#especially when i am prone to taking things out of context and thinking all my friends and loved ones hate me

[flugame-mp3]

i don't really believe in any sort of higher power or karma or anything like that, but there is something poetic about me thinking myself into an upset spiral and feeling very alone, and just as i've gotten to the breaking point of crying, i get a random "i love you" text from my partner while they're out at a tabletop session. thank you universe, i needed that

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA for continually telling my mother to talk to my sister about getting her an ADHD diagnostic?

For context, my sister (18 F) has always shown some signs of potentially being adhd (not great with starting/completing tasks, bad at planning in advance, prone to being very spontaneous/forgetful about things she needs to get done) When complaining about how some behaviors were hindering my house/sibling/puppy sitting (eg: leaving things she needed to take upstairs on the stairs for a week so I couldn’t vacuum, not running thank you notes from her graduation party down to the mailbox that’s maybe a 2 minute walk from our house leaving a massive stack of them on our kitchen table, cooking things and not cleaning out the dishes even though I reminded her constantly to do so so that the sauces/cheese/etc wouldn’t stick to the pot, and so on.) a friend who recently got diagnosed and medicated for ADHD said she showed similar behaviors prior to medication.

My sister is going off to college out of state this fall.

My first year college experience was hell for a plethora of reasons. (The one most relevant to this post being undiagnosed autism) to the point of me dropping out of that university and taking classes at a community college closer to home so I could get a handle on things. The last thing I want is for her to go through a similar experience, especially since she’ll be farther from home than I was.

I brought these behaviors up to my mother (46 F) to get her opinion and basically she told me she also thinks my sister has some degree of ADHD. I told her she should talk to my sister about getting a diagnostic so she would have access to campus resources if she needs them.

My sister is a very stubborn person, and I am not as close to her as she is close to our mother or younger brother. The last thing I want to do is wave a finger in her face and go “You might have ADHD and should consider getting it checked out” if this would be the first time she’s hearing of it.

Unfortunately. As mentioned my sister isn’t the best at getting tasks done, and our mother is the same way unless you nag her to do it constantly. I doubt she’d be able to get a proper diagnostic by the time she’s off to school, but I want them to consider the idea so when she’s home for winter/summer break, she could have an appointment lined up for it.

I don’t intend to try to force her into doing it. But I do want her to succeed and this is the best way I can think to help her, since she’d listen more to our mother than she would me or our father. After all, the worst case scenario is that she doesn’t have it and she just goes on with her life.

WIBTA for nudging my mother and sister in this direction?

What are these acronyms?

[sysmedsaresexist]

Hi! I,, have a question with some specific context that could, potentially, spark some conversation.

I’d say its relatively important to the context to note that I’m also a dx DID system, but im an anon, so take of that what u will.

When our system’s body was around 11-12, our system’s host “created” an alter. Basically like the host had an active role in creating him as opposed to, idk, a regular split or something. What we do know is that this headmate/alter of dubious origin, has fronted in traumatic times and took role as primary protector for years until our current primary protector was reintroduced to the host through therapy. It was also how the host established communication internally with “the actual” system so early, before we knew we were a system.

My only question here is would that be considered “endogenic” origins for a headmate? By all means, we are DID system, and only split based on traumas and survival, but *literally* only this headmate/alter has caused internal conflict for the system, but especially the host who created him (and is still around).

The host originally believed that, when we were first diagnosed, there was absolutely no way that we could have DID because of the active creation of that singular alter, which our psychologist acknowledged, but pointed out otherwise, thru a slew of, like, legitimate reasons (its 12am and we leave for a trip soon, my wording isn’t great, but for some reason, I just cant *not* write this ask).

I, unnamed alter in the system, am wondering if active creation in an alter is possible? I guess in general? It was entirely a form of survival for ourselves at the time to make the alter/headmate of dubious origin, he was what the system needed at that time, but we wonder what terminology we would use for him, or what he would be considered, community wise ig. To be blunt, its almost a validation thing in a way.

Our system is anti-endo. We dont believe systems can form from anything other than trauma in formative years, but the active creation thing seems??? Not a normal experience and maybe, like, invalidating to our existence??? We have alters from before he existed, but he was like our ground zero in communication. The alter that helped “bridge the gap”. The host loves him, and he loves the host. They were attached at the hip until the diagnosis because his existence felt inherently invalidating BUT thats not the point and more venting

TLDR ;

The host actively made a dude in our head who ended up being a main factor in our survival at the time but because the host *actively made* the dude, as opposed to “normal splitting”, does that make him inherently “endogenic”?

Hi, that's normal! And anyone who says otherwise can fight me. Thank you for sending this, it's really not talked about enough.

CDD systems can and do "create" alters, though it's typically not quite that simple once you get into the subconscious.

Firstly, once the development of the sense of self is interrupted in childhood, you've already completed the step that "tulpamancers" are trying to learn. Personally, I don't believe it's possible to dissociate to that extent once the sense of self is developed (I think they're already highly prone to dissociative tendencies, take from that what you will), but CDD systems are already ten steps into the process and it's not out of the realm of possibility (and in fact, it's highly reported) that CDD systems frequently create alters in a number of different ways, including processes similar to willing and creating alters into existence. People with DID already dissociate really good, it's not shocking that we would be able to will a new member into existence with enough thought and pressure. We're just not thinking of it as something similar to endogenic or created alters until it's pointed out, or we understand that there's something deeper at play.

But that's active creation, and now we get into:

"If there's a need, the brain will supply."

This is more based on the personal interpretation of alters in the process of becoming aware, but can be applied to brand new alters.

One general interpretation is based in denial and a feeling of a lack of control, and is similar to active creation.

It's extremely easy to convince yourself that you did this, purposefully and with intent. That you chose systemhood and that you chose to create this alter. CDDs are caused by factors entirely outside of our control, and people will look for, and find, a sense of control in any way possible.

Including telling yourself that you're doing something consciously, even when you're not (loosely based on the same idea as this).

Which came first, the fragment or the need? Was there already a fragment floating around that you helped to pick a name and appearance, and that contained traits that you needed, whether you consciously knew you needed those traits in your system or not? Or did you realize you needed those things, and a fragment came forward to pick up the role?

It doesn't help that alters can be created from overwhelming situations (not just traumatic situations), and the brain is notoriously bad at letting you know when you're stressed and overwhelmed. Not only that, but alters can take years to make themselves known, making it impossible to pinpoint their creation (unless they know, but they usually don't).

So did you really pick that name? That trait? Or was it already there?

The second interpretation is simply misinterpretation.

I have an alter that took a liking to an OC and became that. Again, which came first, the character or the alter? Does it matter? Was I writing based on an alter that already existed but that I couldn't communicate with? Or did a fragment take a liking to the character and traits? Did I look at those traits and think, "I could really use that right now," and my brain agreed? It would be very easy to misinterpret the entire situation to mean that I created this alter, either by complete accident or purposefully, consciously or unconsciously. Where do we draw the line at "created" alters? Does it need to be active creation? Or creation after the fact based on ideas that you liked and wanted? Did you know you wanted them?

--

Mod Quill here to mention something: I also have "created" parts. Again, incredibly normal in CDDs. I also have friends with DID who have parts that "came from God" or "walked in" -- and out of all of those parts, they are all traumagenic, because that's how they choose to see themselves.

The fact that the alter is created doesn't make him endogenic, because based on your description, he's still forming due to the trauma that you've experienced. Now, if you want to call him endogenic, because of the creation process, I don't think anyone's going to stop you -- but you shouldn't ever feel the need to label your alters in that way. You are a DID system, simply put, and regardless of the individual causes of splits, you formed from trauma. You should only be labeling the individual splits if you find that helpful for your recovery.

This alter's creation doesn't invalidate your diagnosis, your trauma, or your system in any single way. It's incredibly common, and I fear that syscourse has made it seem like it has to be an endo thing, when it isn't in the slightest.

------

Thank you to Quill for bringing this back to the most important point. Don't let anyone dictate how you define your system and alters. So long as you're happy and healthy, who cares. That's literally the only thing that matters.

I want to make it very clear that it's not just alter creation that confuses systems, but alters seemingly not connected to trauma at all appearing suddenly or randomly, alters that wake up and immediately go back into dormancy (walk in/out), etc. These are all things that can appear to be endogenic, or mixed origin, but if the basis of your system, the reason you have a system in the first place, is trauma, then everything ties back to that, in the end, and in one way or another.

How you personally interpret your experiences and members, and the labels you use, are uniquely yours.

[essayofthoughts]

during gencon 2019, Taliesin was asked a question about the similarities between Fjord and Percy, and if Orthax was as insistent and keen on punishment as ukotoa, Percy would have gone in a similar direction as Fjord. As a writer who studies Percy’s character what does Taliesin’s answer mean to you? From what I’ve seen Percy seems to think he’s getting the best out of his deal with Orthax and that he’s also somewhat in control. Am I seeing things? (This is rodneypoo btw :) ) Q - 17-18 min mark

Link For Context (thank you for the details and timestamp!)

tl;dr: Taliesin says that Fjord has more willpower in resisting a negative influence than Percy did.

To start this off, let me say that I do generally trust the cast’s understandings of their own characters and that goes double when it’s Taliesin because he’s very aware of Percy’s flaws and happy, even gleeful, to call him on them. So pretty much I agree with this entirely! I think the disconnect you’re getting is because Percy is canonically a dealmaker and pretty confident in his understanding of those deals which is why I’m gonna let you all in on a little secret:

Percy is an arrogant piece of shit.

Like. This is very important to understand, Percy is not as smart as he thinks he is (stated by Taliesin during a conversation about, iirc, Raishan. Taliesin outright said that Raishan was as smart as Percy thought he was). He is arrogant and proud, overconfident in his intelligence. And he is intelligent! He invented guns for god’s sakes, and a damn taser glove; boy is clever. But he also assumes his cleverness and the fact he is “the clever one” means he has (or with regards to his inability to do anything to save his family, has to have) all the answers, even when he doesn’t. As my lovely friend @nanyoky has pointed out in our discussions on many an occasion, this is a principal issue between him and Vax - Vax is willing to admit he doesn’t know things and receive feedback, while Percy is prone to getting defensive and taking that feedback as an insult to his intelligence.

This is, incidentally, why I think Percy was defensive of his intelligence to his siblings. Taliesin has said that Percy had a tutor, Professor Anders, which means most likely he was privately tutored by the time the Briarwoods came around, but has also stated that Percy at one point was in school and had classmates who he didn’t get along with so well. I imagine he considered his intelligence and his need for private tutoring as setting him apart from his (to be fair, many!) siblings, and so was proud of it and didn’t take kindly to his siblings needling him over it.

And then, after his family is massacred and he’s tortured and he loses his sister in the escape and he comes to on a fishing boat - he spends years dissociating and surrounded by strangers. It makes perfect sense for him to retreat into himself and become defensive when faced with complete strangers, especially after the betrayal of Anders and the attack - why would he show them such a vulnerability? Why would he take that risk?

