's only one way to find out and personally, I'm excited for it.

[sleepanonymous]

I can't remember exactly where I saw it or even if it's true, but I've read somewhere that the Espera girls said they do not like being called "The Vesselettes" because it's demeaning, or something along those lines, yet you continue to refer to them as such. Why? Isn't that disrespectful? Please do not take this question as an attack on you by the way, I'm simply curious as to your reasons for it.

Hello Anon 🖤 Ty for the question, I'm happy to answer it, actually.

TLDR Answer #1: I'm too lazy to go back and change 100+ tags. TLDR Answer #2: I keep the #the vesselettes tag for visibility, especially for new or casual fans.

For a longwinded answer, Espera technically have three names: Espera, the official name for the background trio; The Choir, which encompasses their identities/part in Sleep Token; and The Vesselettes, which is a fandom created name given to the trio before they revealed their identities. I have actually called them Espera in the non-utility tags, and I've also thought about adding/editing the tags as well to include #espsera and/or omit #the vesselettes. It's just... a lot at this point 😅 Also in my mind Espera does not equal Sleep Token, but The Vesselettes and The Choir does equal Sleep Token.

As far as I know, and with a tiny bit of research, the girls in Espera didn't say they disliked being called The Vesslettes, only that they preferred to be called Espera. Granted this was in an Espera Q&A that was on the Espera Instagram page (hence why Espera does not equal Sleep Token in my mind). I wasn't present, and I haven't found a screen recording of the Q&A, but the consensus is that they didn't specifically state they disliked the term "Vesselettes" or found it offensive. The reasoning behind their preference is because they're a for-hire group and work with different artists outside of Sleep Token.

The its disrespectful point of view most likely came from fandom doing it's thing and expanding on what was said with their own feelings. There's been a lot of discourse I've seen on Reddit and in the band's Discord about the fan name. Its one of the things brand new fans or casual fans get jumped on for doing when there's actually nothing inherently wrong with what they've said. Case and point:

In addition to my extremely unnescessarily long-winded answer: the lady who claims to have coined the name "The Vesselettes" is actually a very lovely, fellow nerodivergent, woman. She's been using the name for over two years now, and (from what I can tell) it has picked up in popularity between fans. She never intended for this sort of discourse to happen; it was never disrespectful, demeaning, or sexist in any way.

Also if you want to get super ultra technical Vessel's name is not Vessel and he's literally the First Vessel of Sleep, or I, but fans kept referring to him as "Vessel" instead of "I" and it stuck and he rolled with it because early band lore was kind of a mess for reasons i probably cannot safely get into

ANYWAY if I have actually missed something, and Espera have publicly stated "Do not Call us the Vesselettes" or "We do not like the name Vesselettes," then please tell me and give me sources and I will force myself to correct all of the tags on my blog.

[sabugabr]

RRR, Black Adam and the Response of the Oppressed

OR: The Colonial Wound and how to approach Violence as a solution against the mechanisms of oppression

OR: how to get the debate right VS how to ruin it completely

Spoiler: RRR gets it right

So, I was keeping this one to myself because it's a very delicate subject, but rejoicing in RRR's recent Golden Globe nomination, I thought hell might as well talk about it.

First of all, a very important disclaimer:

I am not here, in any way, defending or endorsing any side in this debate. My personal views on violence and armed struggle and guerrilla warfare are not what I will be addressing. Armed struggle, is an extremely complex issue that is still being debated today by theorists and academics much more qualified than I am, so no.

Rather, my aim here is simply to address how this debate has been represented, and my take on this issue: media portrayals of social, historical and most importantly, decolonial debates. And recently in 2022, we've had two approaches (And yes, I am fully aware that this topic is much better covered in dozens of media that have this debate entirely as their main focus, but I am talking about superhero blockbusters here, so keep that in mind) that may seem similar, but are fundamentally completely divergent:

The Telugu movie RRR (Rise, Roar, Revolt)

And curiously, DC Film's Black Adam

No need to say, there'll be major spoilers ahead, so be warned

1. THE RESPONSE OF THE OPRESSED

Before I start, I would like to clarify as briefly as I can some terms and concepts that I consider necessary to begin to understand decolonialism and the response of the oppressed, a term that was coined in the famous quote by Jaylen Brown during the height of the BLM movement, "Do not confuse the response of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor".

Pierre Bourdieu differentiates the violence of the oppressor into two categories:

explicit violence – in which the action of the dominant subject is visible (and therefore, in our current society, subject to questioning and legal or moral limitations)

and symbolic violence – conceptualized by Bourdieu when he addressed the issue of male domination in society and all the faces in which it presents itself – and we see it everywhere, from racial demographics in income distribution to that homophobic joke your uncle always makes.

This relationship of systematic domination can be understood as a chain, and in view of the necessary rise of awareness and consequent rupture of this chain, Audre Lorde presents the uses of anger.

By connecting the idea of symbolic power and the breaking of the domination relationship with the use of anger, we have the explosion of a natural reaction of the oppressed triggered by centuries of imprisonment in their own fear and, bringing this reality specifically to colonial relations, using anger over your own fear results in liberation. (source)

And although it wouldn't hurt to address the revolutionary terms in its most famous roots in the French Revolution and etc, here it seems more fitting to comment on Marx. And class struggle.

Briefly, Marx and Engels saw revolution as the result of organized political action by the exploited. Therefore, one can only speak of revolution when there is a rupture with the old political, social and economic order; and in its place, new standards of social relations are established whose principle is to ensure freedom and social equality among men.

This is what we mean when we talk about inverting the social order, and Marx will also use the terms infrastructure (productive forces + relations of production) and superstructure (politics, police, army, law, morals, religion, etc.).

The superstructure, for Marx, is created by the most favored and dominant class, but determined or conditioned by the infrastructure.

Therefore, the revolution would happen when the working class (and in that logic, any oppressed group) reversed the order and took control of the superstructure.

In short, this can be understood as the basis of revolutionary thinking.

Now apply this to the invasion, colonization and genocide scenario, and you'll see where I'm going here.

KKKKKKKKKKKKKK THAT'S A BIT EXTREME EXAMPLE SORRY but actually in Black Panther I the plot could very well be read through Marxist lens (and that has certainly been done), but I won't even go into that here, god forbid Wakanda Forever hahahah imagine that, anyway going back to my thread

2. ARMED STRUGGLE

A quick definition of armed struggle, which can be found in dictionaries, is armed resistance against oppressive regimes. In the armed struggle, the militants understand that the situation of society requires drastic action so that it can be modified, and for this reason they decide to take up arms and declare war on the oppressive regime. Guerrilla warfare is an example of armed struggle.

