#discussions of slavery

[bvckbiter]

fandom talks too little about hylla and reyna. reyna killed her father when she thought he'd killed hylla. hylla dragged them out of puerto rico and found them sanctuary and employment on circe's island AND became one of circe's favorites. then when they got captured by blackbeard hylla also got them out of that situation by out-pirating literal immortal pirates. then in a span of three years, they split up, found their own ways to the amazons and cj, and became the leaders of their respective factions. when hylla's queenship was being threatened by otrera in son, she plotted a counter-coup and defeated an amazon queen who couldn't die two nights in a row in one-on-one combat, THEN led her cavalry to camp jupiter. (ik this woman slept like a corpse for a week afterwards). hylla used reyna as an absolutely ruthless bait-and-switch to capture orion, and all reyna said in response to that was, "bet." reyna carries insurmountable amounts of both guilt and gratitude towards her sister. even though they havent seen each other in a while, hylla still drops everything and does everything in her power to save her baby sister when she knows reyna needs her.

[hearthfire-heartfire]

no one on the english-speaking side of this site gives a fuck about japanese people except as paper dolls in their fantasies. y’all don’t notice or care when we’re targets of violence in america STILL and you don’t notice when our history on this continent is being erased because you can’t fucking recognize it in the first place! even as we relive it.

i’m tired of the gentrification. i’m tired of vandalism, arson, and censorship. i’m tired of arguing about the atrocity of the a-bombs and the incarceration and model minority shit. i’m tired of people using my heritage as an escape, both in imagination and in physical reality. i’m tired of people’s fake familiarity that leads them to correct my grandmother’s accent coming out of my mouth.

if you don’t show up for nikkei where you live, if you don’t even know how, you don’t belong anywhere near japanese culture.

[serpenlupus]

About Wyll and his horns (and what they mean)

Let's say I was writing a part of my Tav's story with Wyll directly connected to the dialogue he has during the tiefling party, and while struggling with this bit, I've realized there's quite a few misconceptions floating around. I felt compelled to add information to the table that might clear them, so here we go.

First, what exactly happens to Wyll when he disobeys Mizora in act one? Well, he doesn't get turned into a devil, he certainly doesn't get turned into a tiefling, he's not a half fiend, not a demon, none of that. Wyll stays human, but he has horns and red eyes (and other features we can't see on his model as of now).

(Everyone has their race listed, Wyll's remains "Human")

This is because when a warlock fails to uphold some part of their contract they can suffer a certain number of consequences, Wylls is “The character grows horns, a tail, or some other devilish features that can't be removed by any means short of divine intervention. As long as these marks persist the character detects as a fiend when subjected to Detect Evil and Good spells or similar magic.” ( from Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus, page 214)

And I’ve come across some people that think it wasn’t so bad of a punishment, that he was being racist towards the tieflings, or just not being justified in being upset after having his body forcibly changed against his will. I think they are missunderstanding just how insidious Mizora’s actions were, and here I just want to give some context to maybe bring a better understanding to the situation. Your conclusions are up to you.

Gonna start by using a not exact analogy, but I think it’s going to make the explanation easier. Stick with me for a minute.

Remember Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean? He had a branded “P” on his arm that marked him as a pirate. A murderer, robber, criminal, etc. in the eyes of the society he was a part of. What did Jack do to earn the branding? (if you don’t know this I suggest you look up the “people aren’t cargo mate” scene) He refused to transport slaves and later freed them, and Beckett had him marked as punishment.

Then, in the first movie, he saves Elizabeth, a woman he didn’t know, from drowning. Right after however, when Norrington sees he has a branded “P”, he’s like “alright, off to jail with you, and then hanging”, no other option crosses his mind. Again, Jack doesn’t know Elizabeth, isn’t indicated to think he is going to be rewarded for helping her, he just sees a drowning person, sees that no one else is going to help, and chooses to save them. That is a pretty selfless/good aligned thing to do, for no other reason that he was the one able to do it, yet the branding in his arm overrides any good action he could ever do, marking him as a criminal for execution and no further thought.

In a way, that’s what Mizora did to Wyll; she forever visibly branded him as someone that has made deals with devils, and that in the world of DnD is a VERY BAD THING. Personally I really like the mod that gives him more devilish features, but at the same time I think there was something clever about choosing to leave him looking more human. He can’t be confused with a tiefling, he doesn’t have the ears, the claws, the tail, all those features that characterize them. He looks kind of uncanny, and that would be like a red flag for anyone in that world. (Beyond the already existing hate for tieflings that I’m not gonna tackle on here because it’s a complicated thing that deserves its own post). And Wyll wants to do good, he wants to help people, to be a positive force in the world so, so badly. This dude got abducted by a nautiloid, got tadpole’d, and the first thing he did right after that was come across the Tiefling refugees and be like “Oh you need help? No worries let me teach you self defense. Oh you being attacked by goblins? Let me blast them real quick”. His way of saying fuck you to all the awful things that have happened to him is being aggressively good and kind. Mizora knows this very well, wants to see him suffer for her amusement, wants to remind him he can't escape her claws, so her choice of punishment was to forever taint his future interactions with mistrust and suspicion. Some people can go real fast from “oh thank God they saved me” to “oh no, are they gonna rob me, are they trying to trick me, are they in cahoots with the ones that attacked me first?” just because of outward appearances. Especially in DnD world. And that deserves its own conversation, but we're focusing on Wyll here.

