#dont like function labels for context

[cleanestkittyspams]

worried about faking how severe my autism is. dunno how to know im not just pretending? been diagnosed with autism almost my whole life. was diagnosed with ‘high functioning’ ,am level 2. but regression i think. its hit hard. am verbal flux? think? or semiverbal????

been masking most of my life until year or so ago, am too tired to do a lot of things, been through a lot past few years, but worried family will think am putting it on. even though they are nice to me and know about autism to extent

worried other autistic will think am putting it on?

bee needs to think about it from outsider view and love self. 🩷

[partangel]

would love to hear more about your take on the "people have the obligation to help themselves and get better, if they dont they are bad" thing because you’re sooo right

i just don't think it is as simply and as linear as social media trends make it seem, i think humans are becoming more and more self-invested, self-centered and therefore isolated. i think we dehumanize others and attribute meaningless labels... "red flags this, yellow flags this" i mean, what?

on the internet, particularly tumblr, there was an entire period of romanticizing decay and victimization which was ridiculously bad and not promoter of any type of growth be it for the individual or the relationships they maintained. but the 180º extreme switch that happened is frankly as bad. i believe there's a whole difference between accounting for your mistakes and realizing certain behaviours are not okay with others and TRYING to do better while also giving context to your own struggles in certain aspects in comparison to the whole "maybe you're just toxic and should be put down or smth". like, what in the world? sometimes it just feels like people stopped being people and stopped seeing others as people just like them. i feel like we are just assets. where is the humanism? why have we stopped treating people as people????? are you a full fledged human without your "faults" and "vices"????? or are you just emulating a persona that will never exist and therefore will never to fully connect to others??? why do others prefer to build a relationship with a persona instead of a real human... its easier to manage relationships that dont truly exist, but isnt it as easy as it is isolating?

no one should go to therapy forced by others. no one should take medication forced by others. functionality and stability should not be reached by imposing threats on an human being. in the end that's not helping anyone. its as ive said, i started taking a medication for others and not for me, it did nothing besides making me worse. however, other people were eager to be more human to me because i was taking medication. while im exactly the same, other people have changed the way they interact with me due to a pill. why?

not to talk about the "ugly" mentally ill. the mentally ill that has trouble managing emotions, the mentally ill that has a personality disorder, the mentally ill that can't maintain relationships as well as others because they need their time. the upset mentally ill the traumatized mentally ill the raging mentally ill. as if everything is treated by medication and therapy. as if it isn't a luck to get an actual competent therapist. as if, in going to therapy and it failing, you just spent hours retraumatizing and reliving everything again for nothing. but well. you went to therapy. you pass the check on good mentally ill. doesn't matter if it changed anything or made things worse, you showed you were compromised to others in your life. now you deserve being treated like a human. now if you have a bad day they can tell you "talk to your therapist" and excuse your grumpiness or your suicidal ideation.

most of healing happens in the secure relationships you maintain during your life. except now, talking to your friend about a problem you're having is labeled as "dumping" and is regarded as an orange yellow flag because "thats not what a friend is for". if anything happens negative you should not share with your friends or companion or family, they have a lot going on already, why dont you go and see therapist?

like for fucks sake. that means we dont maintain relationships. we maintain transactions.

[five-thousand-loaves-of-bread]

fully personal opinion

see many autistic people online treat someone calling self “high functioning” as a red flag, and some view it more extremely as irredeemable and make immediate assumption about person.

and i don’t… fully agree?

like of course see where they come from. there definitely are autistic people who identify as “high functioning” (high functioning autism, HFA) or “aspie” to separate self from the other autistics because they look down on other autistics. others may even believe HFA is this new evolutionary goal and people with HFA and only high functioning autism is better than everyone else, allistics included. they are yucky.

i carefully curate n select my internet experience because know if get mad, won’t be able to step away. so i don’t see these people much at all online. also because of dominant views in online autism community, these aspie supremacy HFA people don’t really participate in online actually autistic community.

but the reason i say i dont fully agree is because….

for so long me as a higher support needs level 2/3 austistuc and my friends who are similar or have more support needs as me & may be labeled “low functioning”, we been spoken over in online autistic community. dominant view of autism in online actually autistic community say every autistic all the same just mask differently or stuff like that. can look at my other posts for more context.

so, i really do appreciate when… how to say… an autistic respond to my posts say “i’m high functioning and i agree/thank you for bringing light to issue/etc etc.”

like. call themself as “high functioning” to, yes, separate themselves from me, not in the “im better than you i worth more than you”, but in the way of “i acknowledge me being/being seen as high functioning means i have different experiences than you, and on higher support needs/level2 3/low functioning issues i don’t have the lived experience and i need to listen.”

like i fully appreciate the latter, you know?

it’s also okay to say like. “while i don’t identify as high functioning, i do acknowledge i am often seen as high functioning, and that means i get treated better than those called low functioning.”

anticipate some people will say “well there still are better terms out there, like low support needs.” and the thing is, high functioning, levels, and support needs may all be trying to describe similar things, but they don’t neatly translate to each other. they don’t exactly mean same thing. “high functioning” doesn’t necessarily always mean low support needs.

and it not my place to tell other people how to self identify!

also because, i do like functioning labels when voluntarily used as self descriptor.

so, TLDR, i do oppose professionals & other people forcibly labeling autistics with functioning labels, i do hate those aspie supremacist high functioning autistics. but i think there is more nuance (always more nuance) to the “call self high functioning = bad” conversation. sometimes really do appreciate when someone self describe use “high functioning” to note difference in autistic experiences.

idk just personal thoughts. idk make sense.

[rayssyscourse]

bit of an origins-discourse take + mild rant: I get the wish for separate communities, and sure, to some degree it's possible and healthy to do. however, the idea that endogenic plurality and non-endogenic plurality are totally and completely separate and should never touch, is, practically speaking, both impossible and potentially pretty harmful.

