#either we're not useful to society and a burden

[noddytheornithopod]

guess they're now neurodiversity-washing apartheid and settler colonialism too

it's even more fucked up when you see how they wanna use "low support needs" Autistic people, like that wasn't what literal Nazi Hans Asperger was thinking about who deserves to live or not

[furiousgoldfish]

We often can't help ourselves but to look at other people's experiences of abuse to see who has it worse, to put our own situation in some sort of context, to place ourselves in this big scale of how bad it was. We're used to comparing, because in abuse we are often compared to every fictional scenario of 'who has it worse', to make us shut up about our own situation, so if we have some real scenarios to compare ourselves to, we will. Even if we know it's bad to compare, that pain is pain, and all abuse is bad, we still wanna know where we are in this fictional scale of who had the most horrible abuse. The implication being, that only people who had it worst are allowed to complain about it and have symptoms.

And I think it's natural to a point, to want your experiences put into some sort of context, to be able to see how our experiences compare to others, and we're not necessarily doing it to make anyone else feel bad or shut anyone up. We don't believe in the hierarchy of 'who had it worse', we just want to know exactly where we are in the scale and to adjust our behaviour accordingly (we need to know our place in the hierarchy to know if we're allowed to complain and show symptoms.)

But the thing is, the consequences  and the symptoms won't necessarily reflect the hierarchy. The damage from the abuse will sometimes come from the intensity and the perceived amount of trauma in the situation, but it will also come from what the abuse communicated to us, and what it taught us. Because if we were exposed to abuse, any kind, it is likely we all got communicated the exact same thing to us: you're not worthy of acceptance and love. You're not inherently deserving of happiness and care. You've deserved to be hurt, it's normal and natural for others to hurt you. You're a burden on others. You're unlovable. You can only exist in specific conditions where you're being consistently punished for being who you are. You're weak. You're supposed to be handling everything better. You're incapable of living a normal life. You're too sensitive and too emotional. You're a failure and you won't ever be able to deserve anything.

Whether these messages are communicated via violence, neglect, shaming, guilt-tripping, manipulation, exploitation, the consequences are the same. A person feeling deep shame about who they are, feeling alienated from human society, scared of being seen for who they are, scared of trusting others, desperate for positive attention but either ashamed or completely oblivious to how to get it without inviting further abuse into their life. Most of us have these consequences in common, despite the intensity or duration of abuse; and it's equally devastating for all of us.

We're taught to look for differences and levels of intensity of abuse, but the reality is that the hierharchy and scale are not real in any tangible or comparable ways; we all have much more in common than we have different between us. We're all cut off from feeling loved or safe, we're all alienated and struggling to feel like a part of society, we're all betrayed by our loved ones, we're all insecure in our personal relationships and identity, we're all struggling to keep any kind of faith in humanity. The scale was inflicted on us in order to silence us from speaking up about it; it created this mythical person who had it so much worse and is allowed to complain, while we're not, because we didn't have it as bad. But all of us had something cut off form us, and all of us should say it. We don't need to alienate ourselves from each other based on variety of abuse because we can speak in unison about how it affected us.

There's nobody who's 'not being abused bad enough to be allowed to complain' because all abuse alienates us from ourselves and our humanity, and it's going to be more similar to what everyone else abused is going trough, than it is from being treated in a normal and humane way.

[alexanderwales]

In moderate defense of bloodlines in fantasy fiction:

Sometimes a bloodline is plain power fantasy, where a young boy learns that he's secretly special just like he'd hoped he would be all along. The bloodline makes him and people like him uniquely better than all other people. This adds some unpleasant undertones, but those undertones tend to be hard to avoid in power fantasies, because the fantasy is usually that you have power and control, and that way lies the dark side.

But bloodlines are sometimes different from that. Sometimes a bloodline is a burden. Sometimes it's complicated. And even if it's strictly a boon, sometimes that's useful to talk about.

If I had to pick my favorite thing about science fiction and fantasy, it would be their ability to talk about things while taking a step to the left, so we're talking about some subject that's divorced from the real world, which lets us put it in a little petri dish and poke at it. Sometimes it's such a strict allegory that the base truth of the worldbuilding doesn't matter, but other times we're coming to an understanding of different subjects by asking "what if the world were a different way".

And in that context, bloodlines can be pretty cool. They're a proxy of class, race, privilege, genetics, all kinds of things. You are born into a family and background, and certain aspects of you are beyond your control, and sometimes you realize only later in life that's there's a family curse on you, even if that curse is as simple as tendency toward high blood pressure and depression. You grapple with your parents as flawed individuals, and with adults as just being people who don't have that much more of a clue what they're doing, and you opt into new societies that either reject you or adopt you.

So I do think there's something I instinctively turn my nose up at when someone says "I'm a special wizard-blooded, and I go to special wizard-blood school" but I think if not written with the basest power fantasy in mind (which it often is), there's a lot to do with it.

[aventurineswife]

hello!! aventurine with a teen!reader who has a similar past like his?

Games of Survival

Summary: In a quiet moment of connection, Aventurine and you, a teen with a similar troubled past, bond over shared experiences of survival and manipulation. You both discuss the sacrifices made, the burden of choices, and the price of constantly playing a game with such high stakes. Despite your differences, you and Aventurine find solace in the unique understanding of each other’s struggles, realizing that, while scarred, neither of you is truly alone in the fight.

Tags: Aventurine x Teen!Reader, Platonic, Found Family, Shared Past, Emotional Bonding, Teen & Adult Friendship, Strategic Minds, High-Stakes Gambling, Emotional Scars, Understanding.

Warnings: Mentions of traumatic past, survival struggles, manipulation, implied mental/emotional scars, themes of loneliness and sacrifice.

The sound of a quiet shuffle echoed through the room, followed by the soft clink of dice as Aventurine expertly rolled them across a velvet surface. His sharp eyes remained fixed on the dice, as if they were the very essence of life itself—random, yet influenced by a hand much greater than fate.

