#i am not surprised at all that they would say shit about cluster b disorders. that person has genuinely always been so strange ���

[stinkrascal]

oh jeez i could say so much right now but i wont. i'll be nice

[self-loving-vampire]

@melancholygirlfrien said:

I have a Child Development Associate so I am literally professionally certified to tell you that yes, taking children and babies to places so they can learn how to function and see that they're a part of a world bigger than they are, is important to their social, emotional, and language development. It helps everything from motor skills to social skills and cognition Just because you find babies' cries annoying doesn't mean parents are selfish just for wanting to take their children outside. Children shouldn't be raised indoors all day in a fucking bubble because that's how developmental issue happen. If a child is isolated they can develop serious issues.

Note that there are more appropriate places you could be taking them to, for starters. Places where people can avoid the noise more easily and where it might be less disruptive.

Like, you have options beyond “indoors 100% of the time” and the kinds of locations I mentioned in my first reply to you. Like, you can still take them to places like parks, malls, and other locations where it would be less of an issue.

No it's not fucking self centered for a parent to take their baby outside because they're just doing what they gotta do , not everyone can afford child care especially people of lower socioeconomic status. There are many single mothers who have no other option but to take their baby everywhere because that's what their situation calls for. The only fucking person being self-centered and not considering the struggles of other people is you.

Again, notice the kinds of places I mentioned in my post before going off on straw arguments. My complaints about others involve places like restaurants, the movies, and airplanes.

These are not only places where a child crying can ruin other people’s experience and be inescapable, they’re also places where many of the people there are not poor and had other options for what to do about their situation.

Like, I would think differently about someone who brought their baby to a clinic’s waiting room (for example) as opposed to a flight to Miami.

Black and white thinking is not going to help you understand what other people’s issues are.

No I wouldn't tell someone whos scared of my snake to go suck it, even though I would have every right to. Like I said I understand when people have phobias of certain animals. There might be people out there who have a phobia of dogs but does that mean people who take out their dogs are being selfish and don't care about people who have trauma/phobia associated with dogs?? Fuck no, those people are just being responsible dog owners and doing what every dog owner should which is take their dog out for a walk. Just bc some people might be annoyed by their dog doesn't mean they're being self-centered and bad people.

And yet there are places where they probably should not take their dog because it would be either inconsiderate or outright banned, and if they insisted on doing so then they probably are self-centered.

Like, if you want to take your babies out for a walk or something around the house that’s not nearly as bad as what I was actually complaining about.

your life isn't gonna be fucking ruined from hearing a baby cry in public. The most you'll be is annoyed and anxious for a few moments and then it will go away. Suck it up.

Did I ever say anyone’s life was going to be ruined? Why do you make everything some kind of exaggerated strawman?

Here are some exact quotes you already forgot about:

“It’s not the worst thing but it’s still kind of inconsiderate“

“No one said anything about stopping them or suspending their rights in any way, only that noise is annoying (and especially painful to autistic people with sensory issues).“

“Um… what do you think I do? Activate Karen Mode and go bother the parents about it? Nah, I just judge them silently. I am free to complain as much as I want on the internet though.“

So:

1- I am not treating it as a huge, life-ruining thing, just a sort of dick move. Like people who cut in line or something.

2- I do “suck it up” when it happens but am 100% allowed to complain about it online anyway.

Tbh I can't keep talking to you, I think people like you should be ushered into a dark warehouse and humanely put down.

Empathy-havers are so humane they advocate genocide against autistic people apparently, over a post about baby noises being kind of annoying. I’m not even surprised because you all keep doing this every single time without even thinking about how it sounds.

Maybe you should think about how the things that make children annoying (they're egotistical, they have a hard time empathizing with  others because of their self-centered world view) are traits that you have yourself. The difference is that most children develop and grow out of that self-centered world view

If you actually read my post, the primary annoyance I pointed out was that they were Portable Sensory Hell. I made no comment about their ability to feel empathy and actually find low empathy people significantly less annoying than others so that’s clearly not it.

