#dopamine discourse

[hyperlexichypatia]

[thegreatyin]

so i made it to berlin.

[saltedcoffeee]

Shoutout to Fire Spirit Cookie fans who waited HALF A DECADE between his announcement to crk and his actual release enjoy it you deserved it

[thegoldencontracts]

Do you think Azul is capable of falling in love? I mean, the way he sees love as transactions and weakness to be exploited makes me question this thought.

Oh my god anon I'm so happy you asked about the transaction thing because I have SO many thoughts...

Can Azul Love?

This is just a quick analysis my brain spurred off into.

First there's this scenario I made specifically about this concept - Azul Falls In Love And Can't Handle It (Just wanted to link it instead of repeating everything in this post)

But even in other fics, I love exploring that concept! Because - to me, at least - love isn't always a choice. It becomes a choice later on. That sounds confusing but allow me to clarify.

There are two types of feelings commonly known as "love" that I'm referring to - Infatuation, and love. These two have nothing to do with age, or even a person's maturity level. Infatuation is the first part of a relationship or a pre-relationship stage, where every interaction gives you butterflies, you feel like you're on fire every second you spend, and all that good stuff.

Love is a choice you make. You're not getting butterflies anymore. You are choosing to build a life with someone, to be there for them even without the boost of infatuation.

Infatuation can come and go - it's pretty short-lived, in all honesty. Love, on the other hand, is stable and much longer-lasting when requited. You care deeply about a person, in spite of all their flaws or weaknesses.

Very few people can't feel infatuated - even Aromantic people can end up experiencing the same thing, just from a platonic angle, where you really admire someone to the point of glossing over their flaws.

Azul is no exception. He can get infatuated with someone too. He's not immune, and god, he hates it. Seeing you gives him butterflies, he wants to do everything in his power to make you happy, but why? This isn't supposed to be how he acts!

Love is a separate matter. Love requires a level of emotional maturity that - let's face it - not many Night Raven students have. Azul would have to care for you in spite of your flaws and choose to invest his time into a relationship with you despite potential losses like time for his business. He'll have to choose you despite the lack of chemicals in his brain encouraging him to do so. And, in his current state, I'm not quite sure if Azul is capable of that.

But the thing is, Azul isn't stagnant. It may not seem like it, but he is gradually growing. And he's definitely capable of love - even if it isn't romantic - just look at the way he talks about his family! I meant it when I said I wasn't sure. Though there's a chance he might not be able to make that choice, there's a chance he can, too.

And hopefully, when the time comes, and Azul and whoever his partner is are a good way in their relationship, and the chemicals finally wear off, he can make that choice.

[eobe]

Now the unforseen art and self reflexion colossus ramble… 🦋✨ deep talk mode unlocked🦉

The lesson of the artwork in a room

In my art I love to focus on making the soul of a beeing, a concept or an idea not only visible but palpable. It‘s one of my strongest beliefs and my personal experience, that showing the glistening soul and pure essence of something can be that powerful and inspiring, so the beholder gets energy and courage to face their shadows, heal and grow with the own personal topics in their individual time 🕯️

Some may now think I‘m just the butterfly chasing lil girl in the sunlight I am though 🤩🦋 but constantly working myself through the given shadows of life carry me at my state of development to the thinking, that the duality of our world is a question of the personal decisions we come to in every moment of our lives – no matter how big or small they are ☺️☕️

So I mostly – if able – I choose positive thinking even if I don’t feel like in those moments and I think this is called mind hygiene (is that valid English?). And it’s also a big part to allow myself, that this is not possible in every moment and in that case, that it’s okay. Really okay. We’re human in here. No robots with malfunctions to get tinkered until we work again.

The trick for me is just to look at (even too) heavy things the same way like on to an artwork. Firstly, recognize: You always have a choice. You don’t have to react on the most incidents in the very same second! Fast and people pleasing or out of heated emotion reactions aren’t wise but unconsciously taught as neccessary, often as trauma response. Even during an emergency it makes no real difference if you rest and breathe just for some seconds to avoid panic or mistakes, so no excuses except you’re the automation type and a break would disturb the flow or tell me honestly if you think otherwise I’ll never stop learning ☺️

So if it’s not an emergency but everyday challenges, for me it’s just like this with heavy things or art: Taking myself the time I need (as soon as possible in an appropriate moment) to sort things more with my heart and stomach, not only with the ever gear wheeling head of mine ☺️ My brain might be big or is it small and just feels big who can say and often it really hurts, but I‘m aware that it‘s too small for this world. I‘m under no obligation to understand everything. In here – just a little human making a difference by mere existence and leaving footsteps whether I hustle or not.