You sat across from him, arms folded across your chest, your gaze never wavering from his. The two of you were an unlikely pair, sharing a connection no one else could quite understand. Like him, you'd once been pushed to the edge of society, discarded and forgotten. Like him, you'd survived by taking risks, by playing games with the world, knowing that one wrong move could lead to destruction.

"You've got the same look," Aventurine said suddenly, breaking the silence. His voice was smooth, almost amused, as he leaned back in his chair, his hands lacing together in front of him. "That far-off gaze, like you're already five steps ahead."

You tilted your head, the slightest hint of a smile tugging at the corner of your lips. He was right. You had the same knack for seeing patterns, the same sharpness in your eyes that reflected the same haunted past. His words had never been truer. You, too, had learned to manipulate the world, to bend it to your will—or risk being crushed by it.

Aventurine’s expression softened just a fraction as he met your gaze. "I don’t know if it’s a blessing or a curse," he mused, tapping his fingers on the table. "But it’s what keeps us alive. What keeps us... on top."

You knew what he meant. Life had never been kind to either of you. There was always a gamble at play, always something hanging in the balance. Your pasts were lined with similar scars: betrayal, loss, and a constant game of survival. But while most would falter, you and Aventurine had learned to rise above it. You both had learned to play the game in your own ways.

"I think we're both lucky," you said quietly, your voice firm despite the ghosts of the past still clinging to your thoughts. "We found ways to survive, to take control. But I never forget what it cost."

Aventurine's eyes flickered with something darker, something that spoke to the shared weight of your words. He didn't need to ask what you meant. He already knew. It was the price of your soul, the parts of you that you'd traded away in exchange for knowledge, power, and survival.

"That’s the game, isn’t it?" he said, his tone contemplative. "You don’t win without sacrifice. But we’re not like everyone else. We never will be."

You nodded, understanding fully. The games you played were ones others couldn’t even begin to comprehend, the stakes too high for most to ever even try. But for both of you, there was no turning back. You were trapped in the web you’d woven, a web of calculated moves and inevitable consequences.

For a moment, silence hung in the air between you, but it wasn’t uncomfortable. It was an understanding—two people who’d been shaped by the same cruel hands, two souls who had learned to navigate the chaos of the world by their own rules.

Aventurine’s smile returned, though this time it was gentler, almost wistful. "We might be similar," he said, "but we’re not the same. You’ve got a chance, a future. Me? I’m just a gamble, a bet that’s already been placed."

His words were playful, but you could hear the edge beneath them. The weight of his own choices, his own destiny, was something he didn’t share with anyone easily.

But you? You understood. And for once, the shared burden didn’t feel so heavy when it was carried by someone who truly saw you.

"Maybe," you said, your voice soft but resolute, "but we both know the rules, and we both know how to win."

Aventurine’s smile widened, a flicker of respect in his eyes. He lifted his glass in a subtle toast, and you did the same, clinking your glasses together. In that moment, you knew that despite everything—despite the scars, the broken pasts, and the games you played—you were not alone.

The game had just begun.

[antiquatedplumbobs]

Spring 1916

~an excerpt from Elsie Sewell's private diary~

Spring has arrived! The calendar has been saying it had been here for weeks, but today it really and truly made its presence known. The east field is awash with flowers and I simply had to stop and pick a bouquet, they had the sweetest scent and the most delicate yellow petals. Mamma was rather irritated that it made me a bit late coming home, but I can't very much see why. I was back with plenty of time to prepare supper (she had an Aide Society meeting) and the house smelled ever so sweet as I did. No one complained about my victual offerings either.

I am quite pleased to be done with the schoolhouse; sums and grammar were always ever so boring and pointless. It is ever so much better to spend the day with work that actually has to be done, rather than made up to torture us. I enjoy most housework, cooking and sewing in particular, but laundry... There's something about that specific task I have not yet resigned myself too.

I think we all have that particular chore that we dislike more than the others, though none of the adults will admit so to my face. Laundry is a necessary evil though, or we should all go around naked, as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden, and the climate her could never allow such an indulgence, so laundry we must do. 

It does feel good to be helping around the house more and take some of the burden off Mamma; I can't imagine how she did all this work on her own for years, it's quite a lot between the two of us. Despite my continued propensity to "dawdle" as Mamma puts it, she still sends me on all the errands, I think she likes having the house to herself just as much I like the walk into town. Sometimes Lydia accompanies me if her mother also needs something fetched.

The general store is the best store in town, it's filled floor to ceiling with everything you could ever need. Dottie's always mighty pleased to see us and if she's busy Mr. and Mrs. Greenfield are always so sweet to me. Sometimes Mr. Greenfield slips me penny candy in with my orders with a little wink.

Dottie, Lydia and I don't see each other as much as when we were in school, but now that we're older when we're finished with chores and housework we have so much more freedom to go on walks or sit down by the inlet. The sun hits the old dock down there in the afternoon and it's so pleasant, especially if there's a breeze coming off the water.

We chat about anything and everything; Dottie always has all the news of the town since she talks to just about everyone at the general store. Mamma says it's wrong to gossip, but she always says that after I've given her all the news. Lydia is such a hoot, she has the strongest opinions on everything and everyone. Just the other day she was informing (lecturing one might say) us on the proper etiquette for accepting a proposal; according to Mrs. Parr proper young ladies should never accept their first proposal, they must refuse and wait for the man to ask again, that's how she'll know he's serious and will make a good husband. Apparently she turned Mr. Parr down thrice. Dottie and I both thought that was completely silly. Mamma said yes to her first proposal and she seems quite content with her lot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

next / previous / first

[animentality]

Looking at a post of yours that was talking about boomers and older Gen xers not voting to help the coming generations and how you are suffering from it. I'm a Gen xer and I agree with the point. I would just point out your generation didn't make much better decisions in the last election. Young males voted Republican. You'll see that every generation when they are young show promise to fix the future but inevitably get caught in the system and shit the bed. I'm not sure why people lose their empathy and compassion as they age because it didn't happen to me. I had a lot of hope your generation would be different. Your showing in the last election broke my heart.