(Mizora, when I catch you Mizora)

“Well, maybe he shouldn’t have made a deal in the first plac- - “ He was seventeen, alone, preyed upon by Mizora and put in an impossible situation. Please PAY ATTENTION to the story you’re witnesing.

Anyway.

About the tieflings. I know it’s easy to think his words can be derisive towards them, but it’s less about the horns and more about his body being changed against his will. Imagine instead that he got half his face burned, or something that disfigured him. I think his feelings at the moment were closer to that, and yeah they are pretty insensitive words to say to someone with a similar condition (horns or disfiguration), but when feelings are fresh and raw like that it’s easy to say insensitive things. Not saying it was ok for him to say them, but there was no malice in his words. I’ve also seen some people share that they think Mizora wanted to change him more to make him unrecognizable to his original self, the Wyll Ravenguard kid, and I think there is some truth to that too. She wants to make sure that Wyll remembers that he belongs to her, there's no question to that.

(MIZORA, WHEN I CATCH YOU MIZORA)

Whether the Tieflings refugees would feel unsettled by Wyll or not? Yes. In a way, they would. From reasons aside from the ones I explained above, remember that these specific tieflings come from Elturel. If you didn’t pass the History check or don’t remember, Elturel is a city that was literally ripped from the land and dragged to Avernus, First layer of hell (it left a hole on the ground and everything) because their mayor made a deal with the Archdevil Zariel some decades back in the timeline. He sold the souls of all its citizens and the city itself.

This was probably one of the worst times of their lives. Some even got captured and forced to participate in the blood War, like Dammon as a mechanic. And after Elturel got returned to the surface, the tieflings lost their homes because they reminded the other citizens of the literal Hell they’d just gone through, and they kicked them out. And remember, they met and saw Wyll as a human, and then saw him with horns. It’s not unreasonable to think that by looking at him they would be reminded of all the events that led them to the awful situation they’re in. Because of someone that was making deals with devils, just like Wyll. Even if his situation is completely different. And Wyll knows that, that’s why he tells you the tieflings are unsettled by him and chooses to stay away during the party.

It was never just about the horns.

And I know Wyll calls himself a devil but I think it’s because it’s the closest thing he looks as; devils are a whole different race with their own intricacies, although humans can be turned into devils ONCE their souls go to Avernus and they start climbing the power hierarchy there (Mizora and Raphael are cambions/ half-devils btw, which is a different thing,  there are plenty of videos exploring those details more in depth).

Do I think Larian should have made some of this information clearer/easier to access? Maybe? but to be fair, it's a game focused and dedicated to a crowd that was already somewhat familiar with the source material, that blew up waay out of what they originally expected to reach. Hopefully they’ll add some clarifications like they did to other quests. 

Anyway these are my two cents to the conversation, have a nice day, and don't hesitate to add your two cents if you feel like it!

[hacked-wtsdz]

Why do so many Americans, and non-Americans too, seem to think that slavery was a specifically American thing? Like, I presume that most people know that it wasn’t, but I hear so much discussion of American slavery and its impact, and so little of any other kind. It also makes slavery look like a strictly white-slaver black-slave dynamic, which, again, I presume most people know it isn’t, but nobody talks about it as much as about American-type slavery. The Roman slave market, which existed for centuries and had slaves of all races, the Korean slave market, which was gigantic, the Ottoman slave market, in which North Africans and Middle Easterners enslaved people of different races, including Europeans. My point being that slavery has existed for centuries, and has heavily impacted our whole world, and yet some people seem to believe that slavery existed only in an American-type way. At the moment, there are more slaves in the world than ever before, and yes, most of them are from Third World countries, but nobody talks of real-time slavery either. Not as much as of past American slavery anyway. I genuinely wanna know how that came to be.