In the armed struggle, a group of militants opposed to the current regime in a given society, organize actions that can be strikes, attacks on barracks or public buildings, etc, aiming to destabilize the current power with the aim of overthrowing it and placing a different regime in its place, like a democracy, for example – in general, the armed struggle follows a leftist tendency. (source)

In Brazil, for example, the armed struggle appeared mainly as resistance to the Military Dictatorship between 1964 and 1985.

All of this goes along the idea of using violence as resistance to oppression (as already pointed out before): fire is answered with fire. In the specific scenario of the guerrilla, the French philosopher, journalist, former government official and academic Jules Régis Debray writes the controversial book Révolution Dans La Révolution, where he points out that "The main objective of a revolutionary guerrilla is the destruction of the enemy's military potential"; the enemy is stripped of it's military power (it's weapons) to ensure a greater chance of victory.

"To destroy an army you need another army.", Debray says. "Precisely because it is a mass struggle, and the most radical of all, the guerrillas need, in order to triumph militarily, to gather politically around themselves the active and organized majority, since it is the general strike and the generalized urban insurrection which will give the coup de grace to the regime and destroy its latest maneuvers - last minute coup d'état, provisional junta, elections - by extending the struggle throughout the country." (source)

Does that all ring a bell?

Sure it does.

Now, these are all historical scenarios, and nowadays the moral debates about armed struggle have become extremely more complex (as they should), and the disarmament discourse is taking more and more space in these debates. Is armed struggle the only solution? Wouldn't there be others?

But it is still a complex debate. The Brazilian rapper (and political thinker and, dare I say, philosopher) Mano Brown, a strong advocate of disarmament, staunchly defends that violence, most of the time, bounces back on the oppressed, not the oppressor.

Look at him all precious

He argues, however, that one cannot simply condemn the oppressed who react violently. Already in 2006 he presented in an interview that:

"I am in favor of disarmament, but this argument is difficult, things should be done differently […] People are coming as a class struggle, you know? Rich people don't want poor people to arm themselves and remain unarmed. And poor people don't want rich people to arm themselves and remain unarmed. Did you see the kid's argument: "How are the police allowed to carry guns while I remain unarmed? " It's kind of uneven. It's confusing." (source - translated by me)

Mano Brown is part of the Brazilian rap band Racionais formed by 4 black men from the periphery, who revamped their music after realizing that it could be used to foment violence. They front a series of social programs, and revolutionized the way peripheral music is seen and consumed. Nowadays, in 2023, Mano Brown hosts one of the biggest political interview podcasts in Brazil (having even interviewed Angela Davis), is considered one of the most active leaders of the racial struggle, and along with the other members of Racionais, has taught open classes in estate universities.

The Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire, considered one of the most notable thinkers in the history of world pedagogy, inaugurates in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (you can read it translated right here) the idea of the liberation pedagogy. He strongly emphasizes that liberation pedagogy is a political process that aims to awaken individuals from their oppression and generate actions for social transformation – through education.

NOW WITH ALL THAT IN MIND WE CAN FINALLY MOVE ON TO WHAT MATTERS,

3. THE MOVIES

I'm going to talk about RRR here first because it makes me happier, but for reasons of time and your patience I'm not going to extend myself so much in the analysis of this film technically, and if you want a more detailed look at the grandeur and the importance and the genius of this film, please watch any of the many videos that are now appearing on youtube on the subject (I recommend RRR: Make Movies EPIC Again, by Jared Bauer, and The Importance of RRR, by the wonderful Accented Cinema)

ONCE AGAIN ATTENTION FOR BIG, MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

The story therefore revolves around two men: Raju, who infiltrates the British army to steal fireguns and deliver them to the people's guerrilla, and Bheem, a Gond leader who is after Mali, a child of his people who was kidnapped by the British to basically serve as a pet.

They meet under false identities, and unaware that they were both fighting for the liberation of India (through different methods), the two men form an extremely strong bond of love and friendship, which results in their struggles coalescing into an evocation of patriotic unity and popular resurgence against the colonial forces.

First of all, RRR is a fictionalized biography of two real-life Indian revolutionaries, Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem. So, in real life, Alluri Raju actually stole guns from the British to stage uprisings against the British Raj, and Komaram Bheem really was a Gond revolutionary leader who coined the slogan Jal, Jangal, Zameen (transl. Water, Forest, Land) wich became a call to action for Adivasis (or Scheduled Tribes) peoples.

You can see the flag in the last scenes

This "historical aspect" (in addition to the incredible, completely impossible and impossibly glorious action scenes) makes it plausible to draw parallels between RRR and Tarantino's historical revisionism films like Django Unchained (2013) and Inglourious Basterds (2009), where in all cases we see scenes of extreme violence that somehow feel justified, or cathartic, for being directed against oppressors (slave masters, Nazis, British colonizers, etc etc)

The parallels are just there.

Black Adam, on the other hand, states in its synopsis that "After nearly five thousand years of imprisonment, Black Adam, an anti-hero from the ancient city of Kahndaq, is released in modern times. His brutal tactics and righteous ways attract the attention of the Justice Society of America, who try to stop his rampage by teaching him to be more of a hero than a villain, and they all must band together to stop a force more powerful than Adam himself."

So we have a superhero story set in the present day in a fictional country on the Sinai Peninsula (that means, right there besides the Gaza Strip and the Suez Canal), occupied by a mercenary crime syndicate called Intergang, who brutally oppresses the Kahndaqi people while robbing their mineral resources. All good, all great.

But as stated in the synopsis, the film's great moral conflict revolves around whether the use of violence against mechanisms of oppression is justified or not.

Basically,

And while these two scenarios may seem similar, the approach the two films take to this debate, which, as I've said before, is EXTREMELY DELICATED, and EXTREMELY COMPLEX, is completely different. Firstly, because RRR is the only one of the two that treats it as, well, a debate.

From the beginning, RRR establishes the two characters as essentially polar opposites; Raju is fire

Look at the scenery with the european buildings in the background

Bheem is water

And here, the native, untouched forest with pure cristaline water

Bheem is the god Bhima, immovable, patient and resilient

(like water)

And Raju is the god Rama, heroic, springy and skillful

(and hot)

Bheem is the legs (the foundation) while Raju is the arms (the action)

They ✨ complement ✨ each other

And this is translated into their different approaches to the revolution: Raju with his arms policy (inherited from his guerrilla father), who operates within the system to overthrow it, and Bheem with his native philosophy, using the land, the fauna, the culture, the religion, the people themselves as agents against oppression, operating from outside the system to overthrow it.

At the beginning of the film, Raju dresses Bheem in western clothing so that he can attend a British party (which allows him to know the building and locate Mali), and at the end of the film, Bheem dresses Raju in the traditional clothing of the god Rama, and arms him not with european firearms but with a sacred bow and arrow, evoking his native homeland in what configures the real defeat of the colonizers.