Hey, I didn't vote for him. And I did vote, I vote in every election, even the small ones. My state was blue, we voted Kamala.

But I see your point.

People have been talking about this since voting day.

How there's been so many people saying gen z was going to fix things. Gen z is different. Gen z is more politically and socially aware than any other generation. More compassionate. Kinder.

Gen z is going to be the change that no other generation before them could be... but then the sobering reality is...

people don't evolve this fast. humans are still humans.

maybe it wasn't fair to place the title of hero on a new generation's head, because societal changes don't shift this quickly.

Gen z is still a product of Gen x. and of baby boomers.

Gen z is still unfortunately very human, and humans are always self absorbed and greedy and prone to cruelty when they're desperate or even just when they feel like it.

Gen z exists in the same world that's been spinning for the entire history of the human race.

it doesn't matter what year you were born. if you were alive during the age of the Renaissance or Cardi B.

we have inherited the problems of the generations before us, and we are struggling with new burdens.

I don't think gen z is doing particularly well right now either.

but you know.

we're still young.

things can still change. they always can. you never know just how fast things can change.

people in 1924 never would've predicted the way humans live now, in 2024.

in the grand scheme of things, humans do make huge leaps and bounds in technology and society.

the technology and attitudes of 1930 were soooo far behind 1970, despite being only 40 years apart.

who knows what will happen.

we certainly don't.

[dizzymoods]

Since we're bashing afropessimists we should remember that they love citing Fanon and DuBois. You know, Black communists. But we must ask ourselves, why do they ignore their contributions to communism? Bc Fanon & DuBois understand that

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

They locate identity within a class analysis. Engels says the first class struggle was against patriarchy — meaning class goes beyond the stereotypical factory worker radical liberal/anarchistic identitarians like to use against communists. DuBois famously said that the slaves should be understood as proletarian because their labor was the dialectical negation of slavery.

Gabriel Rockhill & Domenico Losourdo (rip) have been doing work showing how Critical Theory (which AP is), French Philosophy, and Frankfurt School were funded by the Rockefeller, Ford Foundation, with support from the CIA post WWII as part of anticommunist movement. One way these theories restate imperialist ideology is to move from class consciousness and dialectical materialism to discursive bullshit about culture & identity devoid of class analysis. By de-emphasizing Fanon's marxism & overemphasizing his psychoanalysis, AP claims that everybody, everywhere, all the time is antiBlack. You can never beat a feeling like you can beat a capitalist or colonizer.

But this is stupid bc feelings are not borne out of thin air. The APs cite the arab slave trade as the origins of antiBlackness. And there you have it. the material reality comes first. And Fanon answers this question about the relationship between dehumanization and colonial exploitation in Concerning Violence. If antiBlackness is a thing, then you have to defeat the incentive for antiBlackness. All societies inherent the contradictions of their previous formations. slavery to capitalism. And when we get to socialism antiBlackness will still exist but! there is no incentive for it. As socialism eases the burden of scarcity the need for the Black as villain decreases.

Wilderson says capitalism wasn't a historical inevitability implying that communism is somehow irrelevant. But you'll notice he doesn't ever breach the possibility that the arab slave trade wasn't inevitable either! Very telling!

Lastly, there's a reason why all anti-imperial movements have had the participation of (some spearheaded by!) communists and why all communists movements are anti-imperialist. You cannot understand communism without understanding imperialism. You cannot defeat capitalism without defeating imperialism.

So African communists like Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Aimé Césaire, Claudia Jones (Carribean!), Thomas Sankara are necessary to learn from. imperialism rots the core of the empire so Jon Watson, Ben Davis, Huey Newton, Assata Shakur, and Paul Robeson are important too.

As we move together globally against capitalism, as we learn about each others' struggles and cultures, the artificial barriers the captialists construct to keep us afraid of each other crumble. Only then can antiBlackness can be defeated.

[rebellenotes]

I hate being asked "how are you?"

It doesn't matter if it's just a greeting. It'll always make me look inwards and think, how am I, really?

The answer will always be somewhere on the "not good" side of the spectrum (whatever that spectrum is). I know the appropriate answer is "good," or "fine," because the person asking isn't really wanting to know how I am doing, but it physically pains me to lie and say I'm fine when I'm not. I can't do it.

I am a great liar, but I can't lie when someone asks me how I am. It feels too raw, too exposed, like opening a wound in front of someone who just expected a wave and a smile. But I can’t keep it all inside, either.

When someone asks me how I am, a part of me wants to answer honestly. I want to say, “Actually, I’m not okay.” I want them to know that I’m not coping, that my thoughts feel too heavy, that sometimes I can barely make it through the day without collapsing under the weight of it all. I need to tell someone—someone who isn’t the relentless voice in my head—that I’m struggling.

It’s not about wanting to burden them. That’s the last thing I want. I just need to hear the words out loud. I need to feel like someone else knows, like I’m not carrying this entirely on my own. Because the more I keep it in, the louder it gets in my mind, and the harder it becomes to convince myself that I’m okay.

So when someone asks “how are you?” I hesitate. I want to scream, “I’m not fine!” but I worry about their reaction. What if they don’t care? What if I scare them off? What if my honesty makes them uncomfortable? But then I think: maybe that’s not my problem. Maybe my honesty is exactly what I need, even if it’s messy, even if it makes someone else squirm.

Because sometimes just saying it—just admitting that I’m not okay—feels like a tiny victory. It feels like I’ve broken free of the silence, even if only for a moment. And maybe, just maybe, someone will hear me and say, “I get it. You’re not alone.”

And if they don’t? If they give me a quick “oh, I’m sorry to hear that” and move on? At least I didn’t lie. At least I didn’t pretend. At least I was honest about the fact that, right now, I’m not fine—and that has to count for something.