[blightbright]

mythal nuance

look, i love some yikes women characters!!! have i mentioned how much i fucking adore knight-commander meredith? yeah, that genocidal zealot? sympathetic lawful evil ftw. one of my ALL-TIME FAVE CHARACTERS is mariah dillard from the luke cage TV show. she is ABUSIVE, including to her daughter, she is devastating and so well-portrayed, and she is such a terrible person AND i just adore her in her harmful flawed tragic selfhood!

flemythal? fucking love her, she's awful, she's hilarious, she's compelling, i think it's a travesty that devs didn't get kate mulgrew's voice and the flemeth appearance back in some timey-wimey fade magic way. i love how she feels at odds with herself, sometimes vengeful, sometimes regretful. i love her sweetness toward merrill and her funny interactions with purple!hawke, i love her confusion that morrigan is upset with her, i even love the YIKES ambiguous, semi-motherly, semi-loverly, intimate owner-pet vibes head stroking and nuzzling between her and solas in the DA:I end credits. OUCH.

veilguard!mythal IMO feels more like a mediocre narcissist who wants to maintain the status quo, and of course is faux "loving" AKA guilt-tripping and strings-attaching her "care." that's not badly written since it's a real thing, but she's not for me. the fact that elgar'nan presumably abused her is not super compelling to me because IMO it gives the flavor of a confederate slave-owning white woman whose husband is a piece of shit AND ALSO she still thinks slavery is fine and actively upholds and abuses her power over other people. this is not an analogy: mythal literally owns people as slaves. in my fic i try to give her some fairy queen style, wouldn't-it-feel-so-good-to-die-for-me vibes where she's liberal with her magically-hypnotic praise if you please her, to make her more inhuman and therefore interesting to me, but anyway.

i'm seeing accusations of misogyny if people love solas and hate mythal, and while we can and should critique how women characters are written and discussed, given the canon content, it's NOT an inherently misogynistic reaction to hate the character who abused a character you love. i saw a thing insisting "solas is always defined by mythal" and to respect mythal and... really? critique the writers as much as you want for setting this up, but do people really want to say we should always identify a person by their abuser's influence, or offer respect to that abuser??

are you also gonna say "morrigan is always defined by flemythal, acknowledge and respect her when talking about morri" after we know for a fact that flemythal repeatedly exposed morrigan as a child to sexual situations that resulted in violent death, encouraged her to push down her own sensitivity and feelings and focus only on power and manipulation, and morrigan tells the spirit in DA:O that she's still acting too gentle to be the real flemeth, even after smacking morrigan hard across the face and demanding morrigan show some respect? she had an influence on morrigan's life, but holy fuck does morri deserve to define her life by her own desires and her own choices and accomplishments now

if people are aware that solas was given mythal's slave markings, since she was a slaver like the other evanuris, then he burned them magically off his face when he led a slave rebellion against slavers, and hear all the clips in veilguard where she is clearly in a position of power over him, and still claim there was no abuse, idk what to tell you. you are incorrect. please consider if you have some cognitive dissonance about how much you love to hate solas (tho you can still do that even if a character has experienced abuse) and/or how much you want to enjoy mythal (tho you can still appreciate an abusive character).

[kissingagrumpygiant]

I'm of the belief solas wouldn't fuck with emmrich actually

[noperopesaredope]

A Post Outlining Why the Clone Troopers are 100% Slaves

I'm pretty sure nobody is really arguing otherwise, but I was thinking about this earlier and decided to actually look up the definition of slavery, and holy shit the clones fit it even more than I thought like oh my lord-

I've also seen people not really acknowledge that the clones are literally slaves, so this is to set it in stone. This post is mostly pointless, but I wanted to make it anyway because it's actually crazy how much they fit the definition and I need people to know about that.

My main source I will be using is Britannica and their page on slavery, but I may also take a few others and use those as examples.

"slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons."

The clones are canonically property of the Republic and clearly have no rights, otherwise half the shit that happens to them would not be happening due to being illegal (or it would at least be slightly more regulated). One aspect of this I think is important is that slavery is supposedly illegal in the Republic, and yet clones are owned by the very government that outlawed the owning of sentient beings. As I will discuss more, many of the rights sentients have in the Republic do not apply to the clones, showing that they have far less rights than those which are, as Britannica said, "ordinarily held by free persons."

It's also heavily implied that the clones are considered property/chattel by the fact that they are not legally considered sentients. Otherwise, again, them being owned by the Republic would not be legal or permitted. Sentient beings cannot be owned under Republic law, and since the clones are owned by the government (and again, seem to lack various rights which are applied to all sentients), this implies that they do not count as sentient beings. Honestly, it seems like culturally they are somewhat considered non-sentients due to basically being perceived as organic droids or something similar, thus they are more likely equated to property. Not even chattel, since that would imply that they are at least living beings, and clones are barely even tried as ones.

"The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else."

I state this constantly throughout the entire analysis.

"In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate."

I don't know what TF that means so I don't know if it fits or not but one of the two probably fits.

"They were objects of the law, not its subjects. Thus, like an ox or an ax, the slave was not ordinarily held responsible for what he did."

This one is a bit complicated and debatable. They don't have rights, but are still somewhat held accountable for their actions. Then again, the use of the term/concept of "decommissioning" somewhat state otherwise. To the Kaminoans at the very least, the clones are products. So if they break the law or break certain rules or "fail" in some shape or form, they are thrown away. Not really punished for their actions, but treated more like a broken phone that doesn't work properly.