And this holds true when he meets Vox Machina. They find him in a cell; they have the power, not him, and there’s more of them; it serves his purposes to stay on their good sides and avoid conflict and also not reveal his vulnerabilities in case he needs to flee. And then, by the time he trusts them, he’s been that prickly, noble, proud, person that whole time; he can’t just open up all his vulnerabilities to them because that’d be a drastic shift that none of them are expecting and, also, with some of them he probably still wouldn’t trust that he’s safe to do so with them (someone ask me to go off on one and explain why Percy gets on better with the women of VM than the men). We know that he’s hesitant to talk about the Briarwoods with them even when asked and while we all know that VM cares for him, Percy has had his trust catastrophically betrayed once before; he is too wary to bank on that.

This is not aided by the fact that after the first time the smoke shows up, when they fight Stonefell, the group immediately demands answers and starts questioning his state of mind - and that brings his defensiveness back. It’s not quite a betrayal of him but it is doubt, and he’s smart, he’s intelligent, he clawed himself back to sanity after the mass murder of his family and he’s determined to get revenge: their doubt of his state of mind is the last thing he wants or needs. Even as Orthax digs his claws in deeper Percy both cannot admit that to the group, and may not even be willing or able to admit that to himself. If he’s not in control of himself, who is? He has to be in control of himself - he was tortured by Ripley, and we know from his reactions to being Hold Person’d and to being blinded in the Feywild that his personal autonomy and control of himself is important to him. So I’m not surprised he was in massive denial regarding Orthax until the end.

And it’s notable that it’s only at the end, when he’s faced with something he will not, cannot do, that he finally acknowledges it. He’s on the revenge path for sake of his family; he will not kill the last of it. And it still takes the intervention of the others continually to get him to that point! Keyleth and Vax’s doubt, Vex shoving him up against a wall and demanding to know he’s all right, Pike cleansing the corruption from him, “Darling, take off the mask” and “Percival Fredrickstein von Musel Klossowski de Rolo the Third, you will fight this monster inside of you!”

It takes all of that for him to be willing to recognise the influence for what it is. If Pike hadn’t cleansed that corruption, he would have tortured people before killing them. If his friends hadn’t challenged him and anchored him back to them he could have turned on them - which we know is what he was most afraid of, which is honestly why in the show and the stream, putting Cass on the List was Orthax’s single biggest fuckup*.

And it is only then, only once Percy has been so consistently challenged by the people he trusts to hold him back, to help him, that he openly acknowledges Orthax’s presence and rejects him and asks the very important question: “... did I even want revenge before I met you?”

Which is really important! Percy woke up from a dream and two years of dissociation with an idea and the purpose of vengeance and he didn’t question it because it was his only point of certainty and purpose. He can’t doubt that or he’ll dissociate again. He can’t doubt that or his family will never be avenged. He cannot afford to break and so he cannot afford to doubt, so he has to be enough. He has to be smart enough, clever enough, strong enough, because he wasn’t the last time and if he is this time, maybe he can prevent that from ever happening again.

(He’s scared, he’s traumatised and terrified and doing what he can to try to build some sense of security.)

His arrogance is partially from his upbringing and his intelligence, partially from his own personality and partly as a defence mechanism after everything.

But Percy de Rolo, much as I love him and find him fascinating, is absolutely an arrogant piece of shit. I completely get where Taliesin is coming from.

Percy was a broken mess and didn’t dare challenge the thing that gave him certainty. His arrogance was defensive and so he refused to acknowledge the problem until it was severe. He didn’t have the willpower on his own - it was due to his friends challenging and pushing him that he chose to and was able to in the end. Because he won’t hurt his friends and allies, the people who’ve never betrayed him. He won’t hurt the only family he has left. He told them that, and he won’t break his word.

(Percy, in the Underdark, shooting Clarota, “Some people have no sense of fucking honour!”)

His friends challenged him, he promised them and it was for them he pushed Orthax out. Not for himself. Not solely because of himself. Percy is strong-willed enough to resist a lot of possession (though not always Charms, see: Garmelie), but that’s more stubbornness, and it was stubbornness that caused his denial to begin with. He’s not strong-willed enough to admit his doubts to his friends, to openly do that, because he is as scared of vulnerability as Vex is (and that’s why they’re so good for each other, helping each other find a safe space in which to slowly let their guards down).

So yeah. Percy isn’t as strong willed as he’d like to think and, seemingly, not as strong-willed as Fjord (note: I have watched barely anything of C2; I cannot speak to this myself). He’s arrogant and overconfident and that’s why he presents his deal with Orthax the way he does - which is denying it until there’s no denying it anymore and still believing he can make it work for him even when that is obviously unlikely. It’s a defence mechanism born of his arrogance and this is reason #551 why I want to shake this man.

* I hold that this was more of a fuckup in the show, because on the stream it doesn’t happen until after the reveal of Cass’ betrayal, which implies Orthax did that based on some genuine feeling of betrayal Percy was feeling, rather than in the show where it appears before Percy learns of the betrayal, implying Orthax was assuming he would feel so on seeing the name and receiving the revelation (But then, Orthax isn’t the smartest).

[sincerely-sofie]

hello! i apologize for adding to the list of religion related asks in your inbox and, as this is another form of criticism you can ignore it, im mostly an enjoyer of your work and ive merely found a discrepancy.

i just think its important to point out that the people you end up surrounding yourself with and the people that a community deems to be one of their own, IF this is your experience which i am not Assuming but rather Pointing To as a debate starter of sorts, is not in fact the group at large.

its factual that many, Many people have been abused by the church, inside and ouside of it, by many people and in many ways, and the number of people harassed by christians, especially ones in positions of power in churches but also the commonfolk, is incredibly high. much higher than it would be if it were just a vocal minority, because then its doubtful that it would be so widespread, but especially that it would be so Personal, crimes done to people by people in particular they thought they could trust.

i am not telling you to disbelieve yourself or that there are hidden horrors in your community, but trying to bring a possible unawareness to light. if this is unwarranted or undesired and you dont wish to make any public response you can delete this ask, absolutely 0 hard feelings i wont say anything else.

love your work, have a nice day, bring more joy into the universe as you try to

Hey, thanks for this ask! Discrepancies and blind spots are a difficult thing for people to rid themselves of alone, so your reaching out to help with something you were worried about is appreciated. This is all a fair bit stressful and new for me— I've never really talked about my faith before now— but once again, I figured a public response is better than the alternative. Thanks for saying you enjoy my work. I appreciate your well wishes. And your English is absolutely wonderful, don't worry about it!

For context, I've previously said that the vast majority of Christians are loving people and that there's an unfortunate vocal minority of cruel individuals. First off: people absolutely have suffered abuse at the hands of Christians, especially Christians in positions of authority, and their suffering should never be diminished or dismissed. My church takes a pretty intense stance on abuse— anyone who misuses their influence over someone is going to answer to God for it, church leaders are to report any abuse they learn of to the proper authorities and help protect against future abuse, and the general membership are expected to do everything we can to prevent abuse and to defend and help the victims. 

I'm of the opinion that Christianity (or at least my specific denomination— I'm not educated enough to speak with authority on the state of each individual branch of Christianity, and I think that some churches are, to put it lightly, more prone to hateful behavior than others) is largely populated by kind and loving people. Again, that isn't to diminish the experiences of those who have suffered abuse— they've gone through horrible things that truly happened and shouldn't be brushed aside. My belief in abuse being done by a minority is mainly rooted in the vastness of the Christian population and my belief that people have an inherent goodness rooted in them. 

Pulling from some statistics I found on Google (which may be inaccurate, so don't quote me on this!), there are about 2.3 billion Christians out of the 8 billion people in the world. For a majority of Christians to be cruel and abusive, I would need to believe (forgive my bad math here, I'm not the best with this stuff) that at least 1 person out of every 8 people I meet is cruel and abusive. I don't think that's how the world works, and haven't seen any research to change my mind, so I don't believe that. 

What I do believe is that people who want to hurt people will find ways to hurt people, especially when they can find ways to excuse their injustice with religion, being a senior member of a family, or similar garbage— and that with such a great population of the world being Christian, you'll hear a lot of instances of abuse being done by Christians. Like I said previously— certain denominations are prone to abusive behavior. This is absolutely undeniable. But my lived experience as well as personal research has indicated to me that they and the individual bad actors don't make up the majority of Christians, even if they make the most appearances on the news. 

Thanks again for the ask and your concern. This is my personal understanding of things, and if you disagree, you're fully in your rights to! I've definitely skimmed over things here— no person is 100% good or 100% evil, and my efforts to be brief definitely haven't helped the subtlety that needs to go into discussions of morality in groups. But I wanted to explain my perspective. It really comes down to the math of things for me. I don't think that even 1 in 10 people is remotely unkind, let alone over 1 in 8 being willing to abuse others. I hope that I've made myself clear in a polite way— it's hard to have these kinds of discussions in writing! I've tried my best though, and I hope it comes across in this.

[o-wild-west-wind]

A Biracial Reading of OFMD, ft. Iggy’s Revenge Izcourse

a.k.a. I typed out a sentence that turned into an accidental essay of meta, whoops!

Y’all…I love this fandom to pieces, but I don’t think some of you realize why not all of us love Izzy/may be critiquing him. And major disclaimer—I am in NO WAY telling anyone to stop enjoying him as a character. This is NOT an anti-Izzy post (I will go into more detail on why I in fact encourage you to keep doing so later, and to the people who are sending unsolicited hate mail to Izzy fans & haters alike: please don’t!)—I’m just tired of seeing vitriolic hate against the people writing about him as an antagonist, or critiquing his actions based on canon, or post after post of “why don’t people love Izzy like I do!!” and then aggression when people explain their honest opinions. Look: we all have our skrungly little bad guys. I get it!! I’ve got my own collection!! I too have become a consumer and enjoyer of the Izzy fanon!!! PLEASE don’t take this as an attack—I just want to provide some personal, potentially fresh context from at least one (obviously non-exhaustive) perspective for those who want to know why Izzy isn’t universally adored, and also to make a plea for a safer fandom space where we can talk about our perspectives on these fictional characters without escalating to unnecessary vitriol, especially as s2 be upon ye (bc holy shit fandom is supposed to be fun, we’re having fun and that’s an order 😤)

(Oh, and I know I’m potentially stirring the pot with this post, but this should go without saying: don’t send each other death threats. What the fuck. Nobody do this?!)

So now that the legalize is out of the way: I want to share that the reason I initially imprinted on this show—and on Ed specifically—was because I’d never seen an explicitly biracial character treated with such complexity, nuance, and grace. While our ethnic makeups are vastly different, I too am half-white & half-brown—which means we’re absolutely nothing culturally alike, but our worlds view and treat us as pretty much the same regardless. And like Ed, my dad resents my mom and my racial makeup, and is prone to what I like to call “white violence.” Not going to overshare on the internet, but let’s just say that all this compounded makes Ed feel highly relatable to me (although for legal purposes I promise I have not krakened my dad 🙃).