Why are we as a society so scared to honestly tell people how we're doing? If I'm the recipient of someone honestly answering the question "how are you," (because I am also a culprit of asking it), I don't feel burdened. I think "oh, thank god I'm not alone." We may not carry the same hardships or experiences, but I can empathise with them because I know the weight your thoughts and emotions can have over you.

And maybe that’s the whole point—we’re all carrying something, but we’ve collectively decided to bury it beneath polite smiles and scripted responses. It’s like we’ve created this unspoken rule that vulnerability is too messy for casual conversation. That sharing how we really feel is somehow selfish or inappropriate, as if admitting struggle makes us weak.

But what if it didn’t? What if answering “how are you?” with honesty made us feel seen instead of ashamed? What if it created connection instead of discomfort?

It’s a reminder that the chaos in my own head isn’t unique or isolating. Someone else has been there, is there, and maybe together we can feel a little less trapped in our own silences. When someone shares their truth with me, it feels like an invitation—not to fix them or offer empty platitudes, but just to sit with them in it. To acknowledge that being human is hard and complicated and not something any of us are meant to do entirely on our own.

I think the fear of answering honestly comes from not knowing how the other person will react. What if they dismiss it? What if they pity us? What if they get uncomfortable and change the subject? But maybe the fear goes deeper. Maybe it’s because once we say it out loud—once we admit that we’re struggling—it becomes real. And that’s terrifying.

But the thing is, it’s already real. It’s already there, weighing us down. Speaking it doesn’t create the weight—it lightens it. Even if only by a fraction. Even if only for a moment.

So maybe the next time someone asks me how I’m doing, I’ll take the risk. I’ll choose honesty, not just for myself but for them too. Because maybe they need to hear it. Maybe they need to know they’re not the only one walking through life with invisible battles. And maybe, just maybe, in sharing my truth, I can make space for someone else to share theirs.

[femmefatalevibe]

how do you decenter men & dating? do you ever feel like it's difficult to handle the social pressure to have a partner/"time is running out"?

Honestly, I think my personality has a lot to do with it. I've always been called "stubborn" since I was a young girl and have been making nearly all life decisions for myself since I was a pre-teen/teenager, so creating a meaningful life has always been my top priority. The thought of centralizing my happiness or validity in this world around a phantom man who might or might not show up, or even worse, negatively impact my life – either short-term or permanently – in some way has never made sense to me.

It also helped that dating was something I never discussed with my family as a kid, never had any parental pressure/input on whether I should or shouldn't date, and have gotten next to no questions about boys/men basically ever. Of the 2-3 times or so it has come up as an adult, I set a boundary on my private life and just remind them of the question they're asking if no one is serious enough for me to mention on my own.

With friends, I don't feel pressured to be in a relationship just because they might be or looking for a partner. If anything, I find it entertaining to chat about it when they inevitably start asking for my advice or input on a given person or situation, lol.

I perceive general societal pressure to date for commitment or idealizing a relationship with a man as a projection of other people's neediness that I don't feel the inclination to entertain. If someone enjoys companionship, great for them, but I find it quite presumptive that someone can't differentiate between their personal needs and every other woman/person in society. We're all unique. If you're secure enough in your choices, you shouldn't need to spend your free time convincing others that your way of life is superior to others who choose a different path. I feel sorry for them, honestly.

In terms of "time running out," I think being child-free takes off the burden of this race against a "biological clock." I can imagine if someone wants children, the idea of dating, relationships, marriage, and timelines is a lot more stressful. I'm glad to see that many women who are undecided about kids or are giving themselves time to pursue other goals are starting to take advantage of egg freezing services en masse and speaking about their experiences publicly. I applaud all of you for exercising your right to bodily autonomy. You're all incredible for changing the narrative and idealization of women to become mothers as young as possible.

If you mean worried about "time running out" from a purely chronological perspective, I have the opposite view. Why would I want to waste my 20s – the years of youth, energy, and self-discovery – on a man that I probably will no longer speak to in the next 6 months or 1-2 years? I would be running out of time to set my life in the ways I want if I decided to put a considerable amount of energy into finding a partner and focusing on men (or anyone else's approval past a client relationship, interpersonal boundary, or ethical principle, of course).

Hope this was useful in some way xx

[myemuisemo]

"On the Great Alkali Plain" part 2, from Letters from Watson, arrived in my inbox this morning, bringing with it a predictable cloud of dust from approaching horses (since this isn't a George R.R. Martin novel, so we're not going to introduce characters just to kill them off immediately).

But what a caravan! When the head of it had reached the base of the mountains, the rear was not yet visible on the horizon. Right across the enormous plain stretched the straggling array, waggons and carts, men on horseback, and men on foot. Innumerable women who staggered along under burdens, and children who toddled beside the waggons or peeped out from under the white coverings.

Either we're running late on the Oregon Trail (since Doyle did not have social media to live-blog progress across the dusty waste) or the year 1847 is important, and these are Mormons.

“Shall I go forward and see, Brother Stangerson,” asked one of the band.

These have got to be Mormons.

“Nigh upon ten thousand,” said one of the young men; “we are the persecuted children of God—the chosen of the Angel Merona.”

Tell me you're a Mormon without telling me you're a Mormon.

“We are the Mormons,” answered his companions with one voice.

OMG, they're Mormons.

This makes the geographic names a little dicey -- the Mormon Trail ran through Wyoming, similar but not identical to today's I-80, so the Rio Grande River should be nowhere nearby -- but Doyle didn't have access to Google Maps, and it's not like his readers in the UK would go factcheck. Even with the Transcontinental Railroad completed back in 1869, most places in the Great American Desert were still remote in the 1880s, and California on the far end was still feeling the effects of isolation. Doyle also misspells the Angel Moroni and uses a masculine-ending name on a Sierra, so he's working from popular myth and the memory of things he's read. I wonder how many letters with corrections he received.

(At the time Doyle was writing, "Mormon" was the term used by the group themselves. Since about the 1980s, church leadership started urging the use of "Latter-Day Saints" instead. When I lived in Phoenix, that's near a big LDS population in Mesa, so I wince at using the older term. From here on out, if I'm quoting Doyle, I'll use "Mormon," but if I'm talking, I'll stick to LDS.)