-> the systems who start out thinking they're endogenic, but actually just don't remember their trauma and/or don't think it could have "counted": if endogenic communities aren't connected to CDD spaces, those systems are going to have a hell of a lot harder of a time trying to get appropriate and accurate resources, or even recognize disordered symptoms in the first place. "they should just go to CDD spaces" how?? if they've always ID'd as endogenic, and all CDD spaces all have "endos keep out" plastered over the front doors, why would they ever feel welcome?

-> the systems who are traumagenic, but also genuinely relate to many endogenic system experiences: these people exist. not all traumagenic systems find endogenic experiences relatable, but plenty of them actually do. also, sometimes traumagenic systems participate in practices (spiritual traditions, daemonism, intentional system member creation, etc) that overlap with endogenic plurality. -> endogenic systems with post-system-origins trauma, mixed origin systems, systems who "maybe fit CDD criteria but maybe don't, it's a gray area": even if they aren't experiencing 100% exactly the same thing as a textbook traumagenic CDD system, they still likely have a whole lot in common, and might benefit a ton from CDD resources and recovery-oriented system spaces. it's not like CDD experiences are a single homogeneous thing anyways.

-> advocating for awareness and acceptance of systems and CDDs in society: we're all on the same team on that front, and the more that different parts of the system community are willing to work together, the more leverage we have to actually change things--and the more we can make sure that no one gets thrown under the bus. a society that's okay with systems only in the context of a disorder isn't going to be accepting of functional multiplicity, and invites a ton of gatekeeping as to who 'actually' is disordered enough; a society that's okay with systems only if they're *not* related to a disorder is ableist. Anyways. this isn't saying that every individual system space ever has to be a mixed community! but the idea that all plurality can easily be divided into two completely separate categories is fundamentally flawed, and more systems will be helped by a community that is less focused on labels and more focused on the experiences behind them. hope you have a great day <3

hi anon!! this is a really thorough and thoughtful ask, so thank you for bringing up a lot of good points :)

to be totally honest, I agree with a large majority of what you're saying. i dont think every space should be divided, and there's plenty of systems that don't fit into the weird dichotomy the community has created.

like you say: systems like traumatized endos, mixed origin systems, etc. deserve a place too! that said, I think it's fair for people to want exclusive spaces, and I think we can be understanding and inclusive while recognizing that some experiences require exclusive spaces.

but honestly, I agree with you, and I think you bring up some very good points!! thanks for the ask, have a lovely day :) <3

[velvetvexations]

It’s so disheartening to see how transradfem rhetoric spreads so quickly and easily on here. I mean, not beyond my expectations and not surprised, given how much our feminist movements have historically fallen prey to white supremacist notions of gender (all misogyny being inextricably linked to racism). Understanding womanhood as a form of exclusive, targeted victimhood is where every issue with incomplete feminist takes and theory arises. Subconsciously we understand femininity to be synonymous with passivity. Even those who arent fully versed in transradfem beliefs will find themselves incidentally nodding along with some of their points, because they’re difficult to counter given our collective underlying assumptions about how gender functions. I think the best way to overturn this is by restructuring how we understand the functions of gender in society entirely. Men are typically propped up as a monolithic and unchanging force against the more dynamic, diverse, and intersectional nature of Women. Sincerely, i dont think discussing the institutional privilege of men over women in gendered contexts is in compromise with the notion that manhood comes with its own unique baggage of problems than women typically dont face, all of which is in service of a societal network that is ultimately destructive and harmful to everyone subject to it. So, you know, even in the narrow range of cases where trans men do have access to greater male privilege, it’s not really an effective counterargument in the sense of it being helpful and adding interesting ideas to work with in our discourse.

I guess my point is: Compassion is political. If you are making the personal choice to participate in these discussions as an autonomous individual with autonomous beliefs, then you need to include compassion in your analysis to get to the root of anything at all. Now matter how well you articulate your own oppression, if that is the primary focus of all your feminist activism, you are trying to bite your own tail. And it skeeves me that people attempt to deflect from this point by pointing out how progress is achieved through violence/being greatly outspoken and uncompromising or whatnot and it’s like, but that’s not the context OUR issues are happening in. Intracommunity dynamics arent a 1:1 replica of wider society.

It really should be possible to talk about men's issues without taking away from feminism of any kind but it gets one labeled as a TMRA because there's this pernicious idea that the suffering of women is the root cause of all societal issues and men will always benefit from that suffering.

[amalgamezz]

About your aro post in your tags you said you don’t care for any loves (romantic, familial [<- I don’t feel that one too :D] etc.) does that go for friendships as well? Or are you more of a person who doesn’t care for connection at all? I hope I worded that right…

heya, thank you for this ask, and no worries, your wordings are fine! sorry, this will be a long one because my audhd demands that i should provide full contexts 😔

as i interacted and got to know more about aplatonic and loveless communities, i found a certain solidarity/kinship with them. ever since i was in elementary, friendship has never been something i actively seek myself. i still got along well with classmates. my relationships with coworkers are chill and good. i have mutuals and friendly acquaintances here and there to talk about our shared interests. i try to maintain a good relationship with my family because capitalism sucks ass, especially for single people. in a way, this, too, is how i practice relationship anarchy — to give each casual and non-casual relationship i have a function and learn to appreciate them instead of putting the burdens on one or two committed relationships. for me, friendship has become a label for happy coincidences born out of those relationships after long and frequent interactions, if both parties desire a name for it. i have some positive connections with friends who i trust with my life, and i would mourn intensively should i lose them, but tbh, im not sure if i would personally call it "love".

i was lovequeer before i am loveless. im actually still considering myself lovequeer in a way that i strongly believe that love doesnt have to be romantic and that no kind of love is superior to the other. my personal relationship with love is complicated, but mostly sour. as an aro, i am a fierce defender of non-romantic loves. it annoys me greatly when people casually throw amatonormative phrases such as "there is no platonic explanation for this" or "friends dont do that" around. it is usually a hopeless and lonely battle because people dont really care about "not all loves are romantic" until you reject the concept of love altogether. more often than not, it becomes a gotcha towards aros who express their frustration with obsession over love by society.