Not even getting into the merits of comparing these two films technically, just talking about the discourse itself, what for me fundamentally separates RRR from Black Adam, and even Django and Inglourious Basterds, is precisely Bheem's character. It's the other way to fight (but fight nonetheless)

This does not mean that the armed struggle is delegitimized, or diminished. On the contrary, it is explained, justified (within that historical and social context) and respected. People who fought in the armed struggle, and died in the armed struggle, are honored and respected. It allows you to understand where the idea of arming the population is coming from (in a certain parallel with Mano Brown's interview that I mentioned above), but it also presents other discussions on the subject, that happened at the time, and still happens today.

And above all, as I mentioned before, the film presents and reinforces the idea of inspiration. Even if education is presented only very briefly, in a popular assembly, in the long term, the film still gives extreme focus to the importance of raising awareness among the oppressed people.

This can be clearly seen in the scene where Bheem is being tortured in a public square by the British government, and refuses to kneel.

So when the torture becomes too much to bear, he starts to sing

Now, this is the most important scene in this movie and I'll die on this hill

And then, this happens

Bheem inspires not only the population, but also Raju, who even after years of enticement by his own father, steps back on his original (armamentist) plan when he realizes that "I was under the impression that guns would bring us freedom. But Bheem inspired a whole crowd with one song"

Even though in the context of the film the "path of choice" was still violent (this still is, after all, an action superhero movie), the message of this scene is extremely metaphorical. The idea of a song (art) inspiring all people to "become a weapon" against an oppressive regime is very powerful, and it resonates deeply in anti-opression movements all over History. It is, literally, the power of the people.

Furthermore, at crucial moments in the plot, both Bheem and Raju put aside their collective struggles for the other's individual good; Unlike his father, who readily accepts the militarization of his child son for the greater good, Raju, when questioned by his guerrilla companion for abandoning 15 years of work to save Bheem, says that "I will bear it for another 25 years, but I won't sacrifice Bheem for my goal".

Bheem, here, represents not only the friendship and love between them, but, metaphorically, an entire ideal of the people. Ultimately, one can say that this film addresses the idea of "what are the limits in my revolution": I will not sacrifice the other for my revolution; the limits of my revolution must be the wellness of the other (and in our metaphorical reading here, the wellness of the people).

Parallel, the torture scene can be metaphorically read as: the only valid sacrifice is my own, never that of the other. (and I won't be commenting on the revolutionary character of ideas like martyrdom and self-sacrifice, but yes). That's what Bheem and Raju do throughout the entire film, they put the other above themselves.

And in the end, they kill the british defeat oppression together✨

Now, as I've mentioned before, yes, this movie still ends violently, yes, it still glorifies and celebrates this violence in some of the best action scenes I've seen in my whole life, yes, it is heavily patriotic and sometimes a little bit too on the nose about it, yes, and did I rejoyce in it? Yes.

But it cannot be denied that RRR at least presents a reflection not often seen in films of the genre, which is the mere existence of real debate. In addition, the film is placed in an extremely specific historical context, portraying real historical figures, real life revolutionaries, folkloric parallels, a gigantic symbolic charge, in short, a whole other deal.

Besides it, the only difference between this film and idk, Braveheart, or Star Wars, is that in this film the social and racial parallels, the guerrilla warfare and class struggle (and the colonial wound) become clearer – and perhaps this is a more responsible way of representing a revolution.

NOW, BLACK ADAM ON THE OTHER HAND KKKKKKK

As mentioned in the synopsis, the background of Black Adam is curiously similar: we have an oppressed people, we have the militia, a clear racial reference to a real-life conflict, which affects thousands of people daily, and the figure of a mythologically evocative hero with super powers who will free the people from oppression through violent means. And yes, there is debate: we have the Justice Society, which condemns Black Adam's methods and questions his use of violence, only to be proven wrong at the end of the movie.

But the "proved wrong" isn't really built, or developed (as Intergang is quickly forgotten when they all start fighting each other and then… Satan? For some reason??), and it basically boils down to this:

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

And that's so funny because he actually just… killed like 3 soldiers in the second act of the movie. That's all he did.

And it gets even funnier because at some point we have a scene that genuinely makes a VERY VALID point that made me very hopeful when I was in the theater watching it

Like, this is SO VALID and she is SO RIGHT and this is such a great argument and a great debate point and then it just... goes nowhere

He just killed like 3 guys he didn't even talk to the people he just, quite literally, killed some pawn soldiers and went on to fight his own individual battles that had nothing to do with the actual opression state of the country besides them telling you that "it was bad".

The problem with Black Adam's is ac how shallow the argument is. Nothing is justified, nothing is not even debated, we just have Hawk Man going "killing is bad" and Black Adam going "yeah but I do it caused I'm disruptive like that", and even when we have this "inspire the people" moment is just... this kid with a cape doing this symbol and yes, symbols of struggle are a great tool in fighting oppression, and yes they work and they're so, so great, but this one specifically kind of just…was there?

LIKE OK THIS IS ALL GREAT but then it lead to people… fighting zombies?????

zombies ??!?!??!!!????

Like, how, seriously, how does this have to do with any of your previous state of opression? How does this change absolutely anything??? Are we going to have elections after the zombies thing, or... ?

And that, to me, is such a poor and wasteful way of representing people power that, even though I didn't take this film seriously, I couldn't help but feel mildly frustrated. Much of the recent wave of blockbuster media about decolonialism, in my opinion, has been making this same mistake, which is apparently thinking that just because a movie is made to be a blockbuster, or a superhero movie, or an action movie and easy entertainment, it cannot tackle complex topics. It cannot deepen a discussion. It can't take 10 minutes off a fight scene to establish a full dialogue. As if that would, idk, tire the audience maybe? Idk.

As if a universe of superheroes, or fantasy and action, couldn't contain a scene like this:

This scene seems so simple but it is so, so huge

Andor is perhaps an example out of the curve, because Andor is a series that makes a great effort to represent the fight against oppression in a very serious and responsible way, making it its main theme, of representing what a fascist government is,how a fascist government acts and affects all layers of a population, what is the immigrant cause, what is the armed struggle, what is it like to be a person of color in an far-right government. And it does all of this in an unprecedented way in the genre so far, indeed.

But as I said before, perhaps this should be how all media represent these themes. Because otherwise, even the best of intentions can turn against the causes you sought to defend. And ok, I know that Black Adam is "just a superhero movie" and that maybe it's unfair to demand so much from a movie that only came to propose a simple entertainment with fight scenes and jokes, and I had fun watching it indeed. I love Dwayne Jhonson we all do. But the thing is, if you're going to represent that debate, I genuinely believe it can't be done as simply, or as poorly explained, as it was in this film. A poorly presented arms discourse can become an attack on the legitimization of the armed struggle in its historical context, it can become a justification for a shootout against anti-oppression demonstrations, it can become the excuse for why a policeman mistook an umbrella for a rifle, or a piece of wood for a gun, and killed innocent (and peripheral) men.