The big reason the LDS wagon train is headed west is because they practiced polygamy at the time, and this was considered both illegal and immoral in larger U.S. society. (That's not a critique of polyamory today, when enthusiastic concept and clear rules are normalized.)

So far Doyle's account of the LDS party is generally positive -- they're organized, efficient, knowledgeable about their surroundings, prepared for danger, and responsible toward people needing rescue, if a bit holier-than-thou -- but I can't believe he's going to handle polygamy with anything other than distaste.

Polygamy is the thing LDS have been known for (to their chagrin after the mainstream LDS church banned it), so at the end of this section, Doyle's original audience is split into two groups:

Readers who have no real idea what a "Mormon" is and accept it as just one more crazy American thing, who now figure Lucy is rescued and wonder what goes wrong later to lead to murder; and

Readers who know about polygamy and are feeling dread for Lucy.

[bopos-stuff]

I don't think people understand what it means to kin Lain, a rant.

I see people who claim to be just like Lain making memes talking about their "friends" or NSFW topics, and it just kinda ticks me off cause that's just not what Lain is about. In the end, she didn't bother herself with the struggles of human contact.

Spoilers

Lain had 3 friends, two of whom were bullies, and one of whom was happier after forgetting about Lain's existence. The ending of the anime is literally her erasing herself from everyone's memory because she knows how much better their lives will be.

That ending can be interpreted in many different ways. Especially if you try to merge it with the lore of the CD game. The way I see it, though, isn't that it's an allegory for suicide. I intrept the ending of the anime as a form of acceptance. Lain expects that her peers will never be able to fully understand her way of functioning. Instead of trying again and again to fit in and act like everyone else, she accepts that she will have to fight her inner demons alone and isolate herself from others in order not to hurt them.

“If you’re not remembered, then you never existed.”

This quote, in my opinion, is blatantly wrong in a general context. Despite the fact that eventually, in the end, none of us will be remembered. That doesn't mean that we never existed. Just because existence is meaningless doesn't mean it didn't happen. Most things are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and that's okay. Things only have as much meaning as we assign to it, and that's why we value the lives of others.

But...The quote isn't entirely false either. In the digital age, it can most definitely feel like; “If you’re not remembered, then you never existed.” Because of the fast-paced society structure we now all live under. And it's the reasoning as to why Lain and I decide to just leave people's lives and hope they forget about us.

It's too much of a burden onto others to make people care about you when they'll never be able to understand you.

How I feel:

If I depend on others for remembrance and understanding, then they will inevitably end up blaming themselves when failing at those tasks. But they shouldn't. It's just the way that humans are, we're not all knowing, we'll all forget, and that's just how it is. Until I meet people who have come to that understanding already, I don't want to burden anyone, other than myself, with my existence.

I'm not worthless because of this practice. I still love myself and strive for fulfillment. I just can't bear to cause other people stress in the limited amount of time they have in this plane of existence.

Maybe this practice is selfish or meaningless, but I don't care. I just can't bear to hurt others anymore...

[knight-of-moths]

---Heartfire, 9th, 4E 201---

New day, breakfast of Ale and Soup.

On our way to ivarstead, we stumbled upon a dragon! A whole dragon, taking a nap in the sun. He didn't attack us, and we did not attack him.

Not my fucking problem.

I don't want to be the dragonborn. So I won't be.

We're partially to Ivarstead, have hunted a bit before getting there. A heavy fog settled in, so we've ducked into a cave. Given the exterior, I assume there's hagravens about?

There was a spriggan trapped in a cage, deep within the Hagraven cave. I've freed her, and she didn't attack us. We had to help her out of the cage a bit, as she got stuck, but she ran off, unbothered. Didn't even attack us. What a gorgeous creature.

We're at the Ivarstead inn, and I've inquired about that courrier someone asked me to track down forever ago. Seems she went to a bear cave for her satchel. Duly noted. It's far too foggy out to go sightseeing, and far too late anyway, so here we rest.

I'm 4 drinks deep on accident, whoops. I'm thinking about the whole, well, thing about being the Dragonborn. I can't seem to figure out how I feel. On the one hand, whatever it is gives me some interesting abilities, magical and otherwise, that are extremely useful to me as a mercenary. The shouts especially. They're incredible, and have been extremely helpful in combat. The way I acquire them is alien and makes me feel ill, but it could be worse I suppose?

The fighting dragons also brings me a natural, yet all the same unnatural thrill. The boys have a great time hunting them with me, and it makes me feel so much closer to them than ever before. Absorbing their souls, much like the words, feels sickening and heavy.

But the responsibility of it, of being Dragonborn? I hate it, I loathe it. People speak of me in awe, in bewilderment, as a fellow soldier again.

I hate it.

I don't want to be anyone. I just want to be ME, be Mothuk, Moth, just some bloke who you pay to kill for you, or find something you lost, and then die in combat or of being old. And now I have responsibility, I have deeds from members of society of great power, and a lot hangs on my shoulders.

I would gladly bear this burden elsewhere. I refuse to be Dragonborn. I can't fucking do it.

And I won't risk my saftey as a defector either, I can't risk being known, being brought back to Cyrodiil and punished.

Gods I hate this.

At least I have them.

At least I have Gore.

I'm just gonna drink the night away I think. I already mixed up mead and soup, who's to say it can't happen again?

[none-shall-caricature-me]

Shigurui (Death Frenzy) by Takayuki Yamaguchi - Analysis, Ending Explanation and Review

So I found Shigurui recommended on a blog and finished reading it.

PROS : The fight scenes were very good and strategic, and I appreciate the no - holds - barred, brutally honest approach to the living conditions, politics, exploitation and violence that happened in past times (and still does tbh). The ending is a very very good climax of the story's central themes. I also liked that the characters and their actions were mostly very realistic.