this frustration, too, drew me closer to the concept of lovelessness. lovelessness means different things to different people, but for me, its the rejection of love being a superior, necessary, or moral trait of a human being. i had a knee-jerk reaction at first when i learned the term, but the more i read about it and introspect, the more it resonates with me. i remember how my parents hit me when i was a kid. i remember my aunt chewed me out in front of my entire family for expressing my wish to stay single and childless. i remember being driven to tears as my dad sneakily threw out a gift from my friend that i hung on my car and replaced it with a rosary. when asked why, they said because they wanted what was best for me. because they wanted me to be happy. because they loved me. it all sounded contradictory, but i have been with them long enough to know that they were being genuine. i dont wanna think its not a real love because i dont find it useful and more often than not, it only makes me question myself if i have been a fair evaluator and get guilty when i think im not. instead, i just have to accept that good intentions dont always bring good outcomes. their love is real, but its like a sun that burns and hurts more intensively the closer i get to it. i started coming to terms with love being a neutral but strong emotional motive that drives humans to do something — just like pleasure, joy, anger, sadness, envy, etc. whether you do good, bad, or neither because of it solely depends on you. i can acknowledge that they love me, but that doesnt mean they should be able to use it as an excuse to hurt me. this applies to all kinds of love.

i have nothing against love or the people who cherish it, but as i start dissecting and understanding more about love, it becomes less and less significant in my life. i start to realise that i dont need to love someone to bring them happiness or do good for them. i dont need to love my friends to care for or emotionally support them when they need it. i dont need to love my mutuals or even strangers to consider donating for their groceries. i dont need to love the victims of war to condemn the hideous crimes committed against them by some certain govts. love doesnt make me human. i just simply am, and im happy with the loveless relationships/connections i currently have.

[system-of-a-feather]

You definitely deserve support and struggle internally. I dont want to invalidate that. But you are not high support needs. People who are high supports needs need things like a carer and couldn't pull together to feign some front of functioning even if it was a matter of safety. People with high support needs have also asked repeatedly that those who aren't not co opt that language to feel more validated. There is a major issue with people who appear more functioning not being listened to or supported. But that is its own thing

If this is in terms of autism, I apologize in the sense I wasn't thinking of it in terms of ANY label. Quite frankly I wrote that post as a vent because I am Exhausted and not to make a statement, so coincidentally, because Im exhausted, I am not literally thinking of all the interpretations of a vent post.

I meant high support needs in the sense that I need a lot of support cause I have multiple severe disorders that should cripple me - not as a label, and I agree with you, as a label I am not high supports needs nor do I identify as such - it was a slip of the tongue cause I am not in the most stellar mental state - thus the vent post.

I agree with you and I apologize cause I forgot its an actual term and Ill add a disclaimer to it but please, next time try to take into context that someone venting about exhaustion may not be thinking the most about interpretations and giving a benefit of doubt would be appreciated

Thank you.

[vazelbeak]

I'm gonna be honest I wanted to believe Viv and give her a chance when she seemed to insist that the clip from episode 4 was not as bad as it looked out of context. And I'm not a squeamish person by any stretch so it's not even like a "uhm this is too nsfw" because i know sometimes that is the point of media. However I am not sure what context was supposed to make graphic scenes of Angel being assaulted better when if you intend to speak to SA victims it is counter productive to then have scenes that are triggering and make the show a hard watch for the same victims.

Dumbing that issue down to "don't like dont watch" like this is the early 2010's on fanfiction.net ignores how from what I saw episode 4 was labeled as 18 plus and did not have warnings for sexual violence either. I don't blame people who say they can separate Angel doing his job from Angel with Val but I also don't blame people who can't because Viv made his abuse tied to his very job.

Loser Baby while we'll performed had the lines "I sold my soul to a psychopathic freak" "haha! and you think that makes you unique?" That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If Husk is intended to be blunt with this line and what he means is that angel is not alone this clashes heavily with him having the self awareness and capability to assess "you're having a breakdown and you need a bartender to talk to" minutes prior. And frankly I wish they had worded it better because largely it reads as Husk saying "trauma doesn't make you quirky and different" which while said light heartedly in show I must say I wonder if we'll see a new wave of people under the belief every mention of struggle warrants a "You're not quirky or different shut the fuck up and get over yourself." That was common and aligned with Vivs anti sjw phase. What's the chance survivors who find poison triggering will be met with a "and you think that makes you unique!" By survivors who don't find that triggering unaware that the point is a significant numbers of SA victims the show wants to speak to are functionally unable to watch because it's too graphic and "18+" is not the same as warnings for sexual violence?

Anyways I'm not sure what context Viv thought made poison look better because personally it's lost on me and seems rather the opposite.

[soft-spooks]

ok im reposting the images here for context bc i love her

Blue is! one of the discarded vessels

they were mostly an experiment, never really meant to have any sort of sentience or life. instead of being hollow, they were created to be a vessel full of Lifeblood- the king had a hypothesis at one point that lifeblood contained a sort of cure or protection against the infection, and wanted to see whether or not it was strong enough to house the Radiance (spoiler alert: it wasnt)

jokes on him though! lifeblood, as the name suggests.. well. makes things alive! now this vessel whos supposed to not have any feeling or thought is. alive and panicking because they are Full Of Infection and theres a big fucking Moth God in their head. they wake up from the dreamworld and kind of lash out, they get subdued and the experiment is called off as a failure . the lifeblood in their body does take care of the remnants of the infection somewhat, but not entirely. thats where the crack in their head comes from! deemed a failure, they were going to be cast out into the abyss like the rest of the failed vessels, but before they get thrown off the edge, joni breaks in and stops them. she had heard about lifeblood experiments and since lifeblood is her Whole Thing, she wanted to take care of them. they would be out of the kings way and hed never have to see them again- joni was labelled as a heretic anyway, so shed be leaving regardless.

the king allowed this, but made a point of banishing the two of them so theyd for sure never be seen again. joni took the vessel back to the howling cliffs, to the little home she had been growing for herself (the repose). there, joni sort of raised Blue, gave them their name, treated them as a sort of apprentice, taught them how to utilize and control lifeblood.

