#i can be normal in person but over text? there's just so many less context clues to work with so it's just hard

[ikyw-t]

something fun i like to is download a dating app and then proceed to do nothing but swipe 'no' on anyone but especially everyone with who i think i might actually be able to carry a conversation bc that seems like a lot of pressure and i wanna meet new ppl but feel incredibly awkward just thinking about it

[ouroboros-hideout]

Russian Girl

Alyona "Aon" Petrova 02/???

I am just a simple Russian girl I've got vodka in my blood So I dance with brown bears And my soul is torn apart

First look at corpo!Aon. Damn. It's so weird. But I like it. Not sure about the hair yet, and finding clothes is pain. But it's something.

Mayor wall of text and brainrot (and probably spelling mistakes) under the cut. Enter at your own risk.

I think I only talked about this AU in a Wip Whenever 200 years ago. So the core to it is basically that Aon never left Moscow to join a clan of Nomads and was more or less forced to stay and start her career at SovOil as an engineer.

She later meets Kurt through some "lucky" circumstances and leaves with him to America to work for Militech, fights in Unification War at his side and takes part in the creating Dogtown (what a delulu AU).

So far so good. I really like this "What if" -scenario a lot, but still had some difficulties with it which, I think, I know have solved.

Thanks to Ves and Olly for the insane Vlad Brainrot lately. Even if he's a sick bastard and I am still not sure why you want your precious OCs to suffer so much, but we don't shame anyone in this circus.

First thing that was a major stomache ache for me is the fact that Aon never got her "happy found family"-moments with the Nomads what is a huge part of her character developement in the main story. I know I shouldn't bother so much, since it's an AU. But I feel sorry for her, that I leave her in this golden cage.

Second thing I wasn't sure about is how she and Vlad would interact in this AU, since they would become "colleagues". They work in different departments, but they already knew each other so it would be weird, if they wouldn't have some touch points.

How to solve the issue with Aon beeing lonely in the Corpo-World: I had an idea for a person for a tiny little role in my main story for quite some time now but she always felt kind of "out of place" or "forced into the story". She (doesn't have a name yet. Just vague and blurry pictures in my head) is a Nomad in another clan as Aon, and both families have a rivalry going on. So they wouldn't have so much touch points because of bad blood. But she actually knew Aon's real father and would give her some major hints of what happened to him, after Aon's mom took her away into the big city as a lil baby girl. So I thought: why not bring her into the corpo AU. The how and why they meet shouldn't be to hard to figure out and I like the thought that Aon can get her "Nomad-Experience" through her and the stories she would tell. The feeling of freedom through a friend (or more ;) )

How to solve Vlads and Aons relationship: I decided they are something like medium-close friends. They are both huge loners, don't have many or any friends within the corporation or in general so they bonded over their loneliness. Vlad of course tried to rizz on her for quite some time, but she is resistent to his "charm". Still a very complicated dynamic. They can rely on each other, even if she is 80% of the time annoyed about anything he says or does, but it's still better than having no one around. Let's call it grumpy friends. I don't know how to put it better. And she kinda feels sorry for him, because she knows, that in his fucked up little head and heart is actually something human left, but he is unable to "get it out". For him she plays an even bigger role, besides having a normal social contact, because she knows about his little "accidents" and bodies, that need to be hidden afterwards.

I could go on with my blabbering about all of this for a lot longer but I think it's enough words for this post and I already start to lose the context and my head goes all over the place. Brainrot stronk! AHU!

Great, you made it to the end. Here's something silly for your endurance.

[queerfox-tales]

Wondering how many others have this too?

So my entire life more or less, I've hated talking on the phone. It was one of the worst things for me to do. I avoided it. Stalled. Made my mom do it as much as possible even when I wasn't a child anymore. I just couldn't stand it. Both for speaking to strangers as well as known people.

Now I was shy, autistic and with poor social skills. And people said that I had issues with talking on the phone due to one of those traits. I believed it. After all, it kind of made sense.

Over time, I worked on my social skills and my shyness. Both for myself and to have an easier time maybe making friends. After a good decade, things have improved. I'm much less anxious in social situations. I can talk to strangers somewhat. Every context has improved... except the phone.

So that's when things seemed weird. If the reason I hated the phone was my shyness or my social skills, why didn't it change with the other two. That left my autism. But that didn't do it for me. After all, the main autistic symptom affecting it had changed.

So I began to look at my past behaviour with talking on the phone. And I realised something. I was often trying to increase the volume on my phone. Especially more recently. And I often had to ask the other person to repeat. Or I'd guess what they said way more than I liked or was used to guessing.

So now I'm like "Am I a little deaf?" Maybe hard of hearing may be more appropriate. I don't know how people feel for the terms but I've heard both for people speaking of it neutrally.

So like is it normal to not hear as well on the phone? Was it really some autistic trait or my social skills or was it just cuz I couldn't bloody hear as well as in person? Cuz I know there are stories out there of people not being diagnosed properly due to discrimination or "not being enough" of something.

In person, I can probably hear 97% of what someone says (Yes, I made up a number to try to compare soon). But on the phone, I can probably only hear 70-80% of what the person says. Like no wonder it stressed me so much.

So like is it the phone or do I actually use visuals more than one typically does to hear people?