In the best of scenarios, the intent is simply forgotten, or it's so hidden in the metaphorical layers of the work that it's easy to miss them. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be so many racist, misogynistic, right-wing Star Wars fans, for example (just to be clear, I'm not attacking Star Wars here at all, ok, I'm just using it as an example – you'll agree with me that I've never seen any Cambridge professors attack Star Wars)

And fair is fair, Luke did explode a moon-sized military base full of millions of people and all that...

SO ANYWAY

Armamentism is an extremely serious issue, and it must be handled very, very carefully. As I mentioned before, RRR has a historical context, and an argument builded throughout the entire film; I hardly think anyone comes out of RRR, or WomanKing, wanting to pick up a gun and simply shoot someone (I hope). But the way this idea was presented in Black Adam, it is not an exaggeration to say that someone might have had this impression after watching it. At the very least, the movie took no care making sure this wasn't the case, and that for me is troubling enough.

The struggle against oppression and decolonialism are extremely important topics, and I am happy that these themes are increasingly making themselves present in more and more media works (and we have had several very good ones recently) – and Black Adam does have good ideas in the middle of the mess. But if you're going to make a film to talk about oppression, without actually commiting to approach it responsibly, why do it?

And ok, RRR does have a very imperative call to action but well, look at them, would you not answer???

[ira-407]

What is Aspie Supremacy, Actually?

A lot of people know what aspie supremacy is, but don’t seem to actually know what it means. For one, its origins can be traced back to Mel Baggs. It’s possible someone else used the term before sie did, but the framework for it that people are most familiar with originated with hir. Mel also coined autistic supremacy before that. They’re not necessarily one in the same, but I don’t think it’s bad to use them interchangeably, especially since one is often accompanied by the other anyway. It's a similar idea to the disability hierarchy and "My Mind is Fine" doctrine that preceded it, and is directly related to these things.

Autistic Supremacy is an autistic person acting like or outright stating they’re superior to non-autistic people. This often comes in the form of what was called “NT-bashing” in the usenet days. I personally don’t see it as different enough from Aspie Supremacy for the distinction to really matter, but it was something Mel came up with before Aspie Supremacy and is linked to it. Someone is an autistic supremacist when they make a space that is only for autistic people and they don’t even allow cousins in. Autistic spaces are important, but I think what makes a space autistic space vs. not one is who is in the majority, and moreover, who is in control. So I don’t care so much if it’s all autistic or not. I feel like that mindset does more damage than it helps. “By and for autistic people” doesn’t need to mean “autistics only, sorry”. It’s part of what made the Facebook group Just Us Autistics so bad. Anyway.

Aspie Supremacy is autistic people acting superior to other autistic people. This was much more blatant when Mel devised the term but is absolutely still a thing. It runs a lot deeper than I think most people are willing to admit-or, to be more specific, the people who are perpetrating it. As much as I’ve mentioned Mel already, I don’t think the definition of Aspie Supremacy is beholden to Mel and Mel alone, and I don’t think sie would think so either. Based on what I’ve observed, I think the examples I’m about to give are very much things Mel would have agreed qualify as Aspie Supremacy regardless. Aspie Supremacy isn’t simply when someone declares themself an aspie or when a person clings onto the Asperger’s diagnosis despite its extinction. Sure, that counts as it, and many people who do that also do other things, but that’s just the most apparent form of Aspie Supremacy. There are more covert examples that I argue are more insidious, and are done by people who would be very quick to denounce Asperger’s, but only because the person it’s named after was a nazi and for no other reason. 

Examples of Aspie Supremacy:

 Failing to mention anything related to disability in your advocacy-ergo, talking about autism as its own thing or solely as a cultural identity

Moreover, failing to contextualize autism within the scope of the broader disability community and rights movement. MAYBE saying something about ADHD but that’s it.

Doubly so if you ignore the I/DD-led Self-Advocacy Movement

Not centering people with I/DD in your advocacy at all

If you do mention people with I/DD, it’s brief and basically an afterthought. Perhaps as a statistic or vague example of something.

Separating autism as its own thing from the rest of the neurodivergent umbrella

Saying you “stand with nonspeakers” and do nothing to actually engage with them beyond sharing their stuff on social media

Saying you “stand with nonspeakers” only to say very stigmatizing things about them

When being called out for this, you don’t listen and perhaps try to argue that you’re actually right. Bonus points if the person you’re arguing with has I/DD and/or is nonspeaking.

Tokenize nonspeakers and silo them into their own special subclass of the autistic population

Use “Medium/High Support Needs” as a stand-in for “low functioning”

Assert that you are nothing like people you deem to have higher support needs

Using your autism as an excuse for racism and calling people ableist for rightfully criticizing your behavior because “[the racism] is one of my autism symptoms”

Wanting more autism subtypes to be officially recognized like AuDHD or PDA

On that note, using PDA as an excuse for shitty behavior, ESPECIALLY if you consider it a “pervasive drive for autonomy”

Trying to rebrand PDA as a “pervasive drive for autonomy”

Your advocacy being highly academic and intellectual-sounding with no effort in making it sound more accessible

On that note, not engaging in the actual community that is outside of academia's ivory tower, unless it's for academic research

Being against the idea of autism or ADHD being considered a disorder

Caring significantly about the distinction between “disorder” and “disability”

Forcing people to exclusively use identity-first language and not even considering person-first language’s origins

Talking about the social model of disability in the misunderstood concept of “people are only disabled by societal barriers”, denying the existence of disability that comes from personal impairments at all

Supporting the removal of autism and maybe ADHD from the DSM but only those because they’re “identities” 

Thinking that autistic people are direct descendants of neanderthals 

Armchair diagnosing people with mental illnesses just because they don’t do things you like

Denying the legitimacy of someone because they use FC, RPM, or a similar method to form words

Saying things like "that's not autism or intellectual disability it's apraxia" or some other form of that statement

There are definitely more but these are all of the examples I could readily think of. All of which I have observed from other people. So as you can see, these are things that are actually quite common in autistic spaces. Really, most of these are signs of being a generally indecent person. It’s pretty damning how many people I know do this, and to be clear, they aren’t people I like. At this point, I have zero tolerance for Aspie Supremacy. It’s one thing to still be in the learning process and having a commitment to doing as good by certain people as possible, but it’s another thing to do the stuff I listed above *and be proud of it*. As for one particular example, I will say there’s nuance to saying you’re not like another person and some truth to it. Where I take issue is when you do this with another autistic person in a way where you’re saying you don’t even have the same disability as them, especially if you’re saying they don’t deserve the same rights and basic respect as you do. That autistic person who doesn’t speak and has an intellectual disability is likely more like you than you think, and to deny those similarities is wrong and exclusionary. 