eventually, joni dies, and since blue is functionally immortal as a vessel and doesnt age, they kinda. shut down under grief and go into a sort of hibernation state. this lasts for a GOOD number of years, until they're awoken by. something. i havent figured that part out yet.

that brings us to the game timeline, Infection running rampant in the kingdom, the king is dead, etc etc. blue wanders out from the repose and starts to explore the kingdom. theyre kind of aimless and dont really know where or why theyre going, but thsy feel like they have to keep moving.

blue can talk to the little lifeseeds! and their healthbar is not soul related, its entirely made up of lifeblood masks, meaning sitting at benches doesnt heal them. theyre very cautious going through the kingdom and try to avoid getting hurt as much as possible. their nail is actually jusy one half of a pair of scissors.

etc etc theyre exploring for a long time, and then they find !!!! bretta !!!!! in the fungal wastes!!! and shes under the thrall of the infection, not turned quite yet but. out of it. and blue knows that her lifeblood csnt exactly heal the infection, but it CAN clear out small amounts of it. so they give some of it to bretta ans it heals her !!!!!!!!

shes rlly out of it and cant really walk on her own, so blue carries her to the nearest stag station and takes her back to dirtmouth <3 brettas story goes as it usually does otherwise, except zote never fucking shows up and bretta and blue fall in love so she doesnt leave either <3

[refloralisation]

Amazed at the narratives coming out of the dont worry darlings shitstorm. Either Olivia Wilde is a cougar/predator who completely destroyed her marriage and preyed on poor, innocent Harry Styles; or Olivia Wilde is only getting beaten on because misogyny, because she dared to do what men do all the time. Florence Pugh is devil incarnate for not being professional and doing the press tour. Olivia Wilde is somehow a feminist who is now seeing her downfall.

Consider: Harry and Olivia are both adults with presumable intact cognitive functions, have been in the industry long enough to be fully aware of how decent professionals behave, and yet chose to initiate and continue a sexual relationship on set that made their co-stars uncomfortable. Both of them are equally culpable for creating this environment; at all times, both of them could have stopped to think about what they were doing. Harry Styles is not an innocent victim; nor is Olivia Wilde a predator.

Consider: Men having the licence to do dodgy for ages isn’t the argument that you think it is. Some things are dodgy irrespective of who does them. Olivia Wilde isn’t a feminist just because she did what men do. In a professional work environment, any two people being involved in a romantic/sexual relationship does not exist in a vacuum, it is situated in a larger context where unimaginable amounts of money, time and effort are going into creating a product with only a 50% chance to succeed. Instead of engaging in whataboutism, perhaps the conversation needs to be on what acceptable standards of behaviour on a set actually are. How much can you put on “creative synergy” and “creative licence” and get away with? Where should one draw the line?

Consider: Professional behaviour should never violate someone’s boundaries. The derogatory way in which Ms. Wilde spoke about Florence Pugh in that infamous video was extremely unkind and unprofessional. Florence is right to draw her boundaries and go about her business politely. Drawing boundaries isn’t “unprofessional” or “rude”. She’s not obligated to be nice to someone who was rude about them.

Consider: a woman making films isn’t inherently a feminist act. Olivia Wilde isn’t a feminist by the virtue of being a woman in the workplace. We need to ask ourselves tough questions; feminism isn’t a flag you wave around. It is movement, it is a war, it is fighting in a war that won’t end in your lifetime. Instead of sucking Olivia Wilde’s toes; ask yourselves tough questions. How many women did she hire as crew on her set? Did she give equal pay to these women? How much did Harry Styles make compared to Florence Pugh? (Reportedly, Pugh made less than Styles despite being lead, but i can’t find verified sources for this) What about on-set energy? Did she foster an environment that wasn’t only professional but also kind, and gave women the space to express discomfort? Of the women she hired in her film, how many were POC? How many were neurodivergent? What kind of men did she work with during the making of this film?

Glass ceilings don’t get shattered because one white woman who is conventionally beautiful was able to make films. Glass ceilings get shattered when women uplift women, at the cost of labels like “feminist bitch” and “biased” and “d*ke” - when women sacrifice the social capital they would get from men by turning their back on women, and choosing women at each turn (like men have chosen men but that is neither here nor there); by being aggressively, militantly pro women, pro LGBT as well as anti class, anti caste, anti racism etc.

* trans women are women

[mueritos]

more about possible autism thoughts...

i didnt mention it til now but my last therapy appt went kind of weird. it was obvious that my therapist doesnt have a well rounded knowledge on autism, and her examples were of the “low functioning”, and she kept saying that I would be “high functioning” and therefore dont have autism/autistic traits. again, she was using very outdated terms and language that ive learned from autistic folks to be generally frowned upon. having functioning labels pushed on to me, along side not really getting a word in to what i was feeling, make me feel like there was no point in even trying to bring up the autistic traits i related to. im still struggling to understand myself and why now its all catching up to me, the anxiety and the sensory issues ive had, the social exhaustion and irritability...wouldn’t it have been more productive to talk about the reasons why i felt connected to autistic experiences rather than go through every way i dont? or, at the very least, why my therapist thinks I dont despite me feeling like the person i am in office is highly curated just for that social context.

sigh. either way, she gave me hw to keep track of my symptoms or things I notice to b more autistic but like. man that whole session really turned me off. now i dont even want to keep figuring this out with her if its just going to be weird. and im not even saying that i know for sure that i have autism! i just wanted a session that felt safe and welcoming to question myself based on my own experiences. and it just wasnt. which is weird because i never had an issue with her til now.

anyway. my classes started today but i didnt have any actual classes until tomorrow. and i like school, i really do, but now that im more aware of my sensory issues and my social needs, im starting to feel more anxiety than dread. like how loud will spaces be? will i let myself rock in public? will i have time to transition better between classes and social events? its just mostly anxiety about going outside and being seen. idk, it freaks me out. wear a mask and feel good that no ones looking at my face, or get stared at for wearing one when everyone else isnt. idk idk it all just sucks in my brain rn and maybe it wont be as bad. but i really dont like this limbo im in. I love being alone and i really crave it more than ever, but what if its more anxiety than social exhuastion? but i still get exhuasted even after being with people all day, especially if i dont have my low sensory hours. idk idk ughhh its just so frustrating trying to understand myself, especially because now i feel weird about going back to therapy. i wud appreciate any insight or tips for how to regulate better <3