You're a child in my eyes tbh. Your mentality is childish. Say what you will but I would like to remind you again, at one point in your life, you were a baby, and you shit your pants, and someone had to clean up all that shit after. Or else you wouldn't be here.

You know, if you’re going to go around advocating genocide over a post about people not liking baby noises then I am 100% sure my literal child self was morally and intellectually superior to your current self already.

You know what would make me respect you more? If you owned up to the fact that you judging parents when their babies cry is a result of your low empathy and self-centered world view. I would respect you SO much more if you just said "Yo, straight up. I'm just a selfish person. I know babies can't help that they cry and it's not the parents fault but I straight up do not like that shit. I have low empathy as a person and therefore I can't really bring myself to care about babies, children, or the parents and their situation so I just judge parents because I want to. Because their kid is annoying the shit out of me. I don't care about the reasoning tbh I'm just kind of an asshole."

> Implying I care about whether or not you respect me.

Also, this isn’t even correct. At my current point in life I pretty much never have to interact with babies in any way, if I was completely selfish then it would not matter to me now whether or not people bring their crying babies into airplanes and the like. The issue just isn’t a very significant part of my life.

But the thing is that while I am low empathy that does not change the fact that I value other people’s well-being and know that crying babies make their lives worse even if just in a small, temporary way.

The kinds of parents I am complaining about don’t even think about that.

You know you're just incompassionate. So be a self-respecting sociopath and own up to that shit, please, I would respect a stone cold evill mf  SO much better than a little weasel who tries to give excuses as to their own egocentric way of thinking.

I am a narcissist, not a sociopath. Of course, if cluster B disorders are just standard insults to you then you might think all low empathy conditions are the same.

Furthermore, you haven’t shown that you understand anything at all about what low empathy conditions are actually like.

Also I find it really telling that you would prefer unrepentant evil selfishness over someone who merely understands and sides with others who are negative about loud babies. Like, actual morality is not something you seem to be valuing here.

"iF I wErE iN tHaT sItUaTiOn I wOuLd jUsT sTaY hOme!" No you wouldn't you stupid bitch because parents have to go out to buy groceries, and run errands like every other adult.

Again, you seem to be treating all of “outside the house” as an interchangeable space with the exact same norms.

Like, do you realize how it might be different to bring your child out for necessary grocery shopping than to bring them to a restaurant or the movies? Do you really think I would treat those things as exactly the same?

MOST parents, especially working-class, poor, or single parents, DON'T have that option, as I already stated. And you are showing a clear lack of regard for people who are in a tougher situation than you for judging parents when their babies annoy YOU. You are literally not putting yourself in their shoes at all bc you have no idea of even half the shit parents have to do in order to make ends meet and look after their babies.

Oh, I am well aware of how having babies will multiply your suffering, especially if you’re poor. It’s precisely why I’m never having any! 

I understand it’s a huge pain and people with children are always going on and on about how their lives became significantly more miserable as a result of it.

I think you should honestly love that screaming toddler on the plane because in a few decades she might grow up to become the nurse who will take care of you when you're old and ill.

This argument just doesn’t work one way or another. If the baby is going to help me then I will be grateful once that actually happens, not based on a hypothetical so unlikely I might as well live my life not considering it.

[crystaloregarden]

wHOOPS I AM A DAY LATE, BUT- i’m gonna be doing the 31 days of bpd challenge, starting today, adding onto this post via reblogs once per day.

for those of you who don’t know, i have borderline personality disorder: a cluster b personality disorder that affects one’s ability to have varied or middling emotions. an easy-to-digest infographic can be found here, and it’s easy to do your own research using google if you have any other questions. it’s extremely highly stigmatized, to the point where the first therapist i had actually refused to diagnose me with it, because i was “too nice”, implying people with bpd are always mean and therefore easy to spot. yikes.

these questions are more personally focused, so they will, obviously, reflect my own personal experience with bpd, but keep in mind that everyone with the disorder has different experiences & mine are not the "universal” bpd experience. mine is very severe, so it will differ from those who suffer more lightly from it, etc.

without further ado, the questions!