When I first watched the show (and honestly also until my 3rd or 4th rewatch), Izzy IMMEDIATELY made me think of my dad. He also immediately made me think of Ed’s dad. Their mannerisms, word choices, and tones of voice; the obsessive need for control; the default of violence; the gradual dehumanization until an ultimate kraken-ifying breaking point—it all read to me like an intentional parallel. A shadow of white violence following Ed around that he hasn’t been able to shake, and mirroring to him the things he fears the most, including the things he fears within himself and feels forced to become (he is half-white after all, and this is a whole other post, but tl;dr there can be a lot of baggage that comes with being half-white/half-poc in regards to grappling with your toxic relationship to that white side of yourself, and especially if your white parent was racist and/or violent). And you can claim a different reading of all of this if you want (I genuinely mean that, like I’m in favor of meta & I think it’s great to analyze these things) BUT. that does not change the fact that I felt what I felt as a result of what was portrayed on screen and combined with my lived experience. Because fictional characters are just that—fictional—and are vessels by which you can process the world; we will always bring our personal lived experiences to anything we consume, and that’s okay—that can be the point, even. Art imitates life imitates art. Interpretation is the name of the game!

(more under the cut)

So when I watch this show, it’s a helpful tool for me to process my own feelings of being victimized by the white violence that’s followed me around my whole life, as well as the ways in which I’ve rebelled against it/tried to make peace with a non-toxic version of whiteness (in parallel to the more overt theme of masculinity, which is—ding ding—inexplicably tied to whiteness and western colonialism) via chaos, love, hurt, and sometimes giving up and giving in—and in this process, Izzy is a safe target. And you know why that is? Because he’s FICTIONAL. I can feel rage towards him because he’s NOT REAL. I can better understand and process the pain I’ve felt and rarely seen societally acknowledged by watching it paralleled on screen via actors and writers who have likely also grappled with similar feelings (I mean, I genuinely have made more progress with my personal biracial trauma via this show vs. years of therapy), and if I want to assume the worst of Izzy based on my interpretation of canon to help me through this? That’s fine! Because I can’t hurt his feelings and he can’t hurt mine!! Because he’s not real!!!

And here’s why I still support the Izzy-enjoyment: I am sure that many of the people who love Izzy and defend him to the ends of the earth probably feel a similar way that I do about Ed. It’s why we get all riled up and protective of these characters, why we might take attacks on them as attacks on ourselves; recognition of the self in the form of the other, and all that. Izzy is a vessel by which to safely work through the dark feelings and the pain you’ve bottled up—and he’s a safe way to do that because he’s FICTIONAL. And that’s a beautiful thing imo!! That’s truly the beauty of art—it is what we make of it, and what we make of it helps make ourselves better. It’s good to be open to interpretation.

HOWEVER: that does not give you permission to discount my relationship to this show (as I will not discount yours), and more importantly: that does NOT give you permission to reject the notion that canonically in s1, Izzy is literally and thematically (emphasis on thematically) an antagonist who is purposefully written to cause harm that can be interpreted as a hate crime, especially to those with lived experience of homophobia/racism/ableism/bullying/etc.—and you cannot harass people about this when conversing about theories of canon. If someone sees Izzy’s dialogue as cutting, degrading, and even triggering, that’s extremely fair of them to do so—clearly Ed was written to feel it that way! Con himself has paralleled Izzy with Judas! And can interpret it all differently? Sure! But you CANNOT assume that everyone else will, and then get upset when people don’t. I can’t believe I need to spell this out about an angry white guy in a show about toxic masculinity, but if someone does not like Izzy, it is likely due to a personal history of harassment (or worse) that he is reminiscent of; by making a point to defend him to someone—even if you are well-intentioned—you are very much putting salt in a wound.

I want to take this opportunity to further emphasize some tenets of fandom in general:

you can like characters who do horrible things without needing to jump hoops to argue their morals as pure 👏

conversely, you can critique their actions and still like them (encouraged, even) 👏

you can like characters who do horrible things simply because they’re cool and hot and interesting—don’t worry, we know it’s not the same as liking people like them irl 👏

your liking a villain archetype says nothing about your own moral virtue 👏

you can like horrible characters and see reasons for why they are the way they are/view them as tragic/note sympathetic dimensions of their personality/root for them to have redemption arcs while acknowledging that said redemption arc may not have happened in canon yet and that these are implicit, not explicit, readings of canon 👏

and you can also reimagine canon and change their contexts in fan works so that they ARE morally virtuous 👏 but PLEASE just be mindful and accountable when you do this in a context where not everyone will see a character the same way as you, and where multiple of people of marginalized identities have spoken out about the harm not doing so can cause. Just be honest, sincere, and kind, listen and learn, and don’t harass people for understandably needing space from a character that symbolizes something different to them than it does to you.

Also: blocking tags or people just because they have character opinions different than yours is totally okay and does not mean anything other than “I am curating my online space to have a better time,” it’s NOT personal

And most importantly: FANDOM IS FOR FUN! This isn’t our day job! We come to fandom to decompress. Don’t ruin people’s safe spaces!!!

Like I said, I’ve grown to enjoy Izzy over time thanks to fandom and fanon, and I think it’s fantastic that fandom can have such diversity in the way it interprets canon. I can’t wait for his probable redemption arc (it will likely be a healing thing to witness for many of us) and I’m truly glad that we can all have different relationships to the same characters. But please—when some of us need Izzy to be a punching bag, just let him be a punching bag. No, it’s not homophobic and DEFINTELY not misogynistic to view him as an obstacle in Ed and Stede’s relationship (baffled by the amount of times I’ve seen this take—it’s a funny joke but if you actually think Izzy is treated the way female characters related to other mlm ships have been treated, the point is very much going whoosh). You don’t have to engage; it’s not personal. It’s not about YOUR relationship with him—it’s about MINE. Please let me feel and even discuss rage towards him when I think about episode 10. Please let me throw as many sandwiches at his head as I need to. Because I PROMISE, it won’t hurt him—because he, and none of these characters, are real; and yet we, the fans, very much are.

[lucysweatslove]

TW/Content warning re: domestic violence, IPV, questioning. May be v. triggering for victims/survivors of DV and IPV especially those who were not believed. (btw it is NOT about me directly; I am in a loving and generally healthy relationship and I have never personally experienced DV (as a side-side note, one of my best friends has, we helped her get out))

So. My sister is visiting my parents atm. My mom's family reunion thing is going on rn and my sis drove up to attend. (I have just barely started to feel like Me again after Rural Site Adventure, hence opting out).

Background, p 1: my family has a fam friend we'll call N. N was a past student of my mom's, I think potentially a past client but I can't fully remember the story there. She is "in between" my parents' age and mine/my sister's- I'm not sure if she's technically a young Gen X or an older Millennial, but just to give some context regarding age. My family gave her a lot of support when she was getting her life set up, including financial support in the form of interest-free loans. When my little sis was tiny (she is very much Gen Z, still in high school), N lived with us and would help out a ton around the house, with child care, even doing things like chaperoning my dates when I was in high school. There was a bit of a blow-up idk how long ago where my mom felt like N was mothering my little sis too much and boundaries were getting mixed up, and then idk when but then they made up. I've been mostly out of the house for 12 years and totally living away from them for like 9 years, so I don't remember a lot of the specifics.

Background, p 2: My parents' relationship is not great. The gist is: a lot of infidelity from dad and my mom has a lot of emotional lability for as long as I can remember. She can get pretty mean and is prone to a lot of emotional manipulation and tactics like gaslighting, goalpost-moving, triangulation with me + my older sis, guilt-tripping, diminishing others' experiences... i mean we all do these things from time to time, but she does them very often and only on the VERY rare occasion does she take responsibility (I am not saying my dad's infidelity was caused by my mom's emotional lability or that it set off the emotional lability, and I'm not excusing anybody's behaviors; I think all of this is super multi-factorial). Early on when I was in college, before I really knew much, my dad sat us all down (with my mom, after talking with her) and confessed to his infidelity + said he was considering divorcing mom to be with the woman he was cheating with. I laid into him basically saying that running away from all of us wouldn't solve whatever lead to his cheating and make him happy. He already is once divorced (idk why/what happened with his prior marriage, he hadn't yet met my mom even so that wasn't it). I told him maybe he needs to figure out what HE needs to change rather than flitting around from person to person hoping it'll work out. He decided to stay, they went to therapy, there have been no signs of further incidence (not that it's impossible, but my mom also monitors everything his does including his whereabouts via his phone 24/7). Though my mom will say she's forgiven him, she doesn't act like it- and I get trust has been broken, but it extends further to like, financial control, eg, refusing to let my dad who is actually considered elderly now retire, won't let him buy a new speaker system while my mom takes multiple long international trips. And my parents are well-off. They have the money for all of that.

Okay now the issue.

Apparently N was talking with my sister and mentioned something about Mom and domestic violence. My sis asked if I've ever heard any of their issues phrased like that- and no, never. That alone doesn't mean much - although my mom has called BOTH of us in tearful crisis-mode before and has shared more than I think is appropriate, DV is like the one thing many victims/survivors hide and never actually speak up about.

But... my mom is not shy with her body around any of us. Not a nudist, but has no issue changing while talking with us, going to the bathroom with doors open. She has never "hidden" her body in any way at home. She will hide sometimes (choosing baggier clothing, longer sleeves or lengths) when she is out in public, but I think this is partly Mormon modesty and partly body image issues, as again, she has never taken any precautions to hide her body around us kids. In all my memorable life, I have never not once seen unexplained injuries on my mom. I have seen a few small bruises on legs or arms and not known exactly where they have come- but honestly, I would see them after she was doing manual type labor like moving wood, working outside, reorganizing the pantry, moving heavy furniture... and never bruises in a weird pattern or suspicious location, never multiple bruises in different stages of healing.

I also don't sleep well and often don't have a good 24 hr sleep cycle. I don't think I'm non-24, but my sleep/wake cycles are highly variable. My little sister would have night terrors, too, and wake up from them not remembering but also needing help settling back to bed (she would come and get me or ask to sleep in my room frequently). Since I was the only other person upstairs, I stayed up to listen for her terrors so I could be there when she woke up and she wouldn't have to toddle around to find support. This means that during middle school and all throughout high school, I very rarely slept throughout the night. This also means I heard many many many fights between my parents. I have also quietly tiptoed down the stairs to see what tf was going on more times than I can count. I have never seen any signs of physical aggression from my father in these arguments. Definitely both sides are v guilty of emotional and verbal abuse, which is still abuse and is still a problem. I'm just saying I have never seen outward aggression (hitting, punching, kicking, flailing, throwing anything at all, breaking anything, etc) nor have I seen posturing or yelling. More times than not, if somebody even raised their voice, it was my mom.

When I was a child and spanking was still a think "experts" recommended (apparently), my mom would tell my dad to spank me for a punishment, and my dad couldn't do it and would pretend- he would whisper to me that he was going to put his hand palm-up and smack his own hand so it "looked" real if my mom was watching, and I was to scream and cry so it sounded real.

My dad was a vet before he was a psychiatrist. He left vet medicine in part because he was so sad every time he had to put down an animal, or see animals being mistreated. We had many animals growing up from dogs to hamsters and rats and guinea pigs to horses and bird and fish and cats. 0 signs of aggression with them- the worst thing is when he's really mad because a dog went potty in the house he'd get kinda gruff and grumble and swear.

This does not mean that my dad cannot ever be aggressive, or has not ever been aggressive. This does not mean that when I'm not around he acts the same way. I'm not saying it is impossible, or that my mom is definitely lying or "lying by omission" and hinting that the verbal abuse has extended to physical abuse too. I'm not saying things haven't been hidden from me.