[castielcommunism]

am i a dummy dumdum who doesnt understand what deancrit/cascrit/samcrit etc means? because i assumed it meant like "dean critical" as in looking at a character through a critical lens. is that inherently a bad thing? i mean i do that with characters i love all the time 😅😅😅 i dont want people out here thinking i hate and despise these characters bc i criticize them or use the word wrong if im mistaken on its meaning

no no no you’re good lol being critical in general is definitely not a bad thing. deancrit means a specific type of criticism, usually by people who approach dean with a fundamental dislike of who he is. Like they’re “critical” of the whole package, not specific behaviours or parts of his character. Critical in this context is used in a lot of fandoms. I have no idea where it exactly originated, but “x character critical” is essentially another way of communicating “I hate this guy and want to talk shit about him” to other people. It’s usually a tag people use on posts, so if you search the deancrit / dean critical tag you’ll get a lot of hits lol.

Now what gets labelled as deancrit versus regular old criticism is pretty variable and depends on the person. I’ve had the experience of literally saying “Dean is imperfect” in a post and someone accused me of being deancrit lol. The context of who’s doing the criticism matters too, like I find people are much more willing to accept criticism of dean or the way he’s written from a destiel blog, but will label similar criticisms as “deancrit” if they come from a sam blog. which isn’t to say people are hypocrites (I do the same thing), but rather I think people are more willing to accept a criticism of dean’s behaviour if it’s coming from someone they know doesn’t hate his guts. And of course not all sam blogs hate dean, but that’s the general perception.

And in general I think the “goal” of deancrit is to objectively prove he’s a bad person by compiling evidence of his wrongdoings. In a way I think part of it is a performance of your own dislike of a character by justifying it in some way. Whereas generic criticism of a character is more like “hey this is kinda shitty, let’s talk about this.” They function differently in the fandom and exist for different reasons.

[tobi-smp]

Yo

Didnt quite want to add to the rainbow[rest of name thing

But

I am kinda confused

Like when looking at the posts on the blog it seems the issue was the dreamwastaken tag

But that isnt what it sounded like what was in the replies of your post

Also I understand wanting c!tags in the post but most posts I see put this is about roleplay so they dont have to keep putting c!

Also people make it really clear of who they are talking about

Also werent you talking about cc!Dream's writing

Which would go in the cc tag?

(Fun fact used to follow them then they started doing prison roleplay that just made me uncomfy)

Context: [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3]

no yeah For Sure, they're very blatantly using the tag as an excuse to get angry about How c!dream was depicted in the post while hiding their intentions because they know that they wouldn't be taken seriously otherwise (not that they're being taken seriously now).

the point of c! and cc! is to differentiate between Characters and Content Creators within a post, created during the exile arc when conversation around dream and tommy shifted to discussing the abuse being inflicted on tommy. people outside of the fandom were genuinely confused and worried, so there were attempts to clarify Within A Post that what was being discussed was a story and not a description of what real streamer Dream 'was' Taken was doing.

it was never intended for organization but for Clarification, with c! and cc! just being used to accomplish this as quickly and efficiently as possible (try reading a post that uses these labels liberally but replace them with "character" and "content creator," it gets tedious very quickly).

I don't use it in every post because its function is to clarify where its necessary. posts where it's obvious that what's being talked about Isn't real (such as foolish being a god for instance), posts where its inconsequential whether people unfamiliar with the series get confused or not, or say untagged posts not intended for anyone but people within the fandom don't really need it. sometimes I'll use it anyway by force of habit or I'll forget to use it where I Could have either out of excitement or just, you know, Forgetting. but that's neither here nor there.

point is, at no point has it been used as a blocktag nor was it intended to be that. people who don't like the dream smp and don't want to see that content usually Avoid the streamers tags in the first place, and otherwise if they're able to block the c!dream tag then they'll be able to block the dream smp tag.

it's a pointless argument to make which makes it transparently obvious that that's not what the point of making it was.

all of That said, I'd like to address the most important part of all of this.

They Started Doing What?

[davethot]

Aysha is homophobic but more so in the realm of being lesbophobic. Remember that she completely removed all Rosemary interactions from Pesterquest for more Davekat, decided to push for Yiffy the cuckhold child to be forced into the narrative during Lesbian Visibility Day and has made sure to demean any positive Rosemary interactions in lieu of Davekat which she is solely invested in. Her being transphobic more relates to her poor handling of Jade (dog dicked sex fiend isn't good transfem rep)

You do realize you sound fucking insane right???? This is literally what I’m fucking talking about when I mentioned people in my og post about hs2 pointing fingers and giving someone a really harsh label such as LESBOPHOBIC because they didnt quite handle a lesbian couple EXACTLY how you would have.

First of all i want to mention that Aysha is non-binary poc and is married to a woman. This doesnt exempt her from possibly writing some shitty things, but its good to have perspective here. Shes not some cishet white person writing these characters.

So are you going to ignore the literal thousands of pages of the original comic where we had a PLETHORA of Rosemary interactions??? And absolutely no davekat? And if you remember Kanaya was still having hang ups with Vriska, so it only made sense that that was explored a bit in Pesterquest rather than jumping straight to Rose and Kanaya cuddling on a couch and spewing gay poetics at each other. Like I genuinely dont know what you fucking want.

Also i would like to point out that romance wasnt even the fucking focus of Pesterquest. Dave and Karkat’s interactions were barely anything more than characters mentioning them and them being in the same place together for one single ending and mspar implying that they had a feeling they were supposed to be good friends. Tbh it sounds like you and the people who often have this complaint are way more fucking obsessed with what’s going on with Davekat than Aysha or the rest of the team will ever be. Maybe you should redirect your efforts into creating more wlw content for Homestuck since you think the new team is so lesbophobic for portraying two grown ass women having some marital problems (and acting like that cant happen in the real world with real people literally every day).