--

day 1 & day 2: think of the last time you were really angry. why was that? + why did your last friendship end?

day 1: think of the last time you were really angry. why was that?

last night, because one of the higher-ups at work i hate the most unexpectedly came in during close, around 9pm (when he usually only works the morning so i was shocked & unhappy to see him) and he immediately started nitpicking me, as he does, after i had just worked a double shift and had been working since 8am. i got so mad my hands went numb, which is pretty common, though i managed not to mouth off to him TOO much.

honestly this isn’t uncommon. i get extremely pissed off at things at the drop of a hat, probably around a dozen times a day, and i always feel exhausted afterwards since i can’t control it. i know how not to act on the anger since i know it’s irrational, of course, but yeah- if anyone knew the amount of times i suddenly felt like destroying something or hitting someone, they’d probably want me locked up. i don’t feel repressed anger about things, though, that’s the thing- i experience it in flashes, so once 30 minutes go by i’ll probably have forgotten why i was even angry in the first place.

i think something people could stand to understand a bit better is this: emotions, by themselves, unacted on in someone’s head, are not immoral. they can’t be- they’re brain chemicals automatically triggered by the senses and are dependent on an individual brain’s chemistry and development. someone who thinks violent thoughts to themselves because of a mental illness, or because of trauma or anger issues, is nowhere NEAR on the same level as someone who actively hurts people through their autonomous actions. there are very few actions that are truly “instinctual”. someone jerking or jumping suddenly because you elbowed them by surprise is acting on instinct, someone claiming “i couldn’t help it, i lost control!” after consciously assaulting someone is a lying sack of shit. remember that.

day 2: why did your last friendship end?

i... don’t even know whether or not to count this anymore, but my qpp cut all contact with me after a fight where i pointed out that they were blindly following their best friend/ex/lover/whatever (who is in their 20s) into having pointless internet drama with a minor. i said i needed some space from them for a little bit, and i suddenly found myself blocked everywhere. this honestly happens WAY more than i would like. i either lose people to simply drifting apart (usually fandom friends when i switch fixations) or i’m best friends and inseparable with someone for years and years and then i wake up one day and find they’ve completely cut me off without so much as a warning. so... yeah. needless to say, i don’t really believe in “best friends” anymore. there’s either people in your life, or people out of your life, and you just gotta enjoy who you have while you still have them.

[lawful-evil-novelist]

Why Joker Getting Character Development Might be a Good Thing

Disclaimer: This is a long rant/essay primarily based on opinion and I am a bitter salt pile so if you disagree in any way that’s fine, this is just my personal take on things and you are free to disagree.

One of the few things that tends to irk me about DC Comics, particularly Batman, is that villains are not permitted arcs or development, save for a select few “choice” villains, and even these villains are severely restricted in what options are available to them in terms of character development.  Selina Kyle is allowed development, but only if it revolves around Batman or a member of the Bat Family.  Harley Quinn always has development in the comics, but it always follows a predictable pattern.  Even in Bombshells, to some extent, Harley grows independent of the Joker in some manner.

Harleen Quinzel is not Harley Quinn until she meets the Joker, and she cannot be with Pamela Isley until she learns to let him go.

And I think this is a problem we see with all villains in the DC canon but I think it’s especially prominent in Batman villains.  The Gotham Rogues Gallery is not allowed to stray outside of the very narrow boxes set out for them, and development they are allowed must remain inside these boxes.  Characters like Harley, Selina, Pamela, and Edward are allowed to dip into antihero territory, but only in predictable ways that the writers know the audience is comfortable with.

And I think this makes it so their most recognizable villains feel stale and overused.  They don’t stray far from their usual traits because they aren’t allowed to change in any way.