But why even look at art or heavy things? Why not getting rid the fastest way? Why does it tend to linger and getting rid of often just doesn’t work properly or for good? Here is the connection: Heavy things and art have in common, that they’re imprinting and this is none about choice. Not really. How to deal with that, sounds too much, doesn’t it? So give the art way a chance to solve that.

In my experience art is something, where you can take a break from looking at, but not forever as long as it’s in your room. It influences the atmosphere and it will draw you in, slowly or rapidly, if you like or not – there will be the breaking point where you won’t be able to avoid looking at anymore.

Do I really want to hide from it until it gets me or do I face it and how? Hard confrontation is what the most of us had to learn, but there is the art way: I decide to look at it to my own conditions, preparing myself with breathing, posture checking and providing myself with a mug of caf or choc ☕️ 

And this is just one of the many lessons of art for us: Take yourself time to sort things out, but do it before it gets you from behind, taking the decision from you and catching you unarmed. It‘s okay to take a break but recognize that completely looking away is nearly impossible and the trial to avoid it is getting more and more hurtful. So I recommend to choose the break consciously and then look at it secure and with a cozy distance if you need it ☕️🫶🏼 but look at it.

So knowing that there’ll be always heavy things thrown at me by life itself, with the art way it‘s my mere choice how I want to feel most of the time of my life: Heavy or light? Problem stressing or a chance to grow?

In my opinion that‘s not even the whole question by the way: I love to ask for the colors and shadings between, because the beauty of life experience isn’t always bright. I love the light breaking through shadows and mists more than the solely display of light or dark. I love scars, I love imperfect blossoms, I love leaves falling down and sprouts growing out of concrete. This is the beauty of duality and how I manage to grow in this world. I don’t avoid. How could I? Behind fright it is inspiring. This is art.

At the end and under the line, all I see is the potential to grow steadily and inevitable into the own pure essence 😎✨

So if you really read this through I say thank you so much 😄 Please feel free to roast me like a coffee bean for rudimentary English (no jokes, if you see something, tell me, I’d appreciate every chance to improve 🤩) and I’d really love to join the discourse with your own thoughts if you like ☕️

[please-picturemeintheweeds]

..

[prommytheus]

ive started using the word “yucky” to refer to things that aren’t objectively bad or without redeeming qualities, but i just dont like it. gives me bad chest feelings makes me say ghhhh yknow

[zosonils]

i wanna get silly pizza game. looks fun as hell

[rea1rae]

I guess I’m not properly equipped to respond to this since I’m very offline… but. Even though AI “art” is getting past the ugly phase, it is still slop. Yes, one could say prompt manipulation is a skill, but regardless there isn’t any soul behind the final image. When an artist makes something, there is intention/purpose behind every. single. step. “A picture is worth a thousand words,” right? This isn’t the case anymore with AI, since the machine just spits out an approximation of the prompt, based on the data set it’s trained on. It might be fitting to liken AI “art” to junk food, since you can keep consuming without any care or purpose.

That isn’t to say AI cannot be leant to a creative vision - see King Gizzard’s Iron Lung video, or (maybe?) a dnd table using it to add some immersion. But a lot of the data fed into AI was stolen, and the general population’s acceptance of AI signals to corporations that we are okay with it replacing legitimate artist jobs with purpose behind their craft. So my anti-AI sentiment isn’t just “it looks bad” or adjacent to mercenary class interest… I think there are some truly creative ways to use AI to make actual thoughtful art, but the broad uses of AI “art” contributes to the purposeless consumption that has crept across the internet over the last decade.

OK so obviously it makes sense that artists would be anti AI. For like, mercenary class interest reasons. But it's bizarre to me that anti AI sentiment is so popular among the gen pop. I think the obvious angle is "a lot of AI art is shitty" but like. A lot of early cgi was shitty, and I don't think many people were against cgi in the 90s. Maybe they were? Idk the AI art thing is particularly stark because there was this period early on when it was not very good and then there was no ill will towards it. And then it got good and popular and is now hated by an appreciable segment of the (online) population. Very odd.

[hyperlexichypatia]

The evolution of the word "rawdogging" to mean asceticism is genuinely so fascinating to me.

About 5 years ago, in January of 2020, "rawdogging" had one commonly-accepted meaning -- having sex without a condom. It was sometimes used in other contexts, but the metaphor was for having sex without a condom. That is not a particularly ascetic activity.

When COVID broke out and people started routinely wearing masks, people started referring to going maskless as "rawdogging," and this made sense as a logical extension of the concept -- a recreational interpersonal interaction without benefit of a protective barrier to reduce disease risk.