CONS : In between the aforementioned excellent scenes are many. many boring diversions to other, insignificant characters, pointless flavour dramatics and details. I'm talking a 60 - 40 or 65 - 35 ratio of slop to brilliance. The plot swings between meh and AWESOME, with no in between.

Overall, whether I would suggest this manga to you depends on your willingness to skim a big big bunch of slow - ass moments for a lesser percentage of great ones (and there are a total of 84 chapters). It's the kind of story that doesn't begin to truly shine until you reach the end, imo. I personally finished it because the anticipation buildup worked on a bored sucker like me. It was the final chapters that gripped me to write the following analysis. HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD.

Speaking of the ending and of Seigen, Fujiki explicitly says in that final arc that Seigen 'was pride itself' and 'was disgusted at being ordered to kill'. Throughout the story we're shown multiple instances of people at all positions in the samurai / feudal hierarchy resolving to humiliate and harm others, or putting themselves in great peril / abjection, because they are ordered to by a superior they respect or fear. The Kogan school does many cruel things like the 'beautification', inventing murder culprits and enacting career - destroying punishment on Seigen, all to maintain their supremacy. Fujiki apathetically slices off the fingers of one who asked for a friendly duel, only because he guilelessly stated the fact of Seigen's victory over Iwamoto Kogan. Of course, these things were sanctioned by the moral code of that time, but then our faithful samurai are often on their receiving end - the futawa to prove absolute obedience, loyalty to your senile master even when he slices your gums open, gratitute to Kogan who gave them the chance to become samurai and rise in society even though it involved incredibly dangerous training. I don't entirely fault the Kogan disciples for this attachment though, seeing as they were struggling in life before their sensei took them in.

On the other hand is Seigen, who embodies individualism and self - determination. He doesn't subscribe to dehumanising merit, fealty before mercy or lauded servitude over concrete personal gain and independence. He wants to be his own master. He's not self - sacrificing, he does kill or endanger lives when he thinks it advantageous to his plans - see him killing his acupressure teacher who disapproved of martial kosshi jutsu, his former martial arts instructor, and - if I'm not wrong - his mother, to either end her misery and his heartbreak over it, avoid shame by association, or as a symbolic sloughing of his burden. He also tries out risky sword techniques on and involves Iku in his revenge plans. It's possible that he was the one who tied Fujiki's armour too tight so he could then rescue and one - up him. But he does this all to rise to a life of security, pleasure and respect from his horrible condition as a prostitute's child. He doesn't play by the feudal system's extortionary and unnatural ideal of bushido and lord - worship. He uses the system to his own ends or rejects it. At the same time, he has a rather humane side - rages at his mother's deprivation, empathises with and looks after a scorned beggar, refuses to allow the Todouza member to demean himself while exalting him, asserts the innate equality of humans across social classes, feels camaraderie with his fellow disciples assuming they shared his views. He does care for Iku, too, and can at the very least recognise Mie's agony at being imperiously pinned down to mate for the sake of the clan.

In the final battle, Fujiki does not waver while rending Seigen's body in two. He reminisces about his past with him, but his thirst for vengeance does not falter. It is only when he is ordered to rip off the head of this rival that he quakes. Like he says, Seigen was pride personified, someone who hated being a tool of others. Fujiki despised Seigen but also genuinely admired him as a swordsman and a paragon of unfettered insight, selfhood and freedom. He also knew that until that point Seigen had the favour of even the Shogun's brother. To see how quickly the aristocrats changed their tune upon his defeat, calling him a presumptuous blind man unfit for the sacred battle grounds, and urging this disrespect to his corpse as both a Samurai rite and a test of deference, breaks Fujiki's worldview. He does it anyway after hesitating a while, probably to restore the Kogan clan's standing in the Shogunate.

He is shell - shocked and looks to Mie for comfort but she has already killed herself. Why ? Because earlier, Mie had latched onto Seigen for being the only one to stand up for her personhood against his lord's orders. She considered him one of the few who were humans and not puppets. After Seigen's 'betrayal' of the clan, she looks to Fujiki as another dude who commits to retribution and restoration against all odds - seemingly a person with agency. But when she sees him, her source of optimism, becoming the ultimate quiescent pawn in desecrating Seigen, she loses all hope in a dignified, self - sovereign life in this cruel society of puppets and puppeteers. To renew the clan would require such acts routinely conducted in unfeeling thraldom and self - preservation. Mie, someone who yearned to break free of such dog - like conduct, could never stomach this.

Some other interesting things I noticed - one, if I'm not misremembering, then Seigen's revenge killings of the Kogan disciples only gave Mie joy for his revival. On the night Seigen was to arrive in person, logically to kill his final wrongdoer, Mie was euphoric. She never expected that he'd kill her dad. Does that mean she believed Fujiki to be the target, and was totally fine with it ? That makes sense considering she likely scorned him for remaining Kogan's lackey even during her coercion and Seigen's despair. Which means that her later acceptance of him was either forgiveness due to his earnestness or pragmatism in order to avenge her father.

But I'm still confused at why Seigen left a cure for Fujiki's coma. It was such a huge risk to his career and his life and he ultimately paid for it.

It's also noteworthy that the instant before Seigen's death has a dream - like vision of him almost embracing Fujiki. That's not at all out of the blue lol, these two could've been friends and at points wished to understand the other but they took opposing paths and were limited by their own biases. Seigen never came to know that Fujiki fawned over violent Kogan not purely due to calculating or dumb complaisance, but due to a family - like bond. Fujiki never considered Seigen's perspective or his pain until the end.

[skaruresonic]

Oh Jesus Christ, not the "they scalped people" argument again. Why do these dickheads always bring up scalpings like some sort of gotcha...

Hey, quick question: am I now allowed to hold "your ancestors blood-eagled their victims" over every WASP I see? No real reason I'm asking, just out of curiosity.

Every single time someone mentions indigenous violence in a bid to make the public consider the indigenous tribes of history morally gray, I guarantee you it is not to point out how indigenous societies are complex, because the thought typically ends on a commonly-recognized image of indigenous brutality: scalpings, Aztec human sacrifice, slavery, tribal wars.