And for anyone’s money, I think we all know the biggest culprit of this lack of development and incessant use in spite of it.

Now I’m no Joker fan; I think the character is boring, overused, and frankly, an asshole.  But here’s the thing: he doesn’t need to be. Of all the plots they’ve stuffed Joker into, I’m surprised they’ve never tried to give him an actual arc.  He’s usually the bearer of an arc, usually one for Batman and is always the main bearer of Harley’s arcs, which I find particularly annoying because Harley’s development ends up centering around a man and it becomes often her only motivation to change.

Joker does not change, no matter the story. Even characters like Harvey Dent and Jonathan Crane change slightly, though the change often skews negative and they tend to get worse as a result (a different problem for a different day. Even as we laud Lego Batman’s Joker, we need to keep in mind that he does not change in that story.  The context makes it clear he has always been obsessed with Batman, and always will be, and the events of the movie do not alter his obsession, and in the end, it is used in Bruce’s favor.

This, in large part, is why Joker feels stale and overused, besides that he is forced into stories where other villains belong.  And though he is regularly used, he is not used to his full potential.  Writers pick him thinking he’s an easy write but he isn’t.

Now I’m not going to stand on a pulpit and list all the symptoms of ASPD to convince all of you Joker has it because, let’s face it, you’ve all heard it before and at this point it’s just part of the culture, but I don’t think that ASPD is an accurate summation because it has some caveats.  ASPD does not apply to conditions where the patient has another Cluster B disorder, and Joker’s “symptoms” as it were, fit closer to BPD than ASPD and a big portion of that is how he interacts with the world and how he himself acts, and in any case, I’m not here to give a sermon on how he has BPD instead of ASPD either. Diagnosing Joker doesn’t get us any closer to my point and it doesn’t make him any easier to write.

And my point is this: Joker doesn’t just need to be used less, though he certainly does.  What Joker desperately, desperately needs is to change and grow as a character.  Why? Well aside from not having the most boring thing that has ever dried your brain to a fine powder.  Joker is hard to write, I’m not going to sit here and tell comic writers or fanfic writers that giving him a character arc is easy because it isn’t.  Joker is a tough character to write.  He is simultaneously a man who is too far gone to care that anyone is getting hurt or killed in his jokes and a man who has lost everything and now desperately wants to die.  That isn’t easy to write and I think people tend to trivialize just how hard it is.

Or they do stupid shit like make him tear off his own face like that is exactly how a suicidally depressed person self-mutilates.

Yeah that’s totally an inoffensive portrayal of self-harm.

There’s probably a resounding question of why I should care.  Joker’s a manipulative, abusive asshole he shouldn’t be allowed redemption, right?  Well, I think there is a point where you need to look back and wonder: why is Joker so boring compared to the other rogues?  Because he really is painfully boring in comparison.

I think it’s because he doesn’t feel like a real person.  With Ed, Harley, Jon, Pam, Selina, we relate to them because they have personalities that feel organic and feel human.  We relate to Jon because we have all been scared children in situations we could not escape, we relate to Pam because we have all had scars that did not heal correctly, we relate to Ed because we have all been told at one time or another that we were not worth the time or effort to be loved.  None of us have been Joker.  None of us know, much less understand, what’s going on in his head. We know Jon is angry at the world, and we know it is because when he was suffering and scared no one did anything to stop it.  We know Pam is angry too, and we know she is angry because when she needed help to heal, help was not given.  We know Ed is overcompensating, and we know he is doing so because he desperately wants to prove that he is worthy of love.  We know and understand these characters and their motivations, they are human.

They are also not extremely offensive portrayals of mental illness and are seldom used as such.  If it sounds like I’m bitter about that face thing in New 52, it’s because I am, moving on.

When people call Joker a monster, it is accurate in that he is not humanized.  Even his very explicit wish to die is usually telegraphed by other characters.  The only time he mentions it is in probably the most human we’ve seen Joker in any comic: The Killing Joke.