On top of this, I'm not sure if they would actually be tried in front of a court of law. They can be court martialed, but that's a bit different and very internal to the GAR, which is what owns them (yes, they are owned by the Republic in general, but most things regarding how they are regulated seem to be in relation to the GAR). If they were to commit a regular crime, they would most likely be decommissioned rather than tried in the same way as a regular civilian or natborn sentient. Again, while they can be punished, the law doesn't seem to apply to them in the same way. It would be up to the GAR rather than the justice system.

Honestly, this might come up later, but it's unlikely the clones would even be able to get legal representation, since they already don't even need to be court martialed to be straight up executed. And since they aren't legally considered sentients, it would be hard to properly try them in a court of law that isn't a military court. Like the quote says, you cannot try an ox or axe, thus, it would be hard to try a clone if they aren't considered to have any real free will. And even if they are, they aren't considered sentient and instead are property.

I guess a more accurate comparison would be if droids could be arrested and sued/tried vs getting simply destroyed (or the owner of said droid getting in trouble and destroying them/shutting them down). Highly unlike. And I believe that applies to the clones as well. Perhaps they could be declared too dangerous and be decommissioned, but not given a proper trial or anything.

If anyone disagrees with me on that, please do so in the reblogs or replies because I do want to hear your thoughts on if clones could be tried in a regular court (rather than a GAR court) and how that would even logistically work.

"He was not personally liable for torts or contracts."

These guys might be able to do some things like arrest warrants and mission reports, but they would NOT be able to sign a contract. I don't even have solid proof. I just know, and you do too. How would that even work? I don't think they can really even sign stuff outside of the GAR or their job.

"The slave usually had few rights and always fewer than his owner, but there were not many societies in which he had absolutely none."

I already explained how they have literally no rights. Honestly, the only reason this statement doesn't completely apply is due to the fact that they have absolutely no rights, as I will talk about more in the next statement.

"As there are limits in most societies on the extent to which animals may be abused, so there were limits in most societies on how much a slave could be abused."

The very fact that decommissioning/reconditioning is a thing, the Kaminoans aren't in trouble for all that child abuse, and how easy it would be to retaliate against clones reporting abuse (honestly unsure if a natborn would even be punished for abusing a clone) shows that pretty much all bets are off in regards to abuse. Plus, the fact that they have no rights and are barely considered living beings kind of makes it hard to find any proper protections for them.

"The slave was removed from lines of natal descent. Legally, and often socially, he had no kin. No relatives could stand up for his rights or get vengeance for him."

I'd say that the only legal kin the clones could possibly have are each other and maybe Jango, and there is no way the clones would be able to stand up for each others' rights. They honestly probably aren't legally considered kin anyway, so it would barely matter.

The clones can not vote, run for office, and have basically no form of government representation. They can not participate in politics in any real form.

"As an “outsider,” “marginal individual,” or “socially dead person” in the society where he was enslaved, his rights to participate in political decision making and other social activities were fewer than those enjoyed by his owner."

"The product of a slave’s labor could be claimed by someone else-"

Pretty much all clone labor is military related, and all the spoils of war are handed to the Republic. Not sure if this applies to regular soldiers anyway, but the point still stands.

"-who also frequently had the right to control his physical reproduction."

Do you really think the GAR would let the clones have kids?

Even if they did, I'm pretty sure they'd have the legal right to still prevent the clones from reproducing.

"Slavery was a form of dependent labor performed by a nonfamily member."

The clones are not related to anyone in the government. They may have some clone superior officers, but those clones don't own any clones, and the highest ranking officers are always natborns. The GAR also very much depends on the labor of the clones. Like, almost the entire GAR is just clones except for the people in charge of the GAR.

"The slave was deprived of personal liberty-"

The clones have no personal liberty because they are government property.

"-and the right to move about geographically as he desired."

The GAR very much controls where the clones can and cannot go. Sometimes they are allowed to go wherever they please, but the GAR still holds permanent control over where the clones are allowed to go.

"There were likely to be limits on his capacity to make choices with regard to his occupation and sexual partners as well."

The big point is that they have no choice but to be soldiers and work for the GAR. And as I said earlier, they definitely don't have any reproductive rights. This likely applies to romance as well.

"Slavery was usually, but not always, involuntary."

These bitches did not choose this. They were literally born into it. Honestly, they weren't even born into it; they were signed up for this before they even existed.

"If not all of these characterizations in their most restrictive forms applied to a slave, the slave regime in that place is likely to be characterized as “mild”; if almost all of them did, then it ordinarily would be characterized as “severe.”

Here are the parts that do not apply to the clones (or can be argued about):

.

.

.

.

.

There are none.

I actually put 2 quotes here before realizing that they actually do kind of apply.