Others' understanding of our history stops at ancient acts of violence to which we must forever be chained. Even though, according to that logic, we ought to hold modern-day Romans accountable for how their ancestors horrifically crucified people.

Indigenous acts of peace, coexistence, and alliance, on the other hand, are conveniently and routinely ignored. None of you in this Chili's have heard of the Two-Row wampum and it shows. I have legit never heard a single non-Native bring it up, mostly because people in general have never heard of it. And the reason they've never heard of it is because it doesn't fit this presupposed narrative of pre-colonial Indians being anything less than warmongering savages.

We're rarely portrayed as "complex" as in "created a society with such little rape that it shocked European colonists." Never complex as in "struck a treaty of friendship and trust with Dutch settlers where we call each other 'brother' instead of 'father' and 'son': an agreement to coexist in peace following many frustrated attempts at communication." No, it's always "complex" as in: "Don't forget they used to scalp people, too! Did you forget? Let me remind you for the 1,000th fucking time, just in case you were inclined to think of Native people as able to ~behave themselves~ for two seconds. I am certain my insistence on using the visceral imagery of scalpings carries no racist overtones whatsoever. What do you mean, more white people scalped Indians than Indians scalped other Indians because they were selling that shit to the government for sport? INDIANS WERE NOT UWU SMOL BEANS EITHER, YOU KNOW."

Furthermore, I can't help but notice folks use violence as a way of making us seem more human… as if there is no other way of humanizing us in the eyes of others. Violence is the only language violence recognizes. And it is a way of dismissing our genocide via colonialism by implying we deserved it somehow. Because we were not "perfect" victims, it lifts the burden of conscience from people's minds.

---

"Native American cultures had plenty of interpersonal violence. In what is now the eastern US, competition over land led often to warfare, and in eastern North America, captives were routinely tortured to death, with the entire community participating in that torture, which was seen as a chance for the captive to demonstrate stoicism that reflected well on their own people, while at the same time giving the torturers the opportunity for revenge."

pLeNtY oF iNtErPeRsOnAl ViOlEnCe, as if that A.) is in any way comparable to colonialism and B.) means anything when history has proven that we were frequently capable of cohabitation and settling our differences without bloody conflict.

You seem to have missed the point that Native tribes formed alliances just as often as they warred. The Haudenosaunee may be the most famous, but there are multiple inter-tribal alliances throughout history. They just don't get a lot of press. Because why would they. They contradict your mental image of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom Aztecs ripping the hearts out of people's chests.

Also, the Haudenosaunee? The People of the Longhouse? The Six Nations, formerly known as the Five Nations? Haʔ Akunęhsyę̀·niʔ hęʔ? We're still here. As in today. Right now. Always been here. Never went anywhere. Never going anywhere. That's more than can be said for other historical alliances.

You're not saying anything new by saying people have always been violent towards one another. No shit, Sherlock, part of the origin story of the Haudenosaunee is that the Five Nations used to fight each other. The violence of our past is not news to us, and treating us as though we act as though we're somehow hiding that part of our history in order to present the world a squeaky-clean image is to treat us as though we are as equally ignorant as you. Therefore the only possible thing you could be saying here is "It's okay, they really were savages." And no one in this Chili's ever really seems to consider that, from our perspective, the colonists were just as violent as we were, if not more. To the point where us ~violent savages~ took notice and commented on it. We don't call George Washington "the town destroyer" because he rolled up into town saying pretty please.

You realize the flaw in your logic? We were violent and imperialistic just like every other group in history, and that's grounds enough to dismiss anything we say on the matters of white supremacy and imperialism. But if the colonists were acting such fools that even we were like "damn, dude," then just how violent and imperialistic could we have been, really? And what does it say, then, that the colonists never had their "damn, dude" moment when it came to our genocide?

People who have beef with "Turtle Island" are so weird, dude. It's just a name. Nobody's insisting it's this place's only name and that everyone has to use it. The other person decided to use it once and you're all "nOt aLl InDiAnS" about it. Okay.

Yeah no, you don't give a shit about Salish, Seminole, Nahua, or Navajo views of the world because you don't actually tell us what they call the world. You're just using them as rhetorical chess pieces. In case you're confused about the context, the OP of the post I screenshotted created the above reblog as a response to this portion of another's post:

And while, yes, this is a tad reductive and does not reflect the experiences of all Native tribes across the continent (who's treating who like the monolith again, OP? hmm), it also carries a grain of truth which would be equally disingenuous to ignore. When the colonists first began living among the Haudenosaunee, they were surprised by the zero amounts of rape they saw. I am not exaggerating that number. They looked, but they did not see a single rape in their time there. The most damning conclusion you should take away from that is not that a lack of rape is a random fluke of an otherwise dark human nature; it's that the colonists had been expecting rape as a natural matter of course and were surprised to see its dearth among a society they assumed to be more "primitive" than theirs. Rather than reflect on their beliefs and perhaps do some soul-searching on why they expected to see rape everywhere they fucking went, they shrugged and were like "idk dude." (The men did, at least. The women noted the disparity in how they were treated, and thus the seeds for suffrage were planted.) They did not seem to realize that the reason rape was so prevalent in their culture was because rape is the byproduct of a societal attitude which treats people like possessions. Remove the dehumanization and you eliminate a lot of the impetus for rape.

The Haudenosaunee's lack of rape is due to a variety of factors. One among them being that women are considered people first and foremost, not objects, and another being that Haudenosaunee culture does not allow the kind of fuckery that enables abuse. If a man hit his wife, he would see his things strewn outside the Longhouse door the next day, and he was fully expected to pack up and leave without protest. Our society takes measures to ensure abuse is not tolerated at a material level that engenders Actual Consequences for the abuser. If you prove unable to treat people with a baseline level of respect, you have no business being part of society to begin with. By contrast, Christianity made divorce nearly impossible and thus trapped many women in abusive marriages. This worldview heavily colors Western perceptions of Haudenosaunee culture to this day, and "women have an equal say in how things are run"/"we are matrilineal" tends to be misinterpreted as "they are a matriarchal society (read: patriarchy except Uno-reversed)" and "women wear the pants." In reality, our society is gender equitable. Women only seem to "have power" when they have a say and your baseline perspective is "women ought to have no say."