TL;DR Aspie Supremacy sucks. It’s something people need to check within themselves. It’s also a lot more prevalent than one may think, and denouncing the specific labels of aspie and Asperger’s does not recuse oneself from it. 

[iloveschiaparelli]

My issues with this post:

[Image ID: Tumblr post by @/Correllian with a picture of a blue gradient with white text that says "It's not neurotypical or neurodivergent. It's vanilla or neurospicy." The caption says "Why be plain, when you can be spicy? 'normal' is overrated and boring." The post has 0 notes. /.End ID]

Note: I wrote this post intending for it to be a reblog, but upon viewing the rest of the contents of the profile I decided I did not want to engage with the blog's owner since the "facebook republican" vibe was extremely strong, and I do not want to argue with this person. My goal with the post is to educate, and I do not see that being productive with this person. If that seems like a stupid reason to screenshot instead of reblogging, or rude, let me know and I will repost as a reblog. But for the time being iIwould like to avoid engaging with the blog's owner and simply talk about this specific post.

***

I keep seeing this come up in my feed and ive been mostly ignoring it bc it makes me slightly uncomfortable but then i saw it had 0 notes which either means im the only one seeing it or the people seeing it also feel the same way i do (maybe??)

Anyway it's not even a big deal TBH but here's why I don't really like this, I'm not trying to be insulting or anything I just want to be informative and LITERALLY this is not important enough of a problem to warrant the quantity of words I'll be using, but that's just how I am. Sorry.

First of all, the neurodivergent/typical label first came from a journalist who wanted to acknowledge that not every condition is a disorder and that there are natural variations in how peoples' brains work. So, to refer to ADHD and autism as "neurodivergent" rather than "broken" or "disordered", with the goal of putting into perspective that you, as a person, are not broken or that there is "something wrong with you" just because you are autistic or ADHD.

It's popular now, but neurodiversity labels haven't been in widespread use for very long despite being coined in 1998 by Harvey Blume. A lot of the push for neurodiversity labels came from the autistic community and so it's kind of a victory of sorts to be able to use them instead of referring to people as "normal" vs "autistic/ADHD", since categorizing people into "normal" and "other" boxes naturally creates a sense of otherness, both in the minds of people on the neurodivergent side and the neurotypical side.

In addition to confronting this issue, the neurodivergent labels are also just, more accurate? There isn't really even a definition of what "normal" means, and it implies the absence of problems altogether which we know is not true because nearly everyone in the world experiences some kind of mental or physical problem, of varying severities. It could be depression, it could be an allergy, it could be a disability beyond depression.

The word Neurotypical on the other hand is targeted specifically to the brain (Neuro) and rather than using a vague term like normal, uses the term Typical. We as a society generally use the word Typical interchangeably with normal, but specifically usually as a way to describe someone who fits the characteristic of whatever group they are in, or someone's actions that fit the characteristics of their other actions. Essentially, to describe someone or something that is consistent with a "type".

"Sweating and increased heart rate are typical experiences for those engaging in intense physical exercise."

"Sarah is always late to things! She isn't here at the party yet, and it started two hours ago. How typical of her."

Therefore, Neurotypical specifically refers to either people or behaviors that are consistent with the most common set of neurological conditions and behaviors, or with the most common neurotype.

Neurodivergent simply means anyone who deviates from this neurotype, which is why it's a blanket term for autism and ADHD. It could also be expanded to include other neurotypes as well, although I'm not familiar with them all, if there are any.

The first problem I have with this comment about ditching Neurotypical/Neurodivergent for Vanilla/Neurospicy is that people in the autism community are quite divided on whether neurospicy is a further-stigmatizing or infantalizing alteration to neurodivergent. One discussion of why can be found in this tik tok here. (It's like 10 seconds long). Although there is a pretty large group of neurodivergents who are OK with and even enjoy the use of Neurospicy, it seems that there is an equally large group of neurodivergents that are not and do not.

I am included in that second group, but my roommate is in the former. As long as she does not use neurospicy as a term to describe me, I do not mind if she jokes about it for herself! However, this post states in a very matter-of-fact tone typical of facebook posts that not only should vanilla/neurospicy be used, but that neurotypical/neurodivergent should not be used. The text in this image goes out of its way to invalidate existing, widely used labels in favor of ones that many see as stigmatizing or infantalizing. Both of which are huge problems for the ADHD/Autism community, especially the latter group due to developmental delay associated with autism. The societal attitude surrounding this word is similar to the reaction to "Is he acoustic" which for some autistics is a funny joke, but objectively still causes harm because of the way it is weaponized by neurotypicals to make fun of autistic traits and autistics in general by posting the audio or cracking the joke whenever someone does something "weird" or unexplainable. I've even seen acoustic used to describe an object that has stopped working properly (broken = autistic). Neurospicy is, although much less frequently, used in a similar way by neurotypicals to make jokes about autistics in ways that are not always respectful and can be harmful.

The text in the post itself goes even further to say "'normal' is overrated and boring." The word Normal is not used prior to this in the post, but by context it seems to refer to the neurotypicall/neurodivergent labels as "normal" labels and is saying that they are overrated and boring, and that using Neurospicy instead is different and therefore good.

The second problem I have with this post is the use of the word Vanilla. This one is much more of a subjective problem, since different people will gather different things from seeing this word based on what kind of content they regularly interact with. Personally, when I see the word vanilla it usually makes me think of ice cream or Minecraft mods, but in this post it's used right alongside the word "spicy" and normally the only place we see those two words used together in the same context is in the kink/bdsm community. As someone who used to be aspec and still resonates with those experiences, the idea of associating my neurological identity in any way with sexual activity or kink is extremely disturbing. This one is much, much less likely to be intentional, but I wanted to include it simply for complete honesty.

All this together, just causes this post to make me mildly uncomfortable, which is why I've declined to interact with it so far and have scrolled past it mostly. While I don't disparage the use of the words "vanilla/neurospicy" for people to describe themselves if they are comfortable with it, I find the notion of demanding, intentionally or not, that everyone use them and that our chosen labels be taken away from us to be very frustrating and uncomfortable.

I am aware that these effects are likely completely unintended, and once again I am really not trying to make a big deal out of it. My goal is simply to explain why this post has made me somewhat uncomfortable and may do the same to other people.