You and tons of other people fucking love to point to Kanaya and Rose’s issues in hs2 and preach that it’s suddenly lesbophobic that theyre not happy go lucky 24/7. Again, Davekat didnt even fucking happen in the og comic. We had one flash where Dave rests his head on Karkat’s lap and they’re playing hopscotch on a poorly drawn dick on the ground, meanwhile Rose and Kanaya had comfortably been together for Awhile at that point. I just don’t understand how Dave and Karkat finally having a semi-functional and happy relationship in hs2 is promoting lesbophobia. Also we didnt even get to see the comic FINISH!! We dont KNOW what exactly was going to happen with Rose and Kanaya, and we arent going to for a long fucking time because it’s people like you who are perpetuating this narrative of the team and that theyre horrible awful people because they did two fucking things you dont agree with. It’s honestly fucking exhausting. And you know I can throw this right back at you right? Like, pretty homophobic of you to only be focusing on wlw ships and invalidating Davekat, one of the only healthy relationships PERIOD in Homestuck, not just a healthy mlm relationship. Like, pretty shitty of you anon :/ kind of homophobic of you fr.

And this isnt even mentioning the genuinely nice interactions we have seen with Kanaya and Rose in Homestuck 2. Everyone’s really fucking eager to forget that in meat Kanaya was wistfully looking out at the stars missing her wife and told Dave she’d do anything to get her back, esp since it’s implied that Rose was being manipulated pretty heavily by Dirk. But no, according to yall that never happened and Aysha + the rest of the team are just spitting on all wlw folks.

Also again I feel like youre coming to insane conclusions. You think it was a purposeful move that Aysha and the team introduced Yiffy on lesbian visibility day??? Like???? Also pretty lesbophobic of you to invalidate a child born from two women. Like hm pretty shitty of you anon. Rose and Jade explained why they did what they did, and tbh, again, we could have had more information if people like you didnt indirectly harass the creators and cause it to go on indefinite hiatus.

As for the Jade dog dick thing, I have multiple friends who are trans women who have issues with people blowing it out of proportion. Its important to remember that every trans woman is going to have a different opinion on this, and we shouldnt invalidate any of them, but at the same time what one trans woman says about it isnt the end all be all of the situation. Some trans women think this portrayal is transphobic, while plenty others think it isnt, and that people are making way too big of a deal out of it. Therefore I’m going to leave it at that. Personally I dont know if how Aysha and the team wrote Jade is transphobic and its not for me to decide. However, my trans friend would like to be quoted saying this:

“People claiming that the writers intended for Jade’s dick to be the driving force in her emotional and sexul appetite shows someone’s willingness to ignore Jade’s actual reasons for doing these things that she STATES in the actual text. All in favor of projecting their own transmisogynist reading onto the writers.”

This probably ended up being longer than my og post lmfao but fr anon im sick of people like you. Even if you didnt directly contact the creators of hs2, you’re literally the problem here. I wish you and others would stop throwing around these terms like lesbophobic, homophobic, transphobic, etc, because it literally makes those words lose meaning. Someone writing a lesbian couple having marital problems, especially in the context of Homestuck, is not fucking lesbophobic. And i hope i helped you understand that by throwing the terms back at you because tbh, im sure youre a good person with good intentions, and I would never seriously call you homophobic for this. But i hope you can have some fucking perspective and stop targeting marginalized authors and creators moving forward. Its embarrassing fr.

[woeismyhoe]

Different anon here but bruh c'mon... abuse is the behaviours and actions of a person not the intention of their actions. It doesnt matter if Azula was tryna be nice and friendly to Mai and Ty Lee, what matters is that she used fear and control to coerce Mai and Ty Lee to do her bidding (like you said) and that is abuse. Doesnt matter why. The army doesnt do this, theres consent and agreement. Pls dont be an abuse apologist... I like your blog :(. I want azula redemption but not like thisss :(.

The definition of abuse (noun):

1. the improper use of something.

2. cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal.

3. (More in-depth) interactions in which one person behaves in a cruel, violent, demeaning, or invasive manner toward another person or an animal. The term most commonly implies physical mistreatment but also encompasses sexual and psychological (emotional) mistreatment.

And then the psychological definition for abusive behavior:

1. Emotional abuse is a way to control another person by using emotions to criticize, embarrass, shame, blame, or otherwise manipulate another person. In general, a relationship is emotionally abusive when there is a consistent pattern of abusive words and bullying behaviors that wear down a person's self-esteem and undermine their mental health.

And this is from ReachOut.com:

“If you feel scared or confused around your partner, or doubt yourself when you’re talking with them, you may be experiencing emotional abuse. An emotional abuser’s goal is to undermine another person’s feelings of self-worth and independence. In an emotionally abusive relationship, you may feel that there is no way out or that without your partner you’ll have nothing. Emotional abuse is a form of domestic and family violence.”

The intention of the abuser and how it affects the victim is relevant. The actions that the previous anon you’re referring to can all be displayed by any person at any time whenever they’re angry or just petty, but the triggers of it widely differs from abusers. People say mean things or blame you when they explode under a lot of stress. An abuser doesn’t need to be under even any stress do this to you. They’ll just destroy your self-esteem whenever you show even a hint of independence. They want control over you. If you think that anyone who has ever been mean to you is abusive, then that means literally everyone in the world is abusive. People aren’t saints. We are all mostly driven by our emotions. The difference between us and abusers is, they aren’t. They’re driven by narcissism and logic instead of their emotions. Whatever works best solely only for their own happiness, they’ll do it because they don’t care about ethics. They basically live only in a ‘ME’ world. And just because abusers are often victims themselves, doesn’t mean they’ve never felt or known what a healthy relationship. They know what a healthy relationship is. They just don’t care.

Now, the abuse in the army. Abuse doesn’t care about consent. Not everything is about consent. You can give your consent to be treated like shit and that’ll still mean that you’re treated like shit and the person who treated you like shit should still be held accountable. The most common abuse in the army is verbal abuse. Definition of verbal abuse: the act of forcefully criticizing, insulting, or denouncing another person.