While I didn't quote the entire article, that's because those parts weren't talking about the definition and what actually makes something slavery. When it comes to the actually qualifications, the clones' situation checks off every single one. I initially thought it would be more in the medium zone, but this is severe severe. The best I can give is that at least they get paid, but we don't actually know that. They are able to pay for things, but that might be due to odd jobs and discounts on stuff. Even then, the article doesn't mention pay of any kind, so it doesn't even matter.

There is also so many layers to their enslavement that makes it so much more twisted and disturbing. The harmful genetic modifications/experimentation (the aging thing specifically), the fact that they were created specifically to be slaves, the entire practice of decommissioning, them not even being considered sentient beings or people, and so much more.

I know why the show never acknowledges that they are 100% enslaved (acknowledging that all the clones we know and love are technically enslaved by the side we're rooting for and nobody is doing anything about it is a bit too dark), but it also drives me crazy how it feels like even the darkest versions of canon acknowledge that they are literally slaves in every possible sense of the word! The only time they are acknowledged to be slaves is by the antagonist of one episode, and his whole point is basically brushed aside!

We literally had a whole ass slavery arc! And Rex was right there with nothing to do! That would have been a perfect time to at least vaguely acknowledge that the clones are slaves! Like, Rex could vaguely mention that he somewhat relates to the slaves, since he doesn't exactly have much freedom, and the government barely considers him and his brothers to be people. Even if he is treated well and doesn't face the same abuse, they do have certain things in common. Then leave it at that. Literally anything.

Honestly, what drives me crazy about Rex being there is the fact that they really get into the horrors of slavery while completely ignoring that Rex is already in that exact situation, he's just not being tortured! Like, he feels bad for all the slaves not just because they are being abused but because they are enslaved as though he isn't already a slave himself! That is literally you, dude! You are in the exact same boat as them, you just aren't being whipped.

The only differences here are:

The clones aren't tortured or receive cruel and unusual punishments (the latter is debatable)

The Jedi don't abuse them (anyone else could, though, and the Jedi don't because they are nice to them)

They are treated slightly better in general

I can't actually really think of anything else. There are so many things that are basically the same, just dressed up differently. Even the dying from work and getting killed for just existing are the same! Fuck, the slave chips are just decommissioning!

Rex clearly feels bad for Anakin's sad backstory and all the slaves on Zygerria, but it's like he doesn't even realize that he has so much in common with them! It's just not obvious at first because the clones are treated kindly and aren't outright abused (most of them, at least).

Anyway, the point is: the clones are slaves. Like, the slaveist of slaves. And I need canon to acknowledge that at some point somewhere by some kind of character that canon acknowledges to be right. Because we all know it already. Canon already depicts the horrors of slavery. I just need them to say it out loud for once.

[aspd-culture]

took forensic psych and have aspd. the term psychopathy is only really used in criminal psychology as a way to understand why people commit crimes. there's a big problem with the theory being 1. People have had a hard time applying it to women 2. it describes a very specific person who commits usually violent crime, not a general way to describe why people commit crimes. I also don't like this theory to be clear. "psychopath" is still not a diagnostic term or diagnosis. please don't call people it. (not at you at prev anon). also from my understanding in regards to the theory itself psychopathy and sociopathy mean the same thing

CW: uncensored ableist language.

Please note that while I do not know if this ask refers to the US, my understanding of the criminal justice system and its relation to the psychology field only goes so far as the US so that is what I’m speaking about in this ask.

In the common belief by the general public, one means a non-violent person with ASPD and the other is a violent person with ASPD, but some others believe one means ASPD and one means NPD. I don’t know if that’s what the courts believe.

For the record, psychopathy in criminal psychology still describes ASPD and is considered a personality disorder just as ASPD is, they just call it psychopathy. It’s a continuation of the ableist term now brought into the criminal justice system.

The issue with criminal psychology is that it rarely holds as much weight in court as forcibly applying a true medical diagnosis to a person, and besides, if they use a medical diagnosis they can permanently attach it to that person even outside of the criminal justice system.

That is done on the stand or by “independent” psychologists (aka not done by the psychiatrist or therapist of the person even if they have one) with ASPD most frequently because the symptoms are almost all suspiciously based on things that could be diagnosed without any knowledge of the person if it’s assumed they’ve committed a crime.

On top of that, even if they’re using criminal psychology, that shouldn’t even be a thing. To say that criminals somehow have some different psychology that isn’t related to medical psychology is blatantly demonizing and dehumanizing. Criminal psychology being somehow its own type of psychology using different terms is extremely problematic in numerous ways, and is to be quite honest extremely ableist and again a way of dehumanizing people who have committed or are assumed to have committed crimes (another issue prevalent in it is putting the cart before the horse in cases where people have been falsely accused).