Re. scalping, another popular refrain of the "um, ackshually" crowd. As I have said earlier in this post, more Indians were scalped by white people than white people were scalped by Indians and Indian-Indian scalpings put together. White people sold Indian scalps to the government, yet no one ever brings that up in discussions of this ilk. Gee, I wonder why.

"The US is not a monolith" - Cry me a river. The government killed 95% of us regardless of who we were or where we were from. The colonists might have deemed some tribes more "civilized" than others, but you have to keep in mind that it was a divide-and-conquer tactic. Their paying lip service to some tribes' supposed "civility" didn't prevent them from attempting to kill and/or assimilate all of them.

"Which part of the US?" - You are being obtuse. The federal government. The elected body chosen to represent this country and its interests. The government that made us move to inhospitable climes and then forbade us from moving anywhere else, ripped children out of their homes, placed them in residential schools and beat the language out of them. The structures they erected which operate on indigenous oppression to this day.

Our genocide never stopped, by the way. It just donned a fancier-looking suit. Instead of kidnapping children and sticking them in boarding schools, social services simply invent bullshit reasons to take kids away from their parents so they can be placed in the foster system and lose their culture. They criminalize poverty and wonder why Indians are suicidal. They do nothing about missing and murdered indigenous people. They send bodybags instead of clean water or masks. This world makes it almost impossible to be indigenous and then blames Indians for not trying hard enough. We mention white supremacy because the US cannot exist as it is today without our genocide. Manifest Destiny was a deliberate project of white supremacy, and our elimination through death or force was regarded as the ultimate "solution" to the "Indian problem." It was all very much intentional.

The government will never acknowledge it as such, however, because acknowledging it requires them to admit on some level that the country's very foundations are illegal.

[inqilabi]

I'm not a fun of hormonal birth control methods either, but putting it in the hands of men wouldn't work at all. You'd have to trust that someone takes their pill, which is a very risky thing to do.

In my eyes, it's natural that women carry the burden of it, because we're also the only ones who can get pregnant and give birth. You can never shift that burden. I'm a fan of fertility planning methods and the like to make sure people can avoid pregnancy when they want to, but without actual birth control (whether hormonal or not) you can't also expect to have sex whenever you want and never end up pregnant. Abortion is always an option, but it's mentally taxing and it's not as easy of a solution as birth control.

A good solution would be a way to make women infertile until the moment they want children, instead of male birth control that no man will want to use and won't deter any women from using their own birth control.

I think men should bear the burden because it's biologically easier to control their reproductive function because it sits on the outside (RISUG) eg. So it's more a logically biological point.

From a behavioural aspect yes it won't work because men are not trustworthy and want to impregnate women. RISUG is fully working, reversible and no side effects btw. Wasn't developed in the US and most western world because they'd rather women suffer since that makes more money (8 billion market to be exact) Whereas RISUG is a one time procedure that lasts a decade. There's no recurring revenue there. Half of pharma's women's health portfolio would be wiped lol. But this can only be accomplished in a future society where women actually have the power to make laws.

An example would be male partners must get RISUG from their GP and carry cards that certified by the GP that they've gotten this procedure done. This will allow their female partners to know they indeed had the procedure done etc so they can have other safe sex practices etc but the pregnancy risk is verified.

There's no way to make women infertile temporary. Because of how women's physiology is, I can't even see that developing with any amount of technology. But men's reproduction can be controlled by a dictatorship of proletarian women 🤌🏽👌🏾🫡

FAM only works if you have a regular cycle and are extremely dilligent about taking temps at the same time every day. And your cycle can be thrown off by any stressors in your life and make you ovulate earlier or later. most women don't even have regular cycles much anymore because of the endocrine disruptors in our environment. for now your only option is getting RISUG done in India when it becomes available or something, FAM and condoms if you don't want hormonal bcp. Copper IUDs seem to be extremely toxic to the body which I believe full evidence of its necrosis causing effects will come out in some decade

[danganronpasurvivoraskblog]

Yukari hand Tsumugi her favorite cup of coffee.

Here darling...For you.

Oh, thank you...

Are you feeling any better?

I've had time to compose myself...

Honestly, I'm just turning a blind eye to the reality of the situation. We were on a streak, but now the amount of wins we've had over the Future Foundation is diminishing.

But Matta was able to retrieve Kanade, was he not?

Yes, but even so...

The lab was exposed, and we lost Ando, Kisaragi and Hibiki; all three of whom were a big part of our operations!

Not to mention, Maki Harukawa was able to escape the base after we let Seiko Kimura go. I underestimated her honestly.

I thought she wouldn't leave without Himiko, but...I suppose I was wrong.

So you're worried?

...Extremely.

Yukari I...I can't lose this. And I can't lose YOU either.

I mean, sure, we're not exactly what I would call a "happy family" but like it or not, we're the only one's who each other's got.

You, Akira, Narumi, Celeste, Junko, Mikihiko...You're the only allies I have, and you're all trying to help me make this impossible dream of mine a reality...

I can't help but think about how much it burdens you.

Mugi-chan, if we thought this was a burden, we wouldn't stick around.

The Future Foundation don't get it, but our reasons for doing this go above just wanting to cause destruction for the sake of it. Whether it's for revenge against this reality or the lives the world gave us...

To collapse the society that oppressed us once or to live on in legacy...Your ideals and plans for the future will let us DO that.

*She kneels down next to her.

We're not going anywhere. Even if this building burns down and we lose everything, we'll just get it all back again.

Future Foundation aren't the only relentless ones.

Yukari...

*Yukari pulls Tsumugi in close and their lips join together softly.