Examples of sergeants in the army verbally abusing their soldiers is when they call them maggots, scream at them and throw degaratory insults. Technically that is abusive on paper. But in real life with context, that is acceptable behavior and is called Discipline instead because first and foremost, the intention is different. Sergeants verbally abuse their soldiers to train their mental fortitude and to be able to cope under stressful situations. If you mess up during battle, you’re gonna get yourself killed and you’re gonna get your comrades killed. No one will take your bullshit if their life is on the line. If they can’t handle being screamed at while performing a simple task, then how do you expect them to follow even the most basic command while being SHOT at? How do you expect them to not reveal any intel to the enemy when tortured? All soldiers are trained to obey, and this is a fundamental part of being a soldier. Second, drill sergeants do not select who to treat this way. This is how sergeants treat everyone. It becomes abusive when that sergeant does it exclusively to only some people instead of the entire batch for absolutely no reason. If you compare a 21st century war to the Vietnam War or the World Wars or any other war before the 21st, you’ll see that it was actually more ‘abusive’ back then because of forced conscription which made recruits unwilling to fight, hence their superiors being more brutal. Nonetheless, conscription was necessary because of the advantage that manpower gives.

If we only see fear and control as the main indicators of abuse, then that becomes extremely flawed because then everything that pertains to discipline would mean that the whole system is abusive. The army would be abusive, the asian culture of discipline would be abusive, lol you can even call the criminal justice system to be abusive at this point. Context is necessary to put a label on something. Otherwise you’ll be calling someone worse than they actually are.

Azula treated Mai and Ty Lee the same way she treated her soldiers, using fear and control. When she was making a speech in the first episode, that was all fear and control— When she threatened her captain to continue on their journey, that was fear and control, same as how she threatened Ty Lee when she declined her request to assist her. In both of these times, she abused her power as Princess of the Fire Nation because she was doing those things in service of her nation. When she was OFF DUTY, we did not even see a single moment of abusive or disciplinarian behavior from her because in Book 3, none of them were soldiers and their mission was over. They were simply children of the nobility/royalty following their family’s wishes which was to have proper conduct and not dishonor the family.

HOWEVER, despite fear and control being required in war for everything to go as planned and efficiently, that does not mean that it makes it okay, hence why it should still be labelled as toxic. When someone is being treated like a property for their own personal gain, that is abuse. When someone is being treated like shit for that someone’s own good, that is toxic. The military culture can be seen as abusive if you compare it to society norms, but the thing is that soldiers are trained to incapacitate the enemy in the first place, and prepared to kill if needs be. And there is nothing normal about that. At best the military culture is toxic, but really that’s irrelevant at this stage because of the shootings.

What makes Azula toxic is how she prioritized the mission’s success over her friends welfare despite them having not been enlisted in the military (so they had the right to decline), thinking she knows what’s better for Ty Lee because she believed she was wasting her time in the circus, and then abusing her power to make them obey her. On paper her actions sound abusive, but when given war context, it really isn’t. That was how wars were won. By using fear and control to cultivate motivation. This is generally part of almost every Asian culture, hence the discipline. It’s also noteworthy to consider that the Fire Nation is based on Imperial Japan (and they were terrifyingly loyal and strict). Being abusive implies not caring about the person’s needs and happiness. There is no culture or family or group that can function under abuse because of this. None, but what Azula did is what most have done in the Fire Nation, and she behaved like an ordinary friend when she was off duty. The truth is that being a leader of a military and being a Princess during war is an occupational hazard. The control and fear that she used against her soldiers was also carried onto her friends when she was recruiting them.

And again, it’s canon that Azula did feel remorse and guilt for using fear to control her friends. Her hallucination of Ursa was the manifestation of her guilt, hence why ‘Ursa’ confronted her about her use of fear and control towards everyone. An abusive person doesn’t feel remorse for their actions which is why they’ll just do it again, unlike Azula who actually did feel remorse. That’s also why she acknowledged that she was a monster in The Beach, because she knows that using fear and control makes her horrible, but she still does it anyway because that’s the only security she believes she has. She didn’t use fear to control just her friends, but literally everyone. Abusers will constantly deny and deny confrontations about their abuse and gaslight their victims. Azula literally did the opposite of an abuser.

You cannot and should not separate abusive behavior from an abuser. If that person is abusive, that means they’re an abuser. Abuse is not normal, and you should not normalize it. That’s why being able to differentiate toxicity from abuse is important. In general, you shouldn’t have to put up with all that negative energy so it’s better if you just break off contact with both of these people, but abusers are more dangerous than toxic people. At the very least, toxic people at least will have the willingness to change (this requires you to be really thick skinned and patient if you want to be that toxic person’s therapist yourself), unlike abusers. Toxic people are just stubborn and petty, but they’re not deluded with themselves like abusers. Abusers don’t and rarely rarely ever change. The chances of an abuser ever changing is honestly extremely low because they rarely ever go to therapy themselves since they think they’re the ones in the right.

Things you go for therapy for are things that can be changed because either they realized that their behavior is potentially life threatening to their own, or it hinders them from doing everyday task, or it’s threatening to those around them. But again, like I said, abusers don’t just ‘realize’ that they’re abusive. If they’re confronted about their behavior, they will justify it in ways that will make you doubt yourself and think badly of yourself for making them ‘look’ bad. An abuser HAS a choice, just like murderers and rapists do. And yes, I do hold abusers to the similar lowest caliber of a human being as those criminals because they violate a person’s mental health. Abuse can lead to trauma and sometimes even PTSD, and that often is the case because that is how dangerous an abuser is.

An abuser, abusive person, whatever you want to call them is killing you mentally and emotionally, and you won’t even be aware of it till you’re so far in because you’ve been thinking that was normal behavior. And even if you have identified that your partner is abusive, at this point, you will return to their side several times because you believe that they just need to apologize and it’s all good or just go to therapy which is VERY UNLIKELY to happen or succeed. Very few abusers ever go to therapy and it can take months to years for them to even be remotely trustworthy to never be abusive again.