Attempting to assume that a criminal must have some inherent different psychological function that separates them from “normal” people is a way the courts force the concept that criminals are evil or in some other way so damaged that they can be mistreated and forced into the only legal type of slavery. It helps people sleep at night to think they could never commit that type of crime and neither could any of their friends because they are “normal” as well as to avoid thinking of the fact that our method of separating dangerous people from potential victims is to lock them in a metal cage like an animal and mistreat them. If they’re somehow different from everyone else, then they’re either subhuman or non-human and then it’s okay in the majority of the population’s eyes. It’s also often used to perpetuate the racism and ableism already present so that people who don’t want to admit out loud can still be racist and ableist because “statistics prove these people are violent and savage”. People with ASPD, NPD, schizophrenia (and other disorders that experience psychotic episodes), amongst other disorders often fall victim to the ableism here - the “reasonable” assumption in the general public’s eyes is that these people are by default violent with some rare exceptions and therefore are less than. In fact, this belief goes so far as to bring out the eugenics that a massive amount of the population believes in - that these people “shouldn’t be allowed to breed” such that they can avoid future criminals.

As a child and teen I fell into this same belief (“bad person” not eugenics), the way everyone else in the US at least is - and then as an adult I found out that it was not only not the case but in fact is to some degree a known lie to allow systemic cruelty and slavery. I was then victimized specifically because seemingly “normal” people I knew well suddenly committed violent crimes against me, furthering my understanding that this logic is flawed at best by ignorance and at worst by malice, racism, and bigotry. This forever killed my childhood dream of being a cop and keeping my Exceptions and children & animals safe from all the “bad people”.

For the record, it doesn’t seem like you’re defending this in your ask. The reason I am explaining why that’s invalid is so that people don’t go “see it does have a medical meaning” or “see I can use it to describe criminals or people I think are violent”, etc.

Plain text below the cut:

CW: uncensored ableist language

Please note that while I do not know if this ask refers to the US, my understanding of the criminal justice system and its relation to the psychology field only goes so far as the US so that is what I’m speaking about in this ask.

In the common belief by the general public, one means a non-violent person with ASPD and the other is a violent person with ASPD, but some others believe one means ASPD and one means NPD. I don’t know if that’s what the courts believe.

For the record, psychopathy in criminal psychology still describes ASPD and is considered a personality disorder just as ASPD is, they just call it psychopathy. It’s a continuation of the ableist term now brought into the criminal justice system.

The issue with criminal psychology is that it rarely holds as much weight in court as forcibly applying a true medical diagnosis to a person, and besides, if they use a medical diagnosis they can permanently attach it to that person even outside of the criminal justice system.

That is done on the stand or by “independent” psychologists (aka not done by the psychiatrist or therapist of the person even if they have one) with ASPD most frequently because the symptoms are almost all suspiciously based on things that could be diagnosed without any knowledge of the person if it’s assumed they’ve committed a crime.

On top of that, even if they’re using criminal psychology, that shouldn’t even be a thing. To say that criminals somehow have some different psychology that isn’t related to medical psychology is blatantly demonizing and dehumanizing. Criminal psychology being somehow its own type of psychology using different terms is extremely problematic in numerous ways, and is to be quite honest extremely ableist and again a way of dehumanizing people who have committed or are assumed to have committed crimes (another issue prevalent in it is putting the cart before the horse in cases where people have been falsely accused).

Attempting to assume that a criminal must have some inherent different psychological function that separates them from “normal” people is a way the courts force the concept that criminals are evil or in some other way so damaged that they can be mistreated and forced into the only legal type of slavery. It helps people sleep at night to think they could never commit that type of crime and neither could any of their friends because they are “normal” as well as to avoid thinking of the fact that our method of separating dangerous people from potential victims is to lock them in a metal cage like an animal and mistreat them. If they’re somehow different from everyone else, then they’re either subhuman or non-human and then it’s okay in the majority of the population’s eyes. It’s also often used to perpetuate the racism and ableism already present so that people who don’t want to admit out loud can still be racist and ableist because “statistics prove these people are violent and savage”. People with ASPD, NPD, schizophrenia (and other disorders that experience psychotic episodes), amongst other disorders often fall victim to the ableism here - the “reasonable” assumption in the general public’s eyes is that these people are by default violent with some rare exceptions and therefore are less than. In fact, this belief goes so far as to bring out the eugenics that a massive amount of the population believes in - that these people “shouldn’t be allowed to breed” such that they can avoid future criminals.

As a child and teen I fell into this same belief (“bad person” not eugenics), the way everyone else in the US at least is - and then as an adult I found out that it was not only not the case but in fact is to some degree a known lie to allow systemic cruelty and slavery. I was then victimized specifically because seemingly “normal” people I knew well suddenly committed violent crimes against me, furthering my understanding that this logic is flawed at best by ignorance and at worst by malice, racism, and bigotry. This forever killed my childhood dream of being a cop and keeping my Exceptions and children & animals safe from all the “bad people”.