And frankly this is one of my favorite comics involving the Joker because while I still didn’t relate to him, he still felt human to me.  And further, he recognizes, in this moment, that he has gone too far. This is something I think is important to recognize about Joker: he still has standards, he still knows there is a point of no return, he just doesn’t care.  And he doesn’t care because he wants to die.

But I don’t think Joker’s wish to die should be fulfilled, though I would like to see it explored, I’d actually really like to see Joker come to terms with the person he’s become, because he clearly hasn’t.  If he is so desperate to die that he purposely pushes at everyone’s threshold in an attempt to be killed, even Harley’s.

Harley even recognizes it. Can you imagine reading a comic where the main conflict is not dealing with someone who is mentally ill but someone who is mentally ill coming to terms with the fact that, no matter what, they can never be the same person as the one they were before their mental illness occurred?  That would be interesting!  In fact, I’m not even sure we’ve explored this with Bruce.  The only people who have come to terms with living with a mental illness and never being able to return to the people they were beforehand are Jon and Pam, and this acceptance is always before they ever become rogues, because they know what they went through and the changes they underwent as a result are how they’re coping, and that they can’t just pretend it never happened because that doesn’t change the fact that it did.

And keep in mind coming to terms with being unable to return to the time before the onset of mental illness is not the same as rejecting that time altogether, because that’s what Ed does and we know this is a coping mechanism and we know it isn’t healthy.  Ed does not like the person that came before the Riddler, Harley and Joker want to return to it so desperately they’re rejecting themselves now, and Jon and Pam, while not happy with the way they are now, know they cannot go back.  And the irony is that they both know they need to move forwards, and almost never do. Jon and Pam are frequently static in the comics, because the status quo is god and we must have a fear-obsessed delusional psychiatrist and a man-hating plant lady on the evil side because there is no way two people that have come to terms with themselves and are at best chaotic neutral types can ever do anything good and if they do it is with the aid of someone else because they are helpless to change on their own despite being intelligent human beings.

And if you are wondering, I am bitter about this too and it’s making me get off track.

The thing is, Joker has never been in a situation where his hand has been forced.  He has never been made to do something he doesn’t want to do and he has never had a single moment where, when the chips were down, he had a chance to definitively say: “I don’t want to die.  I want to be in control.  I want to do better.  I want to live.”

And I think he hasn’t because comic writers have never placed him in situations like that for whatever reason.  I think, and this is just speculation, that they are afraid that there is no situation you can put Joker in where he would, without a shadow of a doubt, say “I don’t want to die.”  There is an underlying feeling that Joker has no situation where he will look inward and realize that it is his fault he’s the way he is and he is the one that needs to change.

But no human is that stubborn or immovable, no human is so averse to change that they will never do so.  Somewhere out there, there is a situation where Joker would willingly change or even turn his life around, I can dare to dream of a world where instead of the Joker we have the Jokester because of character development instead of an alternate universe.

Especially since Jokester was summarily given the shaft in the Countdown series and we can add that to the third thing in this rant I am extremely bitter about.

Here’s the thing, there is something admirable about comics that address suicidal depression in a respectful and serious manner, there is a reason the Deadpool comic addressing it is so well-loved.

And the thing is, there are Gotham Rogues who suffer from depression, whether suicidal or not, and Joker is one of them.  It is perfectly fine to address suicidal depression with a character your audience will never see again, but I feel like it might also be accepted, or even welcomed, to have a character who suffers from suicidal depression address that it isn’t just a one-shot character, but one you always see.  Joker works for this too because it brings something up: you can be happy and still suffer from depression, these things are not incompatible.

I think Joker developing as a character is almost, in its own way, vital to the character as a trope. In continuities as long and extensive as Batman’s, characters need to grow and change to keep them from growing stale or feeling overused.

Though it might help to not use the characters so fucking much.

And that is the end of my bitter angry rant on the subject.