I’m not condoning abuse, nor am I an abuse apologist. I think it’s been pretty obvious that I loathe abusers. Right now, YOU are actually being the abuse apologist by supporting Azula DESPITE claiming her to be abusive. I want Azula to have a redemption arc too, but NOT if she’s abusive. Abusers don’t deserve a second chance just like Ozai doesn’t. If you still believe that Azula is abusive yet still deserves a redemption, then I don’t see why the same thing can’t be done for Ozai who is a model citizen of abusiveness 101 because since he just had a terrible childhood like his children, he shouldn’t be left out .-.

If you say that Azula is abusive, you are saying that Azula has been relentlessly destroying literally everyones’s self esteem, undermining them, gaslighting, denies that she’s a horrible person, blames everyone for every bad thing that happened to her, feels no remorse for her treatment of her friends, and literally does not care about anyone but herself. In which case, if you support an abusive character, be it fictional or real person, would be extremely harmful and it gives a terrible message to victims of abuse and encourage the behavior of abusers.

The victim of abuse or a third party shouldn’t decide whether the abuser deserves redemption. And it’s definitely not the victim’s responsibility to ‘help’ their abuser get better. That is entirely up to the abuser themselves IF they ever want to change and seek professional help which as you’ve seen in the present ATLAverse, does not exist because those with mental disorders are just sent to mental asylums and locked up in straitjackets with no actual chance of recovery.

Conclusion: If you say that Azula is actually abusive and still think there’s a chance for her, that will never happen because ATLA is not advanced enough yet to understand psychology, much less mental disorders. If you say that Azula is actually abusive and Ty Lee is the one who can help her because she can provide the love and security that Azula has never received, again, wrong and DEFINITELY a terrible message to send.

If you say that Azula is actually abusive, please please please stop liking her because that is disturbing and just so wrong on so many levels. It is WRONG to like an abusive character. It is WRONG to think there’s anything good, admirable or redeemable about an abusive person.

Just.

No.

Not everyone deserves redemption or forgiveness.

[stillwooozy]

Ok here is my lemon fanfic headcanons that no one, ever, asked for & no one should ever ever read

Eren & Levi both think they are ‘vers tops’ but really they are both 100% ‘vers bottoms.’ Like they pretend they want to be giving, they act like that is their goal - but really they each enjoy being on the... recieving end a lot more. They dont even enjoy being ‘power bottoms’ either, its just a constant battle of who can ‘convince’ the other to bottom because the like the IDEA of being dominant, but baby... they really aren’t dominant. they’re very confused to say the least.

Levi is the guy who is into twinks but hates it about himself because he never wants to be a pedophile. In a modern au he’d be the grindr guy who 100% asks every 18-20 yr old twink he hooks up w/ to show him their ID - he needs proof they aren’t 16-17. And its not hes even doing it to avoid legal repercussions, hes just disgusted by the idea of hooking up w/ a minor... but... this unfortunately means he admits to himself he is attracted to 16-17 year olds. Whoops. also i headcanon that he was molested as a kid, and hes convinced himself his attraction to young guys is because of this, and he HATES this about himself. Regardless or not if its true, makes him really sensitive & actually really kind person in bed cuz he’s constantly afraid of abusing power. Oh and if i were to pick a tribe he’d 100% be a ‘daddy’. Dapper/sophisticated older guy, pretends to be dominate, likes taking care of his partner/etc, but is stoic/blunt & doesnt take shit. hes educated but not geekily so. He’s super fit/in shape but not “lean” by any means, so ig a fit/functional “dad bod”.. like i just see Levi caring about the functionality of his body, not counting calories & cutting so his abs are cut. Like maybe ~20 yr old levi was a jock but 30+ levi is just fit-average. Daddy Levi jfc

Tribe wise... Eren THINKS he is twunk, reality is he’s a lanky otter. Like 18-21 yr old Eren was a twink, 100%, but 25+ eren is an ‘otter’. He’s pretty lean & tall, kinda lanky, body hair (i mean look at Grisha and Zeke, its genetic) Tries to shave & stuff but always kinda scruffy and looks like a hobo. Mr. man bun but only cuz hes too lazy to cut his hair, he would not care enough to be a hipster or geek or whatever. This is 100% a projection of my own desires but - i honestly don’t think Eren has a set “type”, he likes people that challenge him & are stronger/smarter than him but regard him as their equal. Another self-insert headcanon but, i think he prefers men & tends to lean to slightly older/stocker/more fit ppl like Reiner and Levi, but he’s also bi and will fall for a girl if they can meet him & challenge him were he is at? (Aka Historia) unfortunately, eren is unstable and unconciously enjoys “mental battles” between him and his partner, which is horrible - but he really would do anything for you.

So yea. Eren: ‘vers bottom’ disguised as ‘vers top’, otter that thinks hes a twunk, homo-flexible & prefers stocky/fit people who can and will challenge him mentally/physically

Levi: same deal (vers bottom who thinks he’s more of a top), daddyyyy (xoxo), his type is just Timothy Chalamet & he hates himself for it

Also i 10000000% acknowledge that 1) tribes are bullshit and as a mostly-gay guy im constantly working on... overcoming? The need to label and objectify myself. And 2) top/bottom is also bullshit, but people can lean to one side? Of course it can all depend on context too, and ya know, normal people, not-fanfic-characters, tend to mix it up.

I dont/cant/wont ever write a smut fanfic but... come on watch some “home video” gay porn if not a gay/bi guy idk... its just always so unrealistic? I read soo much gay fanfic when i was 11-13 and tbh, although i think it is wayy better than only watching porn at that age.. it gave me some weird expectations. Like the huge bottom/top discrete categories are not... realistic? AND a lot of stuff just... doesnt work that way. No more info or its tmi. Anyways as most ppl know, sex is really just overall disgusting & awkward & embarassing and can even stinky and painful (okay thats just my own problems) jfc ive wrote all this just to avoid studying kill me now thanks