[randomvarious]

Today's compilation:

McMusic 16 2001 Pop / Teen Pop / R&B / Pop-Rap

Resuming this intermittent Euro-trip that I've been on where I get snapshots of what different countries' pop landscapes were looking like at certain points in time, and today, for the first time ever, we're taking a look at 2001 Norway, with this 16th installment in one of the country's own Now That's What I Call Music!-type series, McMusic.

Now, usually when it comes to these types of ephemeral Euro-comps from yesteryear, I'm looking for three separate boxes to check off: one for a nice and poppy rush of nostalgia, another for a good tune or two that didn't do anything Stateside, and third, something that's so insanely dumb, bad, and Eurotrashy that you have to appreciate the beautiful mind that conceived of it. And while there is plenty of bad Euro music on here, unfortunately none of it falls into that highly sought after category of 'so bad it's good'; it's just unremarkably bad instead.

But with that said then, let's start with the nostalgia rush. There are a few instantly recognizable, intercontinentally classic y2k bangers on this album, but no tune among them happens to go harder than Destiny's Child's "Survivor," a song that took the group's criticisms and constant ribbing about their own personnel turnover to task and ended up resulting in the most ferocious and intense single that they'd ever made; an absolute, certified, string-frenzied bop that you can cathartically wallop a punching bag to 🥊😤. Beyoncé's entry is just so electrifying on this one, and the chorus' constant background chants of "What?" à la DMX, are super infectious too.

And then for something that didn't really do anything in the US, we have "Chillin'" by Modjo. Generally, before EDM got coined as a term, there was no outlet for electronic dance music on a mainstream level, discounting the largely cheesy 90s phenomenon of Eurodance. Some stuff managed to peek through a little bit, though, like Modjo's own "Lady (Hear Me Tonight)," but this French duo's follow-up single that sampled from Chic's disco classic, "Le Freak," was pretty sleek too. Shame America never developed much of a taste for house music back in these times, because with our total affinity for Daft Punk now, we seem to have societally missed out on a whole lot of this goodness.

And one last song I have for you all amounts to a Mandela effect kind of thing, but in reverse, because this is a track that apparently performed pretty decently in the US on a certain mainstream chart, but I don't think that anyone either knew it existed or that they remember it at all. But let's see. Ever heard of a co-ed rap group from Philadelphia and Brooklyn called Spooks? I have, but only because I've heard them on another one of these Euro-comps before. Spooks were enormous in Europe in the early 2000s, and one of their biggest singles, "Things I've Seen," which had a retro-60s cocktail lounge-Amy Winehouse-styled beat to it, was featured in the Laurence Fishburne-written, directed, co-produced, and starring direct-to-video film, Once in the Life, and also served as the theme song to the European version of the US TV series Dark Angel. And the music video for this song featured Fishburne himself in it too!

"Things I've Seen" managed to peak at just #94 on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks chart, but it was #13 on the different Hot Rap Singles chart. And if you're an American who doesn't concern themselves with early 2000s Euro-popular music or has never seen that specific Fishburne project, then I think you're flat-out lying if you tell me that you remember this song. I feel like this thing has been memory-holed to the point of complete erasure.

So that's a little taste of the Norwegian commercial pop landscape of 2001. Didn't find anything mesmerizingly and uniquely awful here, but still ended up getting what I came for on two other critical fronts—some memory lane tunes and stuff that I've never really had much of an opportunity to be exposed to, outside of sifting my way through other releases just like this one 👍👍.

Highlights:

Destiny's Child - "Survivor" Nelly - "Ride Wit Me" Spooks - "Things I've Seen" Opus X - "Girl What's Up" Jennifer Lopez - "Play" Eve - "Who's That Girl" Modjo - "Chillin'"

[ashabsynthe]

Common Terms and Meanings in Witchcraft

Here is a little dictionary of various witchy and magickal terms to help you guys out! I’ll try to keep it updated when I find new info

Altar: a place to do and practise Magickal things like spells and rituals or meditation. Also used for inspiration and honouring the deceased

Athame: a ceremonial blade used in ritual practices, not necessarily used to cut things or to draw blood.

Astral projection: projecting your spirit out of your body in order to be somewhere else. Often done by dreaming, can be very dangerous *only to be practiced by experienced witches

Balefire: a fire that has been lit/made for Magickal purposes like spells, rituals etc.

Banish: To magickally end somthing, or to rid the presence of

Besom: a witch’s broom used to bring in protection, also used to sweep away negativity and to banish negativity.

Book of Shadows: (coined by Gerald Gardner) a book that is used like a witches diary. This is often used to describe methods of spellwork, how a spell turned out, observations, and scribblings of notes regarding spellwork, herbs, and such. (This is mostly a wiccan term, by the way)

(Grimoire and BoS are often used interchangeably and it doesn’t matter where you put information or what you call it)

Call: a term used that means the same as invoking

Cauldron: represents the goddess when doing spells and rituals and is often filled with water or flowers

Center: Usually done after grounding. To calm your emotions, mind, and body to be physically and magically aware

Chalice: Used often to represent the element of water, it is a receptacle used to hold wine, water, whiskey, or other liquids in ceremony or for offerings.

Charge: To infuse an object with personal or external power

Cleansing/Cleanse: removing negative energy from yourself, objects, others or spaces you are in

Consecrate: the blessing of an object or place by instilling it with positive energy

Coven: a group of at least 3 witches who get together and practice spells and rituals and celebrate sabbats or Esbats together

Covenstead: the meeting place of which a coven will meet

Divination: to be able to see into the future using psychic powers or tools and other methods such as scrying, tarot cards etc.

Elements: the 5 elements of the world. Air, fire, water, earth and spirit

Esbat: a gathering/celebration of witches that is not on a sabbat

Familiar: normally an animal spirit bound to a practitioner that assists the practitioner in their craft or life. This is normally a spirit, but on rare occasions it can be a physical animal the spirit incarnated into.

Grimoire: a book of spells, rituals, tools, and other magical correspondences or magical writings.

Ground: Clearing and releasing excess energy.

Handfasting: a pagan wedding! Time for celebration!!!!

HPS and HP: short for high priestess of a coven (hps) and high priest of a coven (hp)

Intent: a goal/purpose of a spell/ritual/Magickal working

Patron deity: a specific deity you feel a connection with and prefer to use in your magick

Pentacle: a five pointed star representing the elements and is enclosed in a circle and is a symbol for protection on witches and Wiccans that is used a lot

Pentagram: a 5 pointed star much like a pentacle except not enclose in a circle, despite popular belief the pentagram is not a symbol of satanism

Petition - a request or wish written on a piece of paper.