For the record, it doesn’t seem like you’re defending this in your ask. The reason I am explaining why that’s invalid is so that people don’t go “see it does have a medical meaning” or “see I can use it to describe criminals or people I think are violent”, etc.

[gemini-queen42]

Maybe I'm too into romanticizing things but yknow what I've said it before I'll fuckin say it again

Alt ver thats was actually made first & makes its point more explicitly but may sacrifice flow in that process:

[echo-goes-mmm]

Juno in "King's Counsel"

Juno Collection Masterpost

Previous

Companion Part by Chai

Next

Context: Terry Desrosiers (who belongs to @whumpspicelatte) is king of Rhodantheia, and given Juno as a birthday present. Juno is still getting used to how things work in this new country.

Warings: implied dubcon

The first time an advisor slapped Master, Juno was too stunned to do anything.

He didn't know the man's name, still getting used to his new Master's way of life. But surely this was wrong.

Master was King, how could anyone hit him and it was allowed?

The advisor was still yelling at King Terrance, and Juno cringed at the angry volume. The tips of Master's ears were red, and his face flushed where he had been struck.

Master did nothing, accepting the man's words without protest.

"I'll do better," he said finally, "I'm sorry."

His voice was trembling under the surface, but from a glance it was even and sure.

"You better," spat the advisor, and maybe it was only because of Juno's own experiences that he was able to see the wince.

Later, when they were alone, Juno made his Master tea and fetched his slippers. He looked so sad from this angle, face trying to stay stony but failing, hands wringing his soft nightshirt without his notice.

Juno was meant for housework, and not for comfort, but he did his best.

He pressed the mug of warm honey tea into his Master's hand.

"Thank you," he said.

Master was a strange one, but Juno didn't mind.

He sat by Master's chair, and Master's other hand came to rest on his head, stroking his hair.

Juno hummed in appreciation, and they sat together, listening to the crackle of the fireplace.

___________________

The second time, Juno saw the hand raise and didn't think before launching himself inbetween his Master and the man.

The strike was hard, and stars burst in his vision. He stumbled backwards, and only distantly felt Masters hands steady his shoulders.

Silence filled the room, and Juno shook the ringing from his ears.

The advisor's eyes narrowed, looking from him to the king and back.

"Fix this," he said eventually, turning on his heel and leaving the secure room they always met in.

Juno's jaw stung, and the hands on his shoulders slightly squeezed him.

"Don't do that again," Master told him later in his chambers. "You are not to interfere. Understand? Whatever happens... it's my responsibility to deal with. It's my own fault, not yours."

His voice was soft but firm, and Juno nodded.

It was only partially a lie.

Because he didn't understand. Juno didn't know much of politics, but the king was in charge and the king didn't order the advisor to hit him. How could it be his Master's fault?

But he did understand that he was to follow orders. It was his place; his duty. Nothing more.

So Juno did not interfere.

And when Master needed help bathing, when his back was littered with welts that burst and bruises that ached, Juno did not interfere.

When he saw with his own eyes Master on his knees, 'apologizing' with a cock in his mouth, Juno did not interfere.

His place was only to make his Master happy later. To wipe his wounds clean and brush away his tears and cover his lap with a blanket.

So he did. And hoped one day his Master would remember that he was king and not slave.

taglist: @haro-whumps @paintedpigeon1 @phoenixpromptsandstuff

[ihavedonenothingright]

Captive Prince: Historical References and Naming Conventions

Hi all! I've had this idea in my head for a while now, and I finally had some time (and an Ancient Greek dictionary), so I figured I'd give it a shot. I've always been fascinated by Pacat's worldbuilding, particularly the naming conventions, and as a classicist myself, I wanted to dissect them. So that's what this is. My focus is mainly going to be on Akielos since I don't have as in-depth a knowledge of French, but I'll go through some Veretian names too (je n'ai pas étudié le français depuis deux années, mais Arles… je voudrais parler d'Arles…)

I'm not approaching this with any kind of formal, academic structure, so if something wonky gets through, please let me know! And lastly, I have no idea how many of these are intentional on Pacat's part. This analysis is less about authorial intent and more about how the associations inherent in these names can lend to our interpretation of the work. I'll also be doing this analysis over a few different posts since there is a lot I want to cover. For post #1:

Country Names

This post will solely feature Vere and Akielos since that's already a lot, but I will tackle Patras et. al. later on. There's some very interesting stuff there that I would be remiss not to look at. Of our subjects for today, Vere is the simpler, and the one I am absolutely certain Pacat intended, so I'll start with it.