I'm just saying... in my nearly 3 decades of life, I have not once seen my dad be truly aggressive. Even while drunk- he's not aggressive, he gets giggly and silly and then tired and falls asleep. My sisters (both of them) have not seen anything, any signs. Even looking back retroactively- nothing that we can say "omg maybe that was a sign we missed." In the patterns I've seen, including where my parents don't know I'm witnessing it, my dad is a huge pushover and my mom will show more signs of anger and aggression. I am getting weird vibes from all of this, and I'm legitimately concerned about why my mom is saying / insinuating these things.

Edit bc I forgot a part that I wanted to share but got too distracted.

My mom also has had some health stuff. She has MGUS which is kinda like a blood pre-cancer, specifically for her it’s like pre-multiple myeloma, but progression is slow and prognosis is overall good. But, this was discovered during workup for pernicious anemia. There’s no real known time frame for how long she had pernicious anemia. B12 deficiency (a main cause of pernicious anemia) can lead to a host of psych stuff including cognitive slowing, confusion, changes in memory, depression, and sometimes even delirium or acute psychosis. She did do B12 shots but it’s been a while since she’s done them, I think. But during that time, her memories were WEIRD. Like she would mix up things between us kids frequently, invent random and totally benign memories (she was convinced I not only ran track in 4th/ 5th grade but was really good at it, when reality was I tried to get out of running in PE because it hurt my throat/burned to breathe while running).

When she was a child, there was also possibly some DV in the home? It’s kind of unclear what exactly happened, but it’s a real possibility. My granny had some form of psychosis at one point- again not sure exactly because this was a long time ago (my mom’s a boomer) but I was told had a gyn condition that would cause her hallucinate/send her into an acute psychotic state, and once she had a hysterectomy, she was better. There was speculation it was ovarian cysts (per my mother; also, not PCOS) but never a confirmation. I have had a burst ovarian cyst that sent me to the hospital and I thought I was dying from the pain, but no psychosis. Anyway. My sis and I wonder if she had a teratoma and had autoimmune encephalopathy.

The point tho, my granny would hallucinate something like dishes in the sink and tell my mom to do them, but there wouldn’t be any dishes to do. So then granny would think she was blatantly disobedient, and punishment back then sometimes was corporal. I don’t have details from my mom, so I don’t know what happened, but we now know that any corporal punishment is detrimental and essentially DV, so regardless of how far it went, it’s problematic.

So, what I’m getting at: my mom has historically had B12 deficiency bad enough to have serious pernicious anemia, and my sis and I noticed a major cognitive shift around that time. She would mix up memories all the time. Since she’s had it before, she could develop it again. And that could lead to increased irritability, cognitive change, MEMORY issues. And she likely has very real DV memories.

Me, wanting to see best in everybody bc I’m just the perfect picture of an optimist (sarcasm), wonders: what if my mom currently has pernicious anemia and B12 deficiency again to the point her memory and cognition are all kinds of messed up, and she’s confusing her real memories from her childhood with my dad? Especially if the same feelings (eg powerlessness) came up.

[juuheizou]

heyyy I saw you're answering asks so i wanted to give you one of my own:: how exactly does juuzou feel about physical touch? how does he like it? is he into pda at all? how does he feel w people touching him in general or in a friendly way? at what point of a romantic relationship he feels comfortable w a partner surprising him with cheek, nose and forehead kisses? in what point does he feel comfortable seeking phisical comfort?🥺

Hey! Haha, yeah, I just don't get asks that often, so I can see how it might seem questionable whether I'm answering them at any given moment or not, but I can assure you I always am. Hope this one gives you the insight you're looking for!

how exactly does juuzou feel about physical touch?

Suzuya strikes me as a really touch-happy person trapped in the body of someone with debilitating tactile defensiveness and a long history of that touch-happiness getting him in trouble. His most natural way to show affection is through physical touch. He self-soothes primarily with things he can touch and feel. And, though we don't see as many examples in :RE as the original series, he was prone to solving perceived problems with more destructive forms of touch. His hands are an integral part of how he interacts with the world, and touch is up there with taste among his most important senses.

At the same time, I can see a lack of innately understanding what's considered normal and acceptable when it comes to physical contact getting him in trouble, especially when he was first rescued and integrated into human society. He has learned through bullying and people only seeing the worst in him that he touches things he's not supposed to, whether that be picking up and examining a pile of entrails with his bare hands or grabbing a highly decorated ghoul investigator for their attention over an idea that just popped into his head. That's not even counting the times in canon that he's physically lashed out at people.

I see the same indiscretion being taken advantage of by people like Big Madam. Snuffing out any inklings that something isn't right in their mother/child relationship with a treat like cuddling up together and reading about giraffes, or how her whole system of torture and corporal punishment worked so well with a young Suzuya to begin with. Of course her rewards are affectionate and good; it's some of the closest contact she gives him. So physical touch is something he craves strongly and often, but how he acts on it is somewhat tempered by his experiences as the series and his life go on.

On the purely physical side as well, anyone who explores my blog enough will know I strongly headcanon him as autistic, and think that while it might have affected and been affected by his past with Big Madam, his indifference to pain is one of his many sensory hypo and hypersensitivities that he has always had and would have still had without her influence. Some sensations, he will barely notice at all unless it's to an extreme that would be unbearable to other people, and he seeks some of those ones out both for self-regulation and enjoyment. Others, it doesn't matter how positive the context or how beloved a person they come from-- to him they feel more noxious than pain and may push him into sensory overload, if not a shutdown or meltdown depending on what it is, how much/how long it goes on, and the day he's having. Different kinds of touch fall into one of those extremes or the other.

how does he like it?

He likes deep pressure and firm touches, like a tight hug, being wrapped in a heavy blanket, or having a cat in his lap. Even things like falling from somewhere he likes to climb/perch, taking a hit in battle, or parttaking in extreme body modification can feel kind of good, because a lot of the sensations that would be masked by pain in most people are resistance and pressure. I think if he got to go to one of those trampoline parks with crash mats and foam pits everywhere, he would probably keep throwing himself at stuff until the place closed or he passed out from exhaustion.

When it's something he does to himself, like body stitching or self-injurious stimming, there's also the feeling of doing the act itself, such as the sinking of his needle into skin, which can also feel soothing or satisfying. Between liking the feeling of doing a lot of these things and not being sensitive to the consequences himself, this is also why he can sometimes squeeze too hard or be a little rough when he's on the giving end of affectionate touch, which is most of the time now that it's up to him. It's also why he likes throwing Hanbee so much.

Textures are also very important, even in everyday things like the foods he eats and the clothes he wears, so of course they're important here too. He's definitely a soft, plushy, and fuzzy things autistic. If you don't think he collects plushies to squeeze and snuggle with, you're simply wrong. He enjoys playing with someone's soft hair or squishing his cheek against a fuzzy animal or piece of a person's clothing, but trying to hug him while you're wearing one of his trigger textures is going to be a very disappointing experience. You might even get shoved away.

is he into pda at all?

Oh yes. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) Mutsuki is absolutely petrified of having attention drawn to him in public, and PDA sure feels like drawing attention to him in public. For Suzuya, however, it would be another layer of something he enjoys on top of a fun day or night out, and who doesn't want to double up on things they enjoy? There are rare occasions where PDA makes Mutsuki feel safe and protected, and Suzuya gets to indulge in it, but for the most part, it's a want that Suzuya keeps to himself, despite the name.

how does he feel w people touching him in general or in a friendly way?

When someone in his inner circle of people figures out how to do it right, he will pester them for more, but the former is a requirement. If Amon or any other macho man at the CCG gave him a stiff, half-assed clap on the shoulder because he did something cool and for a second they forgot he wasn't one of the guys they like, they're going to get their hand swatted away, or grabbed and twisted until it hurts if he doesn't like the person either. However, a clap on the shoulder from Shinohara, firm and hearty and committed to giving him that pressure he craves: he'll keep coming to Shinohara over and over to solicit an annoying amount of claps on the shoulder. He can't stand going to a hairdresser and cuts his hair himself to avoid it, but that doesn't stop him from bouncing up to Akira to see if she'll style his hair.

As much as he enjoys the sensory aspect of touch, there is an emotional aspect too, and I think once he gets used to living his own life and not being Big Madam's pet, he would learn that he really likes personal space just because it's his. Having the choice is just so different and reminds him in a good way how free he is now, so when that control of his own space is encroached on, it might even surprise him how protective he's become of that space. Also, if you don't know him well, chances are you're not going to touch him right.

at what point of a romantic relationship he feels comfortable w a partner surprising him with cheek, nose and forehead kisses?

Probably not ever, honestly, because who knows what kind of day he's having or if he's one small push away from sensory overload and can't even handle things he would normally like. It will always be the safest to ask, verbally or by giving him the chance to meet the other person halfway or choose not to. As much as he would enjoy being on the giving end of surprise kisses, that doesn't mean he has to want the same for himself. And besides, why bother trying to surprise the master of surprises when you can just enjoy his surprises?

in what point does he feel comfortable seeking phisical comfort??

Opposite of the last one, pretty early on. Having something that's a good kind of different from the many ways he self-soothes would be a big motivator for him to let someone else into his life when he's just fine on his own. If they don't hug him better than he can squeeze himself in a nice blanket, why even humor the idea of compromising with someone else's needs and rules? He likes his freedom, after all.

[ummyeahlike]

i want to kill myself. i will kill myself. i don’t hv anyone to leave a suicide note to in the real world so i’ll choose digital formatting instead.

I think i’m dying because of lies told to me. And i’m okay with that. I’ve tried taking my life plenty of times before and I have to be careful this time if I fail because the harshness of life will be right underneath me, not giving a fuck, expecting me to get back to work.

So I will try and get it right. It’s bitter because I know I have potential, but what is that without results.

I am not the kindest, nor most helpful, most social. I am awkward and with a big ole ego and usually anxious, but I still know how to operate.

I am 22, it’s been a month since my birthday. I had a decent one, I spent it in out of state, albeit alone.

My father abandoned me when I was 14, around the same time my mother had entered a new relationship. They hadn’t been together since I was 2, but my father and stepmother had created an entire family unit I was used to and all of that got broken up. It was devastating, as separations are.

I stopped talking to my dad and still spoke with my step mom, all my brothers lived with her too and it was the only way to access my sister.

So you see, I was especially vulnerable. My school was through my father, my home, my friends. I had to leave everything behind, quite literally. My mother has OCD and wouldn’t let me take even a quarter of my belongings to her house and I had to say goodbye to so much and that hurt too.

Anyway, so my mother gets into a new relationship and is trying to keep it from me, but I see the signs. Some months later in 2017 she explains to me that this man she’s with is actually my biological father and she lied. The man who had raised me, who had left me, wasn’t my dad at all. It broke something in me and felt like I had lost him twice.

Well, the reason I’m killing myself in 2024 is that she lied about that too. I confronted her via text real casual, real easy about it today 6 October, 2024. You have to be casual to get the truth, she’s prone to lying.