Runes: ancient symbols from an ancient Nordic alphabet often used in witchcraft

Sabbat: 8 festivals in the wicca/pagan/witchcraft community that happen every year and are a time for celebration and honoring

Scry: look deeply/gaze into an object in order to see a Magickal effect, when being used it is called “scrying”

Shadow Work: A practice of witchcraft mostly focused on exploring the “shadow self”. Mostly based on Carl Jung’s idea and theory of the shadow self

Sigil: a magick symbol placed on an object as a seal and needs to be charged in order for the power to manifest

Samhain: probably the bigger sabbat celebration in the calendar marking the pagan/witchcraft and wicca community’s new year. The best time for divination work and contacting the deceased as the vein is very thin that night between the spirit world and the human world, so it is also appreciated to celebrate the dead on this night, also know as “Halloween” and is celebrated on the 31st of October - 2nd of November

Taglock - a personal item or symbol of someone that links a spell/item to a target

Visualize: forming mental images. It is done to direct energy during spell work.

Ward: A means of protection. Energetic protections of your own devising; energetic protections around your home, your person, pets, personal items, etc. Usually wards are more powerful and complex than regular protection spells

[scr-ppup]

Coinfight prep info. Team villains

I'm going to already tell y'all I'm a throughout guy lol and this is fuckig long. Feel free to check around idk, it consists of things about me and so on like last year. It's big to give people an idea for things to coin and what I'm good with being included in and so on. If you have any questions, feel free to ask and I'll at least try to answer.

Lil nitpick info btw

- I will most likely be making primarily alterhuman or general non-gender specific related flags. That's been happening quite a lot recently so might continue on that path lol.

Edit: related to the upper text, I'm focusing on gender flags instead since I wanna get back to gender coining again. :)

- Please ask me for a revenge chain if you wish to do one. Since my school starts at the same week of the event, I'm not sure how well my spoons will hold up and I don't want to end up leaving anyone on the shore with a started revenge chain lol.

- I'm more than welcoming of combo, themed, and non-gender flags and terms, this including from aldernic & dissos, to misce to orientation & MAD related flags.

///

So starting on interests & themes

- medias; Ninjago & dragons rising, Voltron legendary defender, Arknights, CoD franchise, criminal minds, subway surfers, code 8 & part 2, BNHA, school bus graveyard webcomic, the blank city webcomic,

— character specific; Subway surfers; frank, miss Maia. Criminal minds; Aaron hotchner & Spencer Reid. CoD franchise; the shadow company & KorTac (Phillip Graves, Velikan), the konni group (Makarov), Terminus Outcomes (Sona "keres" Mirzoyan). Ninjago; Garmadon, pythor, the dragons, the wolf clan, the stone army. SBG; Ashlyn & Logan.

- Bands; Hollywood undead, fall out Boy, class animals, new medicine, arrested youth, get scared, Jann, Kesha, ashnikko, femtanyl, creepP, odetari, scene queen, derivakat, graveyard guy, arctic monkeys, poor man's poison, ado, Luluyam, set it off, the ooze, jazmin bean, baby bugs, cassytte, and lustsickpuppy,

- I enjoy splatterpunk, medical horror and generally horror themed things. Also gorey and macabre art and literature, devotional love to someone or an entity and self destruction for that love.

- animals: reptiles; bearded dragons (pogonas) especially!! (<- owner of pogonas vitticeps) Snakes. Raccoons, opossums, hyenas, jackals, magpies, ravens, cats. Pitbulls, greyhounds, borzois, dobermans.

- medical themes are welcome, no cutesy nurse-related things though. When I mean medical, I mean combat/field medic and doctor professions specifically with themes related to my interests. Also mad and cruel scientists !! :3

- taxidermy, hunting, bones, dead Animals & mysticism behind that. grotesque, death, suffering, and whump themes are more than welcomed.

- apocalyptic and scavenger themes, gas masks, apocalyptic fashion

///

Identity;

Gender labels and related; genderqueer, genderless, demi(gender)fluid, androgyne, boynymgirl, cisneutral, muttgender, divinemutt, whumpgender, theorpangender, gendervir

Lurkerian, Slasherval, marvlaen, Hazexiv, Exulancian, Gorture, limerencial, homipavren, lectence, dimensen, altumen

Mōna transmasculine, transandrogynous, and transneutral. (Thistle) femmetwink, green anole, mutt, pedigree, flying lemur leaning raccoon, lasiurus, black squirrel, jumping spider, opossum, harbringer, final person, chinchilla, GNC, tomboy.

Orientation labels; achilligirl, sapphic achillean/sapphillean, gay, quroplatonic & queerplatonic, Apothderium attraction, euclidean aroace, aroacespec, sunne lesbian, tulipian.

MAD stuff: ADHD (heavily suspected by self & family), AVPD-ish, religious delusions, social anxiety, social anhedonic, MADD adjacent immersive daydreaming. sleep issues. (I'm also hypermobile with a fucked up knee and get bouts of chronic pain due to this and costochondritis lol.)

Alterhumanity related labels; nonhuman, transspecies, paraanthro, alteranthro, holothere, fictionkin. Immersive. Lith.

If needed, undercut is the whole list of what I am for individual things. It also features info of my misceverse identity at the very bottom. Okay, bbyyeee.

///

Alterhumanity

Alterhuman (preferring nonhuman terminology instead of alterhuman), transspecies, otherkin, and holotheres and such. I'm polykin and my alterhumanity spans morely from neurodiversity, attachments, disconnections, and trauma (I'd describe that as being apothane). I also use plenty of dissodic and aldernic terms.

Specifics —

Holotheres; undead, zombie, apocalyptic scavenger, medic, Ashlyn banner (from school bus graveyard.). Creature/cryptid, eldritch (mimic that mimics humans), faceless, glicthed & winged being separately. Hostiakind/hostiaen, immortal. Mutt/hound, hound-/dog-/puppyboy hybrid/kemonomimi. Kalma.

fiction; Sentinel, lycanwing, monstrous nightmare, and speed stringer (from HTTYD & HTTYD:RTTE). Logan Fields (from School bus graveyard). Pidgey and the green and red lions from Voltron. Fictional/mythological canines such as blink pup, and hiiden hurtta-adjacent. MC spectator (Minecraft). Lucario, poochyena, and Houndoom + Houndoom/onyx cross (pokemon).

Deityfolk related; deity of death & medicine (generally medicine, medical areas, knowledge, and practices) and deity of crossroads and the lost. Eldritch deity. Hostiaen/hostiakind (sacrificial specifically). Oracle & immortal, death omen and harbringer.

Therian/animal types: African wild/painted dog, jackal, mutt/hound, manned wolf. Hyena, wolverine. Magpie, sparrowhawk. Eels.

Concept; violent death/surma, immortality, eternity & winter conceptkin.