Then, this tweet went sort of viral.

It's from 2019, and maybe it was going around widely then, but I didn't start seeing it and variations everywhere until 2020. I would argue that the concept gained usage and cultural currency in the context of the maskless usage of "rawdogging" and a general cultural focus on disease risk and barriers.

Rawdogging-as-forgoing-drugs is a little bit more metaphorically removed from the original rawdogging-as-forgoing-condoms meaning, but the structure of the concept holds up -- drugs and therapies can be a barrier or a protective layer between the self and experienced reality, sure. That checks out. It's clever, and it's intuitive, and it evokes the "going out there with no layer of protection" sense.

But what's fascinating to me -- as a cognitive liberty absolutist, who believes that the distinction between "medicinal" and "recreational" drug use is largely arbitrary and at best situational -- is that the framing of "no therapy, not taking any prescribed or illicit drugs" provides a rhetorical bridge for "rawdogging" to leap from "forgoing a protective safety barrier" to "forgoing a recreational activity." It's all a barrier between the self and reality, whether it's considered "necessary" or "unnecessary."

This bridge of "rawdogging"-as-sobriety, and forgoing of potential enjoyment rather than potential safety, allowed the concept to be picked up by the "dopamine fast," anti-pleasure, hedonic Calvinist culture. From there, the door was wide open -- if "rawdogging" means "no relief from suffering" rather than (or in addition to) "no protection from disease", then "rawdogging" can mean not reading on a plane, and if it can mean not reading on a plane, than it can mean any kind of ascetic self-denial, until it gets picked up by Christian writers who completely omit the sexual meaning.

I wonder if something in this shift is "rawdogging" evoking the word "dogged" and differing connotations of dogs -- dogs-as-horny and dogs-as-loyal-and-hardworking.

There's probably something in there about gender, too; about how "rawdogging" was a term largely (but definitely not exclusively) by and about straight men having sex with women, and terms for condomless sex more common in the queer community, like "barebacking," don't have that crossover appeal, and how rawdog-asceticism is masculine-coded, because it's about being enough of a Manly Masculine Real Man to not need any sissy airplane reading, while feminine-coded cult-of-suffering culture is more about relentless reflective self-policing.

Or something.

The important thing is that a term to refer to wild, reckless, fucking like an animal is now used to refer to austere, somber self-denial.

[pukicho]

I'm glad you're a normal person and not one of these morons you see on here who can't see past their own noses and spend all their time stirring up weird discourse.

Maybe that's why you're so popular.

Discourse isn't fun. So much shit online has devolved into anger-tainment: content that only seeks to frustrate its viewer. They pick an easy target, and simply play to their frustrations, making them emotionally invested through proxy of certain events (rarely does the event actually matter to them). Once invested, this allows the player to cheaply virtue-signal the played - whatever sentiment echoes theirs on whatever matter. This cyclically activates the lil' part in our brains that releases dopamine during moments of agreement between like-minded people, but it's artificial - faux-communal moral-upstanding, coupled often with a release of frustration through battery of the shamed. But this digital injection subtracts the human-element of a second party. It often lacks a true means of vocalization. It's a one-way mirror; the viewer can only see themselves in its reflection. They feel praised for their own views and are reaffirmed by invisible threads, all whilst playing into the hands of creators who rile people up for a living, creators who prey on your anger and conscience, sapping it from your unwilled body, leaving it a mere husk.

[foolishxprincipalitee]

I just cannot with the “you shouldn’t participate in fandoms that have bad creators!” shaming while y’all still pay for Amazon and Disney+ and generally do ~hateful comment activism~ that doesn’t extend as far as material economic reality. I pirate the shows, pay fan artists, and leave nice comments on fics. It’s the one little corner of my life where I can be unabashedly queer and autistic and light up my dopamine receptors while harming no one. If I wanted to engage in abstract morality discourse I would rejoin a church.

[adownwardspiral2025]

I don’t give a fuck about this discourse but I need a black trans man to bring back true R&B to make the world a little better.

I’ve found a few good trans male artists and I’ll take what I can get. I do think it’s hard to find good trans male musicians. Not impossible but hard.

Every time tho someone brings up "trans men have no good music. They just suck at music. Idk what to tell you trans men just don't make good art." The only purpose is to be cruel and people eat it up every time. Like there's no other point than to be cruel and find a way to be a dickhead to trans men while hiding behind "well it's just true! It's my opinion that you guys suck and are creatively useless to me. Trans men as a group are just untalented." OK if I said this about trans women you'd call me a bigot, right? Do we see the issue?