She says that no, the man I lied to you about being your father isn’t your father either. And I shut down. My heart started beating fast and I wanted to cry. I left work 2 hours early and have been thinking of killing myself ever since. I cussed her out, left the family groupchat. There’s so much more I wish I could add and context I want to provide, but that would take all night. The “family” groupchat didn’t come easy and only came at all because my Grand, her mom, is dying and we have to organize. My Grand, my 2nd/3rd mother, is dying.

And I will die before her and be there to greet her soul. Life is hard. Extremely and i’m so disinterested. I’m not gonna cut myself, that’s messy. But, I will drink myself to a stupor, I will tie a bag over my head, I will ingest 30 of the highest mg painkiller Walgreens will allow, and sometime this week or the next I will sleep like I never have before.

I loved astrology. I loved my best friend, so, so much. She’s been with me for almost 5 years (anniversary is soon, this is platonic btw). I loved food especially. In recent months, my binge eating has come back full swing. but if i’m binging on my way out so be it too. I will die confidently thinking no one understands me and I won’t give most people the chance to, as it’s usually a waste of time.

I’m most definitely pro suicide. To anyone feeling like me and confidently knowing things won’t get better, you’re allowed to decide this for yourself. Even if it’s selfish…they just gone hv to be mad. This is YOUR life and what you do with it is your choice. And frankly, it’s your choice to die. You don’t need to have a terminal illness to decide that.

Living is a great option though. Overcoming all odds is exciting, but terribly unrealistic.

I just dislike myself, my circumstances, what i’m made of, and where I come from. I’m disgusted actually and that’s myyyy prerogative. I love that I tried and I love that I quit. I always know when to stop.

Thank you to me for trying these 22 years. Thank you for surviving, for putting up with what you did.

I owe you so much. I will always have your back, in life and death because definitely nobody else will.

Just get through this week and I promise paradise is your’s. You get to die painlessly and be free. You get to go in your sleep and be maybe a little sad, but happy all the same that the pain is coming to an end.

I’m proud of you, if no one else will both say it and mean it. And i’m proud of you for dying. God bless you as you’re on your way out and thank you endlessly for living this brief life with me, Amen.

And to anyone who sees this: thank you. Please smile, laugh, eat your favorite meal, cook your best friend their favorite meal and personally deliver it. Talk to someone you wouldn’t typically talk to. It’s very easy to save lives and not have to get to this point. Food, comfort, intimacy, laughter, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, can really keep a person going y’know. Wear your mask, stop spreading covid, unplug more often from the internet, save ur pictures on a physical hard drive, and understand that climate change is coming for us all as well. I guess i’m just getting out early. Love y’all, xx

September 2002 - October 2024 🖤🫡

[thelunastusco]

So, disclaimer:

We're white-bodied, disabled, and trans masc. Jewish and Romani ancestry, but our recent family decided to become Christian and get rid of all the family history, lmao. :') We're a large adaptive + protogenic system with DID, mostly fictives, and we've been a system for over 30 years.

So that's where we're coming from when we address this post we came across. This is gonna get long, so screenshot and our thoughts under the read-more.

Transcript:

1. I am a system host and a fictive myself. I've existed for about 12 years at this point and I'm fully aware that fictives are people who are more than just our source characters. I am in no way blaming Hazbin fictives for their own existence, and I don't think they are inherently bad people. 2. I do agree that people, in general, systems or not, fictive-heavy or not, have a responsibility to avoid watching/reading stories that will harm them. You are right that if it were coming from a singlet, my specifically addressing systems would come across as condescending and unfair. I apologize for this, I didn't provide context in my kinfession so I don't blame anyone for being rubbed the wrong way by it. 3. Specifically, as a Jewish person the continued popularity of things like Hazbin, Hetalia, and Attack on Titan makes me feel upset and unsafe. Even though I've blacklisted the tags for Hazbin, seeing that the posts exist makes me frustrated and irritated. When you have a fictive from something, it becomes very difficult to ever completely stop talking about it, and then when you make friends, it makes them curious about your source material, and it makes it spread further and further. So even though I don't blame Hazbin fictives for existing, if it weren't for people watching Hazbin, they probably would have split as either a non-fictive alter or as a fictive from something else, and I wouldn't have to see yet another antisemitic cartoon become the current hot topic. To amend my original statement, I will say: Nobody at all should be watching Hazbin Hotel regardless of whether they're singlet or plural, kin or non-kin, etc. BUT people who split fictives easily should be especially careful to avoid it. The end. Sorry MPC for the drama.

... It's hard to know where to start, so we'll get the financial/material aspects out of the way, first.

Yes, Hazbin Hotel has issues. The creator has said things that aren't great, to put it mildly. There are definitely problematic aspects in the show itself. Some of the arguments brought against Vivz are asinine ("oh she wrote problematic characters and supports gross ships so she's terrible!" for example), but some seem to be valid, like her use of Vodou symbols, potentially antisemitic character designs, and seemingly anti-trans masc sentiments.

Now, we're not knowledgeable enough to address any of these things. (And some things, like the anti trans masc stuff, could be exaggerated or faked. It's hard to know just based on discord screenshots, since anyone can change their pfp and their nickname.) We have seen people who are take either side of the argument-- that it's fine, that it's not fine, etc. Minorities aren't a monolith. That's as far as we can speak on that.

What we do feel comfortable addressing is the idea that kin-prone or fictive-prone systems shouldn't watch canon sources that are (a) created by a problematic person, or (b) are problematic in nature.

We're reminded distinctly of the HP and JKR issue. Now, we read and watched HP growing up. We have fictives from there. We were massively upset when we realized how bigoted JKR is, and how many bigoted sentiments exist in HP itself. So, what do you do when something like that comes to light?

Don't engage with the source at all in any way, shape, or form, and distance yourself/ves from people who do.

If you already have engaged with the source in the past, stop, and don't engage with anything new.

Yo-ho-ho everything and/or only purchase secondhand, and if you want merch, only pick up merch from secondhand/fanmade sources that don't line the creator's pockets.

Any and all of these are valid responses, in our eyes. The goal isn't, to us, to never engage with problematic sources-- it's to avoid lining the pockets of bigoted creators who create sources that further their bigoted ideas.

Is this necessary with Vivz and HH/HB? That's up to you to decide. It definitely is, to us, with JKR and her works because she is flat-out a bigot, who is using the money she makes to fund hate groups. But Vivz? She's a bisexual Salvadoran-American, who employs queer folks to work on her massively queer-centric universe. That doesn't mean she's a good person or good boss, it doesn't mean she isn't doing shit wrong, but at the same time, we don't feel the same level of disgust over knowing people engage with HH/HB + buy merch for it.

If you do? Okay, then that's your choice, and we do support people not buying official merch and sailing the seas if they want to see the source without giving money to the creator.

But blanket-statements implying that people are causing intrinsic harm by watching HH at all and that people should feel bad if they do, because it's causing harm to vulnerable groups, (a) ignores people from those vulnerable groups who are okay with it or find value in it, which does matter, (b) ignores the real issue inherent in bigoted media/creators, which is them getting financial support, and (c) ignores the fact that people can in fact engage with a problematic source while understanding the aspects that are problematic, and having a full, healthy discussion about those aspects while also enjoying the "good parts" of the source.

Sometimes it's just not possible to engage with a media source legally without giving money to bigots, but that isn't the same as saying "no one should ever watch this or enjoy it at all, ever".

Hazbin is one of the first adult-oriented cartoons to feature an almost purely queer case of characters. (And the "token straight" is very kinky.) It is also a show that involves messy queers and situations that are serious, troubling, toxic, etc, which is something that is harder and harder to find in a social setting that is becoming increasingly sanitized/puritanical. On top of all that, the message it promotes-- that it's never too late, you still have time, you can still change and become better, and even shitty people don't deserve to be extrajudicially murdered-- is a fucking needed one.

Does that make up for the "bad parts"? Or the fact that Vivz might be an asshole? Idk, that's up to you. But unless we get proof that Vivz is funneling profits to organizations that want to kill minorities or trans people or something, we personally are gonna say it's at everyone's personal discretion. (And even then, if you wanna fly the jolly roger and see it anyways, that's your choice.)

Shifting focus away from "hey we should be aware of problematic elements in fiction and be able to discuss them" and "we should find ways to not support bigoted creators even if we continue to enjoy their works" to "this is wholly bad and if you even so much as look at it, you're doing something bad" is not a great thing for fandom, for media literacy as a whole, or for fictionkin/fictive communities.

Which brings us to the point of, you can say you don't blame HH fictives for existing, but the minute you follow that up with "when you have a fictive from something, it becomes very difficult to ever completely stop talking about it, and then when you make friends, it makes them curious about your source material, and it makes it spread further and further" ... you're putting the onus on fictionkin and fictives. You might not be blaming them for existing, but you're still blaming them for any further harm (perceived or actual) that comes from their existence. And that isn't okay.

We have HH fictives, and fictives who ended up with HH kintypes. Watching HH didn't harm us. As CSA and SA survivors, and queer + trans folks in general who are older and have a messy fucking life, it actually was comforting and helped us. A lot. We can still point to things that aren't great about the show, we can still side-eye the creator and line their pockets as little as possible, but we're not bad people for watching the show. We're not bad people for having those kin/fictive connections. And if our existence makes people curious about HH, that doesn't make us bad, either.

What would be bad is if we completely ignored any of the issues the show or creator has, and just cheerfully bounce along without addressing those issues. (If it comes up/is relevant-- you don't constantly have to lambast the fiction you enjoy to make sure people know that you know how ~problematic~ it is.)

It's not our responsibility to police people's fiction consumption habits. Again, using HP and JKR as an example, we can share why we won't purchase anything that benefits JKR and what she's said/done that is harmful. We still can't stop people from engaging with HP. If we can convince people to obtain the books/movies/games and enjoying without JKR profiting, and if we can educate people on why she sucks and about the bigoted aspects of HP, to us that's a win. The point isn't to keep people away from a media source, so much as it is to keep bigoted creators from profiting and to help people understand the bigoted angles.

Our responsibility begins and ends with making people aware of bigotry that is getting people harmed or killed. If people read or watch a "problematic" series because of our fictives or kintypes, we didn't fail. We weren't "irresponsible". If people watch a "problematic" series because of our fictives or kintypes and then goes on to whole-heartedly support the creator and gloss over all the troubling or bigoted aspects of the series, then we've failed. The consumption of the thing isn't the fucking problem.

And--

Regardless of context, it's still incredible nasty to say "well it's not your fault for existing, but your existence is promoting something harmful, and if you'd never existed at all then you wouldn't be causing more harm". It's not the fault of fictionkin or fictives for existing, end of sentence. No ifs, and, buts. Most people can't help what kintypes they have, most systems can't help what fictives they pick up. Full stop. Blaming them for something they can't help, and shouldn't be trying to police to begin with, is not okay.

If a series makes you feel unsafe, stop engaging with it. Explain to people why it makes you feel unsafe. Distance yourself/ves from people who continue to engage. These are all things that are your right to do. It is not your right to turn around and blame kinfolk or fictives for perpetuating harm (real or perceived) because oh, well someone might get curious about their source and go look at it. That is deeply unfair.

It also also incredibly bizarre to say that, were it not for your system engaging with the source, you-- the fictives from that source-- "probably would have split as either a non-fictive alter or as a fictive from something else". Maybe that's how it works for some systems, but (a) that makes no sense for fictionkin, and (b) does not work for all systems.