Alterhuman; infected/plagued, apocalyptic scavenger, polymorph, merfolk (apocalyptic merfolk, carrion [feeder] merfolk, scavenger merfolk). Revenant, time traveler.

Transspecies specifics: undead, werewolf, African wild/painted dog, mutt, dogthing/boy, zombiez

—

Undead, unholy, ghostly, folkloric, celestial nonhuman & alteranthro and paraantrho. Anjesque but not angel.

Species specific: Morima, calamoer, drakemoian (specifically fear & melancholy drakemoians), eldrorian, aniluma, korathioner; chioner & vathmer specifically, but relation to koramer. Suianis. canithrope.

Animas; Eternity, eldritch & eldritch mer, immortal,

Eitments; eldritch, eternity, void,

Emsouls; eldritch, mutt, Lurkerian,

Emotionalink to crows & ravens.

///

Misceverse identity;

Misceverse for those who may take interest in coining;

Dynamics; dynamic fluid, but primarily Iota & anull (In my verse Iota is described to be beta aligned Omegas, and the individuals of this dynamic may also be called "iota omegas" without being a bidynamic since that's related to temperament and behavioral patterns, nitpick info lol.); Guardogdynic (guard dog),

Scents; scentfluid! bitter herb, peppermint, cherry, violent death, blood & smoke, wet dog, petrichor, lavender, ocean, corvidae, otherwordly corvidae, metal, gunpowder, death/rot, carrion, melancholy, (Primary scent is bitter herbs, cherry, and peppermint.)

Behavior: jumping spider, eldritch, merfolk. Otherwise den maker & denning iota,

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

Climate change is a mental health issue

And part of a solarpunk present…

Content warning: this article briefly talks about depression, suicide, and self-harm

In the course of researching for my thesis, I read a lot of things: scholarly books, articles, essays… but also lots of pulpy science fiction (of course), and also a lot of recent online articles (usually news or journalism) about climate change and its effects.

The recent essays and articles that I read had a fascinating overlap: they were talking about climate, but they were also talking about mental health. Mental health issues such as depression and anxiety are a natural corollary of experiencing the climate changing.

(I have my own thoughts about how that leads to the very concept of the climate, or the environment more broadly, being a mental untouchable or taboo topic, that many peoples’ thoughts automatically shy away from; a way that their minds are helping to insulate and protect them from a negative psychosomatic experience. Thus, why it can be so difficult for many to address climate change because our very minds are refusing to allow us to face the scary thing directly, because it kicks up such a strong instinctual fight/flight/freeze response. But, this is a tangent, and one I am extremely underqualified to take. Someone call in some psychologists…)

Back in 2005, philosopher Glenn Albrecht coined the term “solastalgia”, which is a neologism that, according to the author in a 2007 article for PubMed, operates

As opposed to nostalgia--the melancholia or homesickness experienced by individuals when separated from a loved home--solastalgia is the distress that is produced by environmental change impacting on people while they are directly connected to their home environment.

When I started researching (only 8 years ago!), this was one of the only publicly accessible and known terms (in English) outside of a specific niche of (western) academia to describe this phenomenon of the way that climate change can be pretty entwined with significant mental health issues.

Albrecht is Australian. He used the examples of open-pit coal mining, or deforestation. In the almost twenty years since that publication, I think the global community can add phenomena such as catastrophic wildfires, persistent and ruinous sea-level rise, tailing ponds spillage, industrial water poisoning, widespread drought, melting permafrost, century floods, and more to that list.

This is part of why I was so keen to do an interview about climate grief chaplaincy, which I had never heard of before. Even now, only two years later, therapists and psychologists are starting to advertise climate-focused services. On the one hand, I am so very glad that assistance is being offered to those who need it. On the other, I’m big mad about how, yet again, the issue of climate change is being framed as an individual problem.

At least chaplaincy is very conscious of community—as Gabrielle explains in the episode, there is a strong tradition of movement chaplaincy among activist groups in the so-called United States that is tuned into a more collective experience and casts climate change in that light (more appropriately, I feel).

Solarpunk’s dream of a just, sustainable future isn’t solely for bodies. There’s an aspect of being human - our mind, our mental health, our intangible selves, our spirit, what some would call our soul - that merits careful attention as well. I imagine that any community that is truly solarpunk pays just as much attention to what cannot be quantified about the human experience as what can be.

And if we are to have a hope of attaining that care-ful attention to the human being as a whole, it would behoove us to begin practicing thinking about, caring for, and paying attention to that aspect of our selves in the present day.

One way to do this would be for any climate journalism, going forward, to include links and references to local climate helplines, actions, and groups as relevant to the discussion in the article, in the same way that articles dealing with suicide, self-harm, depression, and other extremely difficult topics are already doing.

Realizing the mental toll that a swiftly-changing-for-the-worse climate has on readers, especially young people, is to my mind a journalistic duty of care. It has been shown many times that an important mitigating factor of climate anxiety and climate grief is the chance afforded to do something, to act on the knowledge that the reader has just learned. Another huge mitigating factor is not feeling alone in the face of overwhelming odds and at the mercy of negative feelings.

In the midst of my studying, I began to volunteer at my local food bank, for example. Being in the community and having a tangible way to help other humans (and knowing that I was helping to ease their burdens of anxiety and stress, as well as cope with the food shortages induced by climate change and lend a hand to an organization struggling to help its members) was extremely helpful in mitigating my own dark night of the soul of post-apocalyptic despair and grief in that moment.

Did it solve everything? Nope. Did it make my climate anxiety disappear? Not a chance. But it helped ease it generally, and for four hours a week it banished my anxieties around the climate almost completely; in my experience, it’s hard to feel shitty when I’m not afforded the luxury of dread, but instead am in the midst of facing (a corner of) the issue head-on.

I discovered solarpunk on Tumblr back in the twenty-teens, and I was hooked. Part of why I like solarpunk so much is the emphasis on doing what you can, when you can, to make things better now - even if it’s just the corner of the neighbourhood you live in. The effect on mental health of even just picking up litter can be tremendous. Another reason I’m such a fan of solarpunk is that it is a shared experience, one where terms like ‘climate grief’ and ‘climate anxiety’ aren’t up for debate but instead are nuanced and treated seriously, and it is a diverse community to be part of, one that continually evolves and changes and isn’t afraid to have difficult conversations, respectuflly. Access to feeling better in the face of the denial and despair of the Anthropocene should be available to everyone, no matter where they are or who they are.

What do you do to mitigate your own negative climate emotions? I’m no longer able to volunteer at that food bank (I moved, and now I can’t lift things for health reasons, it’s a whole thing…), but I’m part of my local community garden, which helps to mitigate food scarcity and improve neighbourhood resiliency and community. Tell me what you get up to, or hope to get up to in future!