[transmutationisms]

this is probably shaped by my limited frame of reference, but im really fascinated by witnessing the real-time development of adhd as a diagnosis. people attribute so many symptoms to it now or maybe they always did? i was wondering if you have any thoughts on what is the use of adhd specifically as a category within psychiatry. I'm esl so sorry for any confusing wording

no you're right imo; diagnostic categories are always somewhat in flux ofc but ADHD is one that has seen a particularly pronounced shift in the last couple decades. obviously this is multifactorial but my observation goes something along these lines:

'hyperactivity' has been dx'd in children since about the 1950s (also when Ritalin hit the market) but the ADHD dx doesn't really take off until the 90s (also when Adderall, a 2nd-gen reformulation of the 'obesity' drug Obetrol, hit the market). so, it's not all that surprising that 20 years later you see increased patient awareness of the diagnosis, increased popular interest in it, and shifting / expanding ideas of what it means and what ADHD 'is'. it's a relatively young dx.

part of the reason it's young is because it's basically a 'biopsychiatric' dx, meaning it diagnoses certain behaviours as being a 'brain problem' rather than having social causes or context. in practice this is complicated because psychs do use pharmacological approaches in conjunction with psychodynamic ones all the time; nevertheless, the central promise of DSM ADHD and its pharmaceutical treatments has consistently been that the ADHD subject has a physiological, neurological disorder / dysfunction / aberration, and that the drug treatments on the market fix it. that none of this is actually empirically supported is conceptually inconvenient and entrenched by the research process.

the biopsychiatric narrative is worth paying attention to because the context here is one in which it has become commonly accepted that behavioural 'disorders' and affective distress of various kinds can be, basically, either of pure biological origin, or else Your Fault. in the case of childhood hyperactivity, Your Fault historically also included Your Mother's Fault; part of the reason many mothers embraced Ritalin in the 50s and 60s was because the proffered pharmaceutical narrative explicitly challenged the idea that these mothers had done something 'wrong' to result in their (mostly) sons exhibiting disruptive and hyperactive behaviour.

this dichotomy of biology vs personal failing is very overtly present in quite a bit of discourse around ADHD today. if it's my brain being 'wrong' or different, then it's not something I've done wrong but a disease with a simple chemical fix. in this context I don't think it's surprising at all that a lot of popular and patient conceptions of ADHD have seen a considerable widening over the past few decades. often people like to blame this on pharmaceutical companies, and it's true that industry benefits from these discourses and frequently invests in them (eg, via instruments like ADDitude mag). however, that's a pretty simplistic explanation on its own and doesn't really account for the ways in which patients and potential patients also find this diagnostic category personally useful, for reasons ranging from identity-formation to the desire to access prescription amphetamines. ADHD increasingly shows up as a biologised explanation for behaviours ranging from 'eating too many sweets' to 'postural sway' and so on. you can see in such examples how invoking the idea of an aberrant ADHD brain is both reassuring to people who have been made to feel ashamed of certain behaviours, and provides a sense of shared identity and community with others.

all of this is to say: I don't find it surprising at all when I see a relative broadening of notions of ADHD, almost always expressed in biological terms (the 'ADHD brain' operates differently, 'seeks dopamine', causes this or that). ADHD is in some ways a particularly blatant distillation of this general trend in popular psychiatric discourses, for reasons relating to expectations about childhood and child behaviour, and the historical and present relationship between the ADHD label and the regulation of amphetamines. but much of what's happening with ADHD in terms of popular discourses about it can also be seen with many, many other psychiatric diagnoses, to varying extents and in various ways.

my experience writing about ADHD on this website leads me to close by explicitly stating the following: I do not think any ADHD behaviours / symptoms are people's 'fault' or an individual failing; I do not think using drugs for any reason is morally bad or needs to be justified; the fact that I do not think ADHD is a 'brain disease' does not mean I think people are 'making it up' or exaggerating wrt any difficulties they experience personally, professionally, emotionally, &c.

[allblognamesaretakenso]

people criticising luke for vaping and calling it 'gross' and 'i no longer like him' are pissing me off because

a) those photos were taken without his consent so why are we even commenting (except say he looks SO good)

b) he's a british man who vapes. fork found in kitchen? not saying its a healthy habit but some of y'all are acting like he was taking hard drugs

c) as someone neurodivergent, people with adhd and anxiety are more likely to vape because nicotine is a stimulant and releases dopamine in small levels (with many using it as an alternative to smoking)

basically give him some grace and stop making stupid discourses and criticising everything he does. let. him. live.