We, personally, don't "split" fictives at all. They simply show up because we engage with a source, and our brain goes "oh hey they'd be useful for something". Or, sometimes, "they remind us of ourselves or someone already here and oops we felt sympathy too hard and now they're here". So, sure, if we never watched or heard anything about HH, maybe we wouldn't have kintypes or fictives from there. (Hard to say, because we don't always even need to watch a source for this to happen.) But they wouldn't be here at all. Not as a non-fictive, not as a fictive from something else. They simply wouldn't exist.

(EDIT: Adding in that, also, for some systems... they get fictives before they're even aware of the fictive's source. Is it more rare? Maybe. But it happens. We ourselves have at least one fictive who had an appearance, voice, and full personality formed until we stumbled across his source years later. The source hadn't even existed when he arrived, lmao. What do you do when you get fictives before their source even exists here.)

And for us, in some cases-- not just HH, but other sources-- that would be a disaster. Some of our strongest, more reliable and helpful system members come from "problematic" sources. Our HP fictives kept us alive during our teen years. For some system members who are also fictionkin of "problematic" sources, their kinshifts kept them safe and stable when they otherwise wouldn't have been.

And you know what? For as much as we understand how a series can be upsetting and make people feel unsafe-- that's how we feel about South Park and South Park fans, lmao-- we'd rather have picked up a kintype or fictive from a potentially problematic source than have ended up dead or worse off mentally because we lacked someone who (in that timeframe or beyond) could have helped but didn't exist. And we extend that to other people. Including kintypes and fictives from sources we find terrible.

Furthermore, the sentiment that "even though I don't blame Hazbin fictives for existing, if ... they probably would have split as either a non-fictive alter or as a fictive from something else ... I wouldn't have to see yet another antisemitic cartoon become the current hot topic" is blame-and-shamey as fuck, and you won't change our minds on that. Even if we otherwise agreed about the potential harm of the series.

HH would have existed without fictionkin and without fictives. It would have, and has, become popular without them. It is not the fault of fictionkin and fictives. If you don't blame HH fictives for existing, then you can fucking end the sentence there. Adding a "but" or "except" onto the end of it is putting the blame on them.

And as a system that is 100% queer, seeing people boiling an overwhelmingly queer and kink-friendly show (with a key message of redemption and steep slant against corporal punishment, "from the evil to the strange") down to "icky cartoon that shouldn't exist" leaves one massively bitter taste in our mouth. Even if we didn't have HH fictionkin and fictives.

tl;dr,

You can discuss the harmful aspects of a series, or attitude of the creator, without demanding people never interact with the series at all and shaming kinfolks/fictives for the creation + popularity of the series.

"If you get fictives easily, don't get involved with this source media because it's problematic" has to be one of the most wild takes we've seen in a while.

Thoughts being put together, will expand more on this later.

[comicaurora]

I don't wanna stick my head into an ongoing argument especially as a non-artist but it frustrated me how quickly you got dismissed out of hand despite. Idk. Also being a content creator and artist who relies on people seeing and engaging with your work, both with Aurora and OSP

I was not expecting a full adult blogger whose posts I like and respect to publicly dunk on me for things I did not say and opinions I do not hold because my two-sentence post about something unrelated pinged the little "this is about me so I am justified to scold" sensor, and I was not expecting them to double down into condescension, and then I was further disappointed to conclude that they probably blocked me, because my two attempts at reblogging with a de-escalation and apology vanished into the tumblr error dimension and I didn't have it in me to rewrite the whole thing a third time.

Tumblr's reading comprehension is poor for sure, but I think the larger problem is how the platform is optimized for sweeping statements to be read as intensely personal. If a generalized statement crosses my dash that could be read as in some way negative or dismissive of me or an identity I hold, it's easy to feel like there's nothing in the world but me and that poster purposefully sniping at me personally. If that were the reality, maybe it would be fine for me to retaliate. But the fact is, that poster doesn't know me, the post is presumably about what it says it's about, and reading farther into it would require context it's impossible for me to know.

In this case, for instance, this person doesn't seem to know anything about me, so they don't know that I am myself an artist, that I know a little something about building an audience, and that I enjoy having a platform that enables me to draw attention to lesser-known but extremely high quality work. Instead, they saw my flippant two-post "kinda rude and entitled when this very specific rude thing happens" and decided I was an ignorant child who needed schooling because I was being rude and dismissive to the struggles of them and theirs.

I know why this happens. Tumblr, for all its size, feels intensely personal. It feels significantly worse when it actually GETS personal, like their responses were to me. Their post makes good points and I'm glad it's raising awareness for lesser-known artists and workers in need of support, but I don't enjoy being turned into a strawman and paraded for ridicule, especially by someone whose experience on this platform runs deeper than mine. Frankly, I expected them to be experienced enough to be kind.

It feels very shitty, obviously. Like many neurodivergent people - not to play that card, but, ya know - I am very, very used to being misunderstood and then bullied or ridiculed for whatever misinterpretation is funniest or sounds the snappiest for a crowd. I am prone to overexplaining to avoid this - in case this post didn't make that obvious already. Of course, overexplaining is not a healthy solution and it doesn't even work. It took me a very long time to even begin to accept that ultimately I had no control.

The conclusion I eventually came to, after years of trying to find the perfect way to comport myself so I would never, ever be hurt in this way again, is that there is no way to do that. People can always choose to read you in the most uncharitable way possible, to disregard your personhood and turn you into a posterboy for whatever crack or hot take they want to use you for. However, the flawed premise I was operating under was that, if I failed to be 100% understood, I would deserve whatever shittiness followed because I had failed to prevent it.

And I don't. Nobody does, ever. Pain is not a thing made okay by deserving. I understand why they reacted the way they did to me, but what they did was wrong. It was unnecessarily cruel and harsh and it came unprovoked. I feel bad right now because someone hurt me because they thought it was morally righteous to do so, and even if I didn't comport myself flawlessly and beyond reproach, I didn't deserve to be hurt.

So I feel shitty right now, but I managed to have a nice evening regardless and hopefully I can digest this bad mood fast enough that I stop dreading checking my notes. Thanks to the people who unprompted sent me cute pet pics.

[svartalfhild]

Svar Watches BBC Robin Hood for the First Time - Season 3

Some of you may have seen my reactions to Season 1 and Season 2, well, here's the epic conclusion:

Well I can tell you right off the bat that the production, especially the costumes, have gotten a major glow-up, holy shit.

Damn we're starting off in a dark place. I mean, I guess I expected that, but even so.

It's been 5 minutes and I already miss Will and Djaq.

Guy is so unhinged now and it hurts my heart, but it's so interesting to watch. Also, the costuming glow-up and Armitage doing his thing means that Guy is now, in some respects, even hotter than before. For this to really get out of hand for me, though, he has to get a good redemption arc. That would just be top👌tier👌shit👌. I have no goddamn clue how that could happen at this point, though. Won't hold my breath.

So now that Marian is fucking dead and Djaq is off having her happily ever after with Will, I'm guessing Tuck is going to be the new voice of reason.

Ohoho Guy going Fuck Everything Actually But Especially The Sheriff And Also My Life with maximum emo is fucking zesty.

I like Kate. Her being a love interest for Much is a bit out of left field, but I could be into it if the narrative does the work to sell it.

Man, the real villain in this show is toxic masculinity.

I love how every time a recurring female character is grieving, Little John is like "hello, I'm your emotional support giant".

Lara Pulver???? Fuck yeah!

Holy shit she's Guy's sister????? And she's Robin's new love interest???? That's a spicy meatball.

Gotta say, Guy, being shitty to your sister is rapidly losing you attractiveness points.

OH MY GOD GUY ACTUALLY GOT TO STAB THE SHERIFF I AM LIVING YES BITCH KILL YOUR ABUSER!!!!

Aw dunk he's still alive. Boo. Well, either way, Guy has fallen out of the hands of one abuser into another, who has even more power.

Toby Stephens as Prince John is brilliant. He's so flighty and detestable. And pathetic in the way that only rich men are. This is reminding me of the tantrums of the bird app destroyer.

So I see from Isabella's behaviour with Robin that getting overly attached to the first person who's nice to them is a Gisborne family trait. Also going all super backstabby survival mode when they get put in a tight spot.

Meg is fucking great and I am so here for the women-supporting-women of her introduction. I want her to be besties with Isabella, even though Isabella is duplicitous af (albeit kinda understandably so).

So, uh, fuck Thornton. It was bad enough hearing from Isabella that he's awful, but now that we get to see him, I am absolutely revolted.

Oh, oh, I love watching Meg call Guy the fuck out for his, well, everything, and he just has to sit there and take it cause they're in prison. Get his ass, girl.

Wait...oh my god...oh my god IS GUY ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE A REDEMPTION ARC???? YOU'RE KIDDING HOLY SHIT POP ALL THE BOTTLES LADS

Aw...aw, Meg. I'm crying with you, Guy. T_T

The way Isabella started this season with "I'm nothing like my brother; there's nothing about him that I want to be" and then she proceeded to become exactly like her brother.

God, the cinematic parallels between Guy and Isabella are so strong and so tragic. Both abused, both prone to thinking in extremes, both trying so desperately to protect themselves and making all the wrong choices. But it's interesting how Isabella is descending into evil the same way Guy did the moment she's given a crumb of power by an evil man, while Guy is trying to be better after hitting rock bottom and getting told what's what by a mouthy peasant girl.

Kate turning out to actually be Robin's love interest is honestly a bit boring, but predictable, I suppose.

Damn, that Backstory™ episode was wild and soapy as fuck but it sure did some heavy lifting with the plot to get Robin and Guy united at last. A fucking half-brother between them named Archer. Jesus christ.

Guy's father being a leper kinda brings new context to the Sheriff derisively calling Marian a leper all of the time. Must have been a real twist in the gut every time Guy heard it.

Robin and Guy going to rescue Archer is giving Thor and Loki "get help" energy and I love it so much. More of this please.

So I see being a tricky little bastard and a romantic is something Archer shares with his siblings.

Oh my god the symbolism of Guy riding a white horse now.

Aw, Allan. T_T So it's a Boromir end for you, huh.

I'm scared to watch the finale because I just know it's going to hurt my heart somehow. Let Guy stab the Sheriff again, please?

GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUYYYYYY *INCOHERENT SCREAMING AND CRYING*

"I lived in shame, but because of you, I die proud and free." I WILL NEVER BE OKAY AGAIN!!!!!!!! T_T

Yes, blow everything the fuck up. Die, assholes.

And there goes Robin too. God, I'll just be sobbing for the next several minutes, thanks.

Thank you for coming on this journey with me. I hope you enjoyed my screaming and crying. I hope you went "ohohoho just you wait girl" every time I saw or didn't see a twist coming.

[fascinatedhelix]

Binge read Ava’s Demon a couple days ago and have a ton of thoughts on it. Here’s just some general story thoughts and theories (Spoilers Ahead!):

The whole tone of the comic is less... frustrating when one takes into consideration that the original version was made back in 2001, by a depressed 13 year old. Things just come together better with that context in mind; the characters, how they interact with their setting, the construction of the setting itself. It just screams “if people took stories written by kids seriously.” It’s oddly charming, in my opinion.