Vere

Disclaimer: I am in love with this choice. The word itself is actually a Classical Latin adverb derived from the adjective "vērus," meaning "true," and in Latin it's spelled "vērē" (though you will not see those macrons in extant texts, those are a modern pronunciation and differentiation aid). Vērē can be translated a handful of ways; often it's used for emphasis, and in that case it's usually translated as "indeed," but "truly," "rightly," "exactly," and "truthfully" all work in different contexts. Extrapolate vērus and its derivatives for around a thousand years and you get the Old French word "verai" (ouah c'est vrai !) which means, well, "true."

It's also close in spelling and pronunciation to the modern French "verre," which means "glass," which isn't entirely relevant, but is cool. It makes me think of shiny, fragile displays of opulence like the Galerie des Glaces in Versailles. 

The first reason I really like this name is that it calls back to Artes, the Roman-inspired kingdom that we're told once encompassed all of Vere and Akielos, while still fitting current Veretian (aka half-old-half-modern French) grammar and pronunciation. The second is, naturally, that it fits so well into the series' themes of truth, deception, and verisimilitude. The second we're introduced to Vere, and by extension Laurent, there's a subtle hint there that both he and his country are, at their core, more real, genuine, and truthful than Damen and Akielos. We're already building towards Damen's Kings Rising line, "I have never known a truer man." Even if you don't recognize the Latin, your brain will make the connection between Vere and verisimilitude later. It's perfect, 10/10 Pacat, could not have done it better.

And just for fun: a Latin example!

Commentarii de Bello Civili, 2:27. Latin and English available here. 

Hi, sive vere quam habuerant opinionem ad eum perferunt, sive etiam auribus Vari serviunt…

Loeb Translation: "Whether they convey to him the opinion that they really held, or whether they only flatter his ears…" (165)

Slightly more literal translation (by me): "Whether these ones truly convey to him the opinion as they held it, or rather are subservient to Varius' ears…"

Akielos

The name "Akielos" is a lot more… nebulous. I don't know if there is a Greek print of Captive Prince, but my guess is it would be spelled Άκιελος (modern Greek speakers please weigh in, I'm only a year or so into Ancient Greek so I haven't really touched accent marks). That doesn't map neatly to any modern or ancient greek word—at least that I know of. What is does remind me of is Ἀχιλῆος (Achileos) from Ἀχιλλεύς (Achilleus), aka, Achilles. They're so close that I actually realized lately I had unconsciously been pronouncing Akielos as "Akileos" for a while; and in fact, this makes the Veretian spelling "Achelos" make a bit more sense. English and French both use a hard "ch" to represent χ in Greek words; so I imagine, in universe, that the word might actually be spelled Άχιελος. It wouldn't even surprise me if this was the way Pacat originally wanted to spell it, but had to change it for ease of comprehension.

I did have some other interpretations of the name, but I think this is the strongest. Because in addition to the obvious association, the name Ἀχιλλεύς is thought to be derived from the words ἄχος, "distress/grief" and λαός, "people," making it either "the grief" or "grief of/to the people" depending on who you ask (you rely on cases for that sort of distinction in Greek and they're not exactly present here. iykyk).

I really like the idea of Akielos being associated with grief; we're first introduced to it as a country in mourning, and then later on, as the cause of grief in Delfeur. And then you have the association with Achilles, himself a prolific brother killer, who Pacat references later in 'The Fall of Inachtos,' our in-universe Iliad. Insane levels of grief on grief on grief. Plus, because it looks closer to the genitive form, I automatically associate it with the opening line of the Iliad:

μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος

menin aeide thea Peleiadeo Achileos

Sing, goddess, the anger of Achilles, Peleus' son

So we can throw a little rage into the equation. As a treat. 

Also important to note that the -os there is a masculine ending. It doesn't have the most bearing, but it does mean that if we want to be strictly accurate to Ancient (and modern!) Greek grammar, I have to throw a quick article in front of it, making our final "how do the Akielons spell Akielos?" answer: ὁ Άχιελος ("ho Achielos"). The ὁ here is equivalent to le in French, with the major distinction being that in French, you don't typically need an article in front of a proper noun, whereas you do in Greek.

That's it for today's analysis! See you guys next time around for Patras, Artes, and (maybe) Arles, Ios, and Delfeur/Delpha.

Part 2 >>

[itwasabeautifulwebbing]

since when are the antivan crows this nice??

[marzipanandminutiae]

was just at a work presentation about the history of slavery in New England. in person. room full of adult museum professionals

and the presenter (who was a very well-spoken and accomplished researcher my age or a little younger, and whom I otherwise came away with great respect for). mentioned enslaved people "unaliving" themselves/their families to escape slavery

the brainrot is spreading

[p-clodius-pulcher]

Sexual violence and exploitation are inherent to imperialism and any discussion of imperialism that shies away from these subjects is disingenuous and flawed. I know lots of people on this site (myself included) engage with Ancient Rome and its history as a hobby, but that is not an excuse to not be aware or willing to discuss the unsavoury parts of its existence and legacy.

[nando161mando]

Hate it when companies always say to not discuss salaries with coworkers.