The setting that TITAN Inc creates is perfect for a YA story, since their indoctrination practices seem to hinge on isolating and disenfranchising children while also placing an ungodly amount of responsibility on them from an early age. Like, Gil was made to talk about his career at age 11. It certainly fits with TITAN’s goals, though it also comes with perhaps the unintended side effect that they probably have a bigger rebellion problem than they show. Adolescents tend to be especially impulsive and prone to acting out when under pressure, and if you give them the ability to actually navigate important technology and resources in your pursuit of quick and easy minions, you’re going to get a lot of amateur hackers, thieves, smugglers, and other minor criminals who probably wouldn’t be doing any of this had they not been forced to make life-changing decisions so early.

It’s really weird that Gil was put through eight years of medical training, just to become a medical janitor. One would think that TITAN Inc wouldn’t want to waste resources on a “failure” if Gil didn’t perform well enough in his evaluations, and would have just flunked him if he didn’t meet their standards. I’m thinking the medical janitor thing might have been a cover for something higher ups didn’t want the lower level administrative staff to know about. Strategos Six did seem to involve a lot more investment into Gil’s future as a follower than one would expect. If Six had a habit of saving kids from the Scavengers, I don’t think they would have been able to recognize Gil as well as they did. I’m thinking they wanted to use him for some sort of project outside of the public eye, like working with the Scavengers or working against Wrathia’s Plan. Six does seem to be familiar enough with Wrathia to recognize her appearance and power, perhaps they wanted to use Gil to counteract that.

The pace, while great for characterization, isn’t all that promising. From what I’ve gathered it’s been going since 2012, which means it’s taken eight or nine years just for the plot to take off the ground. While I can understand side projects and life issues might slow progress down, I can also understand the fandom’s frustration with the pacing of the comic. You know, this sort of issue is why Homestuck’s panels were, for the most part, relatively low effort; a simpler art style and reuse of assets makes a more regular update schedule much more manageable. I appreciate the work that’s being done, of course - the art’s easily the best part of the comic - it’s just that I can see why things would be slow going.

That being said, I do hope that things pick up a little after this point, because I am absolutely itching to see some character development. It’s only really been establishing characters and setting up the beginning of the plot so far, and it’s only been maybe a day or two since the story began, in-universe. I’m hoping that, if Erios joins the “friend” group, they’ll be able to offset the bad vibes of the main cast through their own good ones.

[system-of-a-feather]

Okay I'm home now and I just wanted to once again say genuinely sorry if that post made you feel like shit or anything. I (as a whole) largely internalize and keep a lot of scientific critques on syscourse to ourselves because 1) we don't think anyone is actually stupid or blame anyone for not knowing the details of this stuff cause its not actually taught in schools and most of it you don't really get to know unless you actually get involved in research centers - we are ACTIVELY of the opinion the issue syscourse and the majority of the internet has with understanding the nuances of research is largely at the education system (at least in America) which is something I think I briefly gestured at but did not say 2) we don't want to make anyone feel like shit for something that is more of a social / systemic issue regarding how research is taught and that no one is particularly "bad" because its just so rampant and 3) we are prone to getting burnt out trying to put out information on how things work because of the amount of people who are more interested in arguing than discussing which is a boundary we have to remind ourselves to keep - and so when I read your post and made mine, I was 100% thinking about the backed up internal grumbles about it I've had for years and very very little about your post in specific - which doesn't excuse the vague posting, but I wanted to say it to let you know I ABSOLUTELY do not think bad of you or your blog for that post at all.

Honestly I don't think bad of ANYONE for make the similar error cause its again, a largely systemic issue with how people are taught about science and research. No one can be faulted for not knowing something they were never given access or resources into understanding and from personal experience, a lot of the understanding of how research works is decently hard to get to unless you are engaged in the field to some level yourself so really I'm sorry, I REALLY didn't mean to vague about you or anything. I had a blank moment and forgot what got me thinking and it really really wasn't meant to be targetted. ESPECIALLY the long explanation post, cause honestly at that point I was just excited to be in a good mood and to have the energy to explain my pet peeve of syscourse without it being 95% grumbles.

Now to actually some of the interesting discussion topics (DISCLAIMER AFTER WRITING: I get REALLY rambly so I apologize if its over the place, this is something I am very interested in and I actually have the energy to type about it so XD I have a lot of thoughts and it can be hard to organize it)

if the theory of structural dissociation isn’t actually a scientific theory, then what is it? why is it called a theory if it isn’t one? and is it wrong to compare theories to each other?

No no, it absolutely is a scientific theory that is correct. Psychology is a science and ToSD is a theory - however it's important to take into context what field the theory is of to understand what it means in respects to the field. Generally speaking, the term for theory is used to describe a collection of research and concepts that come together to support an idea that is found to be useful for predicting real world phenomenon. That is the same regardless of field, but its when we talk about the phenomenon that the way they are interpretted / the amount of "grains of salts" you give it change.

Theories in hard sciences are a lot more solid due to the nature of the concept, the replicity and the usually much more black and white nature of the phenomenon measured (time is time, weight is weight, distance is distance; the equation either accurately predicts your ball landing where it says it does or it doesn't and possible room for error is less), proof of replicability (additionally the concepts in more of the hard sciences tend to be very universal - ie given all factors are being calculated for, it doesn't matter if you throw a baseball or a brick, gravity's equations will work regardless), and concrete measures (meters to measure distance, seconds to measure time)

Theories in soft sciences are also held to a higher standard as it is a conglomeration of research, but they are taken and treated a lot more like "popular and predominant hypothesis" than they are solid theories like those in hard sciences. This is due to the fact that with how malleable and innately uncertain psychology is, you can collect a lot of papers and come to different details. This is due to the fact that the phenomenon is often an uncertain and undefined concept (identity is?????? consciousness is????? emotions??? how do we define that????, there is almost always an argument whether or not the science used actually even represents the subject it is trying to study), it is hard to replicate a lot of studies (different populations studied may result drastically different results, different time periods studied may result in drastically different results, often studies take a long time and / or require a lot of resources to run in general let alone repeat *you can read more on the Replicatability Crisis of 2010 in Psychology for more on this*) and lack of concrete measures (how do you measure happiness? do we use self reports? biological reports? what is the correct way to measure it that both accurately represents the measure meant and is objective? its impossible currently to have an objectively best way so most researchers use different methods according to their idea of the best way and it causes issues in comparing data - clinical psych has a jump on it by developing standardized questionnaires and diagnostic methods to systematically measure some traits like the SCID and PCL-5 but even those are under scrutiny of how well they actually depict what they are measuring and again, thus why they are changing)

Because of all THAT when we talk about psychological theories - this applies to ToSD and other theories of memory, cognition, stuff like Freud's Psychodynamic Theory (which we know is not rule of fact but definitely has its merits) that we understand that theory is often more of a hand wave and a brush stroke that is 'close enough' and 'the best we got'. When we talk about psychological theories, there is a much louder inherent 'its probably incomplete and possibly wrong but its what we think currently' than hard science's "we might have some details wrong and it might be an oversimplification but it works for basically everything thus far"

And that is where the problem with comparing it across is a bit of an issue. Hard science theories are "theories" in the sense that while they predict basically everything accurately thus far, there is an asterisk around "may be incomplete or too simplified, but this really works for almost everything tested and if something were to not work on it, it would be a revolutionary discovery and make a lot of professions heads burst" where as soft sciences theories are "theories" in the sense that they are suggestions on how really confusing and difficult concepts to understand and describe objectively work and as a result, it could be widely wrong, but its a solid step in the right direction to getting SOMETHING close to the truth of what is being studied.

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" because yeah, people who just brush it off as a fandom or whatever are in the wrong - it is absolutely backed by science and to discredit it like its a joke is absolutely insulting to the people that spent their life researching and trying to treat it and the information that went into it. Most research tends to agree with it - but personally I actually knew one of the largest name people who researched childhood trauma and memory issues (not going to state her name cause it might dox me some, but those in the know might know; she made it so a lot of people who took their childhood sexual abuse memories to court actually be taken seriously cause she provided sufficient evidence that children DO NOT make that shit up) cause I went to the university she worked at, and when I mentioned the theory of structural dissociation she honestly held back a soft scoff cause the theory itself is based on A LOT of assumptions that are not founded in itself by a lot of neuroscience and neuropsychology and assumes a lot (my commentary not hers: such as the existence of consciousness (which is a really really interesting deep dive)) that to her it was kinda a joke.

That of course is to note that she is in the RESEARCH focused field of developmental psychopathology and not so much the CLINICAL field - so inherently her perspective and view is going to be a lot more critical on how the theory is built up and based on research and less on how well it practically applies. Those in clinical psychology care more about the latter half which is it's applicable usage which is where the ToSD tends to be really really good.

As a "scientific research" ToSD is kind of a joke with how much assumptions it makes within researchers - particularly the more you get into researchers that prefer to take a more "hard science like approach" - but that doesn't diminish that ToSD sets a really good practical application to treatment that even if it is wrong, it is getting the idea good enough that it can help most people well enough.

In my PERSONAL opinion, I think Model of Structural Dissociation would have been a better name - particularly since a lot of clinical research that actually references it describes is a "medical model". I can't quote it cause I honestly don't follow too much into the ToSD cause I am personally more of a research orientated than practice orientated person in terms of psychological phenomenon (and as a result I also kinda scoff at it, but affectionately cause I respect that it is a solid model, just a shitty theory) I honestly think its only called "Theory" of structural dissociation cause thats what it was called on the Haunted Selves Book.

I might not be far enough in my education cause I've never actually taken a dedicated class on modern research on DID or anything, but ToSD isn't actually in most textbooks or anything or really necessarily brought up as a theory really much of anywhere - stuff like skinner and freudian theory are but I don't think anyone in the research field actually takes it as a THEORY.

HONESTLY, now that I'm not rambling about psychology in general, its a really DOGSHIT theory if it claims to be one, but is an excellent model. The thing with models is that they are meant for treatment and navigating / describing how complex systems work and less about being correct.

*was so distracted on explaining differences in understanding research that they never thought about the question itself or to simply just review what current researchers were saying about the concept at hand specifically to see that a large majority literally just call it a model rather than a theory because it HONESTLY is a model*

I'm sorry if this is confusing, I'm literally just infodumping and this is meant to be informative but I'm putting the professionality of infodumping so take this with a bit of a grain of salt as well XD

yikes looks like folks are vagueposting about our tosd post…

we said ourselves in the post that we are not a researcher or professional by any stretch of the word, and never claimed to be! we’re just frustrated with people dismissing the tosd because it’s “just a theory” as if it being a theory makes it easily dismissible.

honestly we wish folks who had issues with our posts would reach out to us about them and let us know where we went wrong… rather than just vagueposting about us ;-; we’re very open to being corrected and want to educate ourselves to the best of our ability! we participate in syscourse so we can have discussions and conversations, not so we can just flaunt our (apparently nonexistent) knowledge!

i guess our question then becomes… if the theory of structural dissociation isn’t actually a scientific theory, then what is it? why is it called a theory if it isn’t one? and is it wrong to compare theories to each other?

like we understand that the tosd is relatively new (with the haunted self published in 2006) and the foundations still need to be built upon. we aren’t saying that the tosd and the theory of evolution are the same thing lol. we just wish that the tosd would be treated as a viable scientific concept rather than a fandom or some nebulous thing with no real-world implications.

here’s our original post if anyone is interested - we’re always learning and growing, and want to do better in the future!

[fatalism-and-villainy]

I keep thinking about the concept of saturation, in a social sense - and I'm borrowing that term from the concept of polysaturation from the poly community, i.e. being maxed out of the number of relationships one can have. @coldwind-shiningstars once used the concept of "slots" to articulate the same concept in the context of friendships, rather than specifically romantic relationships - their sense was that people often had a set number of "friendship slots" for in-person and online friendships, and that sometimes they hadn't been able to get close to people because those people already had their friendship slots all filled up. 

The thing is, when it comes to these concepts of saturation, and having a set number of personal relationships one can have - I don't think I have that? Which feels odd to say, because I've always thought of myself as very introverted, and I need a lot of alone time. But I don't think there's ever been a time in my life when I've felt as though I'd had too many friendships, and didn't have the time or emotional energy to get close to a new person. I can understand not having enough time or energy to go to social events or hangouts, sure - see above re: alone time. But not to add new people? That's hard for me to understand. 

I think part of this might be that I'm a very textual person, and I'm fine to establish a friendship with someone that's partly based on in-depth texting, even if it's someone in my area that I can also see in person (though my capacity for this did take a hammering during the pandemic, unfortunately). And I've had friendships fail to take off because the other person just wasn't good at texting, and without that conduit, it's hard for me to know how to connect more in person (if we're not already in the same spaces). 

Another part is just the fact that I realized at a certain point a few years ago that I needed to initiate and be more open to interaction and connection, because I was a very lonely person. And even though I have many more friends and am much less lonely (and have expanded my definition of friendship and the role it plays in my life, which helped me develop more realistic expectations), I'm not entirely sure I've reached the point I want to be at, or that I've fully outrun that fear I used to have. I suspect people who naturally accrue lots of friends, or who are in big friend groups, might be more prone to the problem of saturation, and be more likely to realize that they're happier with fewer friends. 

And when it comes to romantic relationships - well, of course I've never dated before, so I don't necessarily have a good evidence-based concept of what I want there. But what "dating" means to me, I think, is kind of an extension of friendship - a way of having fun and hanging out with a person. I'm not really interested in relationship escalators, especially as a mandatory framing of a relationship (rather than letting increased closeness and commitment develop over time, as one would do in a friendship). And while I do like living with another person, and having someone to come home to, I'm not sure I would want such a person to be the same person I was dating. So it's also hard for me to see how I could have a cap on people I was dating, for similar reasons. 

[words-writ-in-starlight]

where's the essay op

Okay so bayonets.  I don't know why I ever pretend that I want to talk about anything but military history and battlefield medicine.  I checked all my sources in the waiting room of a doctor's office so you're just going to have to trust me because they are Gone.  I’m pretty sure this can all be found on a few Wiki dives, though.

First of all, to recap, let me clarify a common misconception.  The triangular bayonet was NOT outlawed in the 1949 Geneva Convention, nor any future revisions—as it was originally a musket weapon, it was fading out of use by World War II and the subsequent Convention.  However, you'll notice that I opted to use to word "violates" rather than "were banned by," which is a fine semantical hair to split and, I suppose, debatable.  Most bayonets were not explicitly banned in the GC, in that there is not an article in the GC saying you can't use them.  However there IS an article in the GC, adopted from the earlier 1899 Hague Regulations, stating that it is prohibited to "employ weapons...of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" (originally part of Article 23 of the HR, now Article 35 of the GC, expanded in 1977).  Personally, as someone who knows a lot about how a lot of weapons impact the human body, I think that is a more expansive statement than most people would expect, and should be treated accordingly.  Regrettably I do not work for the UN.

Point is, triangular blades specifically are known to cause wounds that are difficult to heal, highly prone to infection, and extremely likely to never fully recover, while also having a relatively low mortality rate.  This is because the axes of a triangular wound, which is shaped sort of like a Y, make it very hard to stitch closed, and very easy for any "twisting" of the blade to create a large hole with ragged edges that's functionally impossible to stitch closed.  As an added bonus, because of the way scar tissue forms, it's possible for one "line" of a triangular wound to pull open other parts of the puncture while the scar tissue forms and pulls on the skin.  Even by standards in the 1700s, triangular bayonet wounds were phenomenally likely to infect and consistently difficult to repair, and modern medicine has made only limited improvements on that situation.  As such, cases have been made that certain types of bayonet/triangular blades in general are therefore in violation of this article, despite not being explicitly banned.

(Side note: yes, the American military violates the GC on the regular.  The American police violate the GC.  I am excruciatingly aware.  The GC is interesting reading generally, but especially if you're an American and you ever feel like being appalled for a few hours.)

Anyway, with that covered again, let's actually talk about the development of triangular bayonets, which might've been out of use by the time of the GC but DEFINITELY violated that article in a big way for a good two centuries prior and are also a fascinating insight into the fact that humanity, as a whole, is really determined to do things in the dumbest way possible.

The first thing you have to understand about bayonets is that they were originally invented as a way to integrate pikes with guns, not knives or even swords.  When arquebuses and muskets were first invented, you were lucky to get a rate of fire around one round per minute, and you still had to protect your army while they were reloading their clunky black powder guns.  Therefore, most infantries between like...the invention of the gun and the late 1600s were comprised of soldiers equipped with muskets, and also soldiers equipped with pikes (a type of spear).  The idea of a bayonet was "what if we put a pike and a musket TOGETHER and then we could give everyone THAT and have way more guns in our army because we don't need pikemen anymore." Which makes sense when you think about it.

What makes less sense is that the initial effort at bayonets was something called a plug bayonet.  You'll never fucking guess what these geniuses (first record is Chinese infantry around-abouts 1600, popular use of plug bayonets recorded in Europe around the 1630s) figured out for their first try at a bayonet.  Here's a hint!  There's not a lot of places on a gun where you can "plug in" a sword. 

Obviously plug bayonets did not exactly catch on as a fantastic solution, because these guns were either a gun OR a short spear and neither was especially good at their jobs.  A bunch of battles hinged on this problem. Which brings us to the end of the 1600s, when English forces in Scotland got absolutely obliterated by a bunch of Highlanders in 1689 because the English were so busy trying to fix their bayonets that the Highlanders literally just charged them, fired one volley, and cut them down with swords and axes. The English took that one very personally (which, you know what, fair, it was a humiliating defeat, especially since the Highlanders had been using that tactic very successfully for a while) and started developing better bayonets.

This is where we get to socket bayonets, AKA what you would probably recognize as a bayonet from a period TV series or a museum.  Socket bayonets have a metal sleeve that gets attached around the barrel of a gun (in this case a musket), so that you can still theoretically use the damn gun while it's attached.  There were problems with the development of socket bayonets (notably, it took a while to figure out how to keep them from falling off the gun during battle), but overall they worked much better and armies started getting rid of pikemen. This was also when bayonets were shortened to a little over a foot, which isn't really important but made them much easier to maneuver.  Socket bayonets were the European order of the day by the early 1700s, and mostly came in three flavors: single edge (like a knife), double edge (like a sword), and spike (like a...spike).  There were pros and cons to all of these (single edge wasn't great for stabbing, spike was ONLY good for stabbing, and double edge was kind of okay at stabbing and kind of okay at slashing), but most importantly, both single and double edged bayonets were fragile.  The heads of polearms were shaped on patterns other than "sword on a stick" for a reason, and it's because "sword on a stick" is not very sturdy.

Triangular bayonets were the solution to this problem.  Triangular bayonets are basically a single piece of metal creased long-ways, with both edges sharpened and the top fluted to form a third edge at the crease.  This makes a much more resilient weapon than a flat blade, because a twisting motion doesn’t risk snapping the blade in the middle.  It also means that now you have three edges, and human nature is to figure “more knife better.”

And don’t get me wrong, as a weapon of war, the triangular bayonet was a great one.  It was introduced in the 1710s and then got used regularly to maim and terrify through the start of the 1900s.  In fact, the triangular bayonet worked so well that it only began to get phased out of use when the style of war itself started to change dramatically during the World Wars.  When warfare was focused on pitched battle (your old school “two armies enter, one army leaves” kind of warfare), the emphasis of a bayonet was on extending the reach of a gun.  A bayonet lets a soldier have a weapon for closer range combat, where a gun—especially a long gun like a musket—is not as effective.  So when you had two armies on the field and a bayonet was first and foremost a way to keep the enemy at least gun-length away, longer bayonets were better.  

But World War I was the advent of trench warfare, which was a terrible idea and also meant that a long weapon, like a gun with an extra foot and a half of sword on top, was much, MUCH harder to work with.  Either fighting took place in no man’s land, where you probably weren’t going to get close enough to use a bayonet anyway, or in a trench, where a weapon as long as you were tall was just impossible to work with.  

(If you know anything about WWI, you’re probably asking me about bayonet charges right now, specifically the concept of “going over the top.”  Contrary to every media representation of WWI ever, “going over the top” of a trench faded out of use pretty quickly.  It was a type of bayonet charge where the soldiers in ONE trench fixed their bayonets and tried to charge no man’s land in an effort to reach the OTHER trench, but it was basically never effective because no man’s land was often heavily trapped and strafed with gunfire and mortar shells.  Also, it was the kind of battle tactic that military history books talk about with phrases like “total annihilation of whole attacking battalions,” so that’s the kind of mortality rate we’re talking about here.  The Battle of the Somme featured a good number of bayonet charges by the British, for context, so people learned and started using other tactics.)

So, since bayonets were only useful in trenches, suddenly everyone was scrambling to shorten bayonets and guns so that their soldiers could get ANYTHING DONE.  And THEN soldiers started admitting that they were literally taking their bayonets off their guns and using them as knives instead, because for trench fighting that was way more useful, and so everyone just decided fuck it, let’s just make bayonet-knives, which is why WWI weapons with bayonets usually look, very literally, like someone duct taped a short knife to the front of a gun.  This was the start of the decline of the triangular bayonet, a full two hundred years after it hit the battlefield, which is a frankly spectacular run for any weapon since the invention of the gun.  Triangular bayonets held on, here and there, through part of WWII, but they were almost entirely gone by the time of the Geneva Convention being ratified in 1949.  However, spike or knife bayonets are still issued to many armies as a weapon of last resort to this day, although they aren’t often used in actual attacks.  Now we have bigger, worse weapons for actual attacks.

 TL;DR, the development of bayonets went like this:

“What if we put a pike ON a gun?  …oh wait, you still want to use the gun?  Sucks to be you, I guess.”

“What if we put a sword on the gun instead?  Then we could put it somewhere where we can still use the gun!  Good luck keeping it on there, though.”

“What if we actually made something designed to get put on a gun and stab people effectively?  Like, what if we designed something with that purpose in mind?  Perhaps?” SMASH CUT TWO CENTURIES

“Well if you’re just gonna take your bayonet off and stab someone with it anyway, can we just go back to giving you knives, then?”

And now you’re caught up on all the dubiously successful ways we’ve tried to mutilate people with a knife-gun.