Now I recently got a new phone. It was advertised as for elderly people. Cuz there's no internet browser. Basically, it's a basic phone. It also has features like larger font and the sound is made to better accomodate those with hearing loss. And mates, omg! I have never been able to hear so well on the phone. I won't pretend it's at 100% but I am so much more comfortable talking on the phone. Less repeating, more clarity. I still much prefer texting or other messaging but damn, it's been much nicer. So much less strain.

Anyway, so ya. Been wanting to share that for a bit now to see if anyone else has had that. By the way, my phone is a Jethro model. There's probably others but ya.

[funkymbtifiction]

those were great depictions/examples of the assertive triad. its subtle but i could see the image/head/gut differences too. if you don’t mind, do you have real life examples like that for the withdrawn triad? i imagine they’re almost the exact opposite of the assertive triad in terms of being active and proactive in the way you described since doing is repressed and i’m curious what it looks like irl for each of them!

Yeah, being doing repressed is difficult for the withdrawn triad.

The problem with giving examples is that I know of only two 4s in real life who are actual 4s (as opposed to all the 6s and 9s who think they are 4s) and no 5s outside of e-mail interactions, so it's hard for me to sum up examples when I mostly just know a ton of 9s.

I asked a 9 what doing repressed feels like the other day and he said it's never assuming that there's anything you can do to fix whatever problem is happening in your life. To him, it feels like being a passive participant swept along in events beyond his control, because to take action would feel like over-asserting himself and causing separation from others; it's much easier to go along with their agenda. But the more he does this, the more anger and resentment builds if he winds up doing things of no interest or personal benefit to him.

That being said, I'll do the best I can.

5 doing repressed -- a 5 I know had severe health problems and so he contented himself with a fantastical inner world and pushed away the outer world completely. He was an intuitive, and the more he got pulled into his dominant Ni, the less tangible reality had an affect on him in a meaningful way. Everything in it automatically became bleh in comparison to his lofty ideas and concepts. He became disdainful of people who were 'doers' instead of philosophizers. Me, and my manic energy and drive to accomplish things, he saw as 'lacking a rich inner experience.' He thought I would benefit from an hour of meditation per day, if not more. He also loathed my 6ish/Neish contradictions. His N combined with his 5ish tendency to abandon reality for inner imagination meant that he did very little, even on abstract things such as a novel. 5s do not possess the push that tells them they are ready; they are always refining, or learning more, or thinking about it more, rather than acting on it. He had lots of lofty ideas and thoughts to share, but never got around to putting them into an accessible form that anyone else could benefit from.

4 doing repressed -- the 4's doing repression combines with their eternal frustration to create a type that often dwells in the negative things that have happened to them and expresses them in a context of drawing attention to their broken quality, but not allowing you to touch it -- and refusing to do anything about it. The idea that they could overcome their wounds and heal does not occur to them; they see their wounds as eternal, but also part of what makes them so precious and different and beautiful that you cannot understand or touch them. It makes them different. If they were to fix it, that would be denying their inner experience. Both 4s I have known where very fixated on their 'wounds' (abuse, being born with defects, growing up in hospitals, not having normal childhoods, etc). But they do not want therapy, which would be the 'doing' way to move past it. In the same way it did not occur to the 9 to fix the problem, it does not occur to a 4 to be proactive in moving beyond their trauma. Even the idea of it disgusts them. That's what normies do and need, not me.

9 doing repressed -- this is probably the most relatable example for any 9s reading, but their chronic 'laziness' in terms of doing is often what creates the conflict they were hoping to avoid. 9s think or hope that by ignoring a problem, it will go away or resolve itself, when many times, ignoring it makes it worse. Let's say a 9 receives an urgent e-mail or text that is somehow significant or soul-bearing for the other person or includes something that should be responded to quickly (maybe someone's aunt died). The 9 does not immediately answer it, because they get distracted or it seems like it would take too much effort to compose their thoughts, so they decide to do it later. The next day, they think a lot about that person, but do nothing about it. Thinking, 9s tell me, sometimes make it feel like they acted, but they didn't (daydreaming about a friend is not the same as calling them). This goes on for a while and then one day the 9 checks their e-mail again, and finds THAT e-mail still there, and looks at when it was sent and feels a small jolt of panic, because it has been two weeks! And now they are afraid to answer it, because what if this person is mad at me?? But the 9 now has to answer it, because to leave it any longer is going to make it worse. They do so with fear and trembling, masking their anxiety by being sweet or cheerful. Or maybe the 9 doesn't notice how long it's been, and answers it, and then their friend is mad at them, so the 9 gets mad about this and feels angry about others feeling entitled to an immediate response!

In each way, the doing repressed withdrawn type suffers due to their lack of assertiveness. The 5 is thinking productively in terms of analysis and objectivity, but is not being rational in their lack of ability to act on these things for their own betterment. The 4 is thinking with their feelings but not rationally, because they are preoccupied with protecting their self-image of fragility. The 9 is refusing to set their own agenda in favor of going with the flow and then creating the emotional upsets within others that they were hoping to avoid.

[traumasurvivorshelpingsurvivors]

TWs: toxic friendships, very brief mention of SA

My friends that I’ve been close with for years will upset me a lot, till I snap and say something uncalled for. I can feel myself doing it and know in the second that I’m saying it that I’m lashing out because of their previous behavior but I can’t seem to stop. Its just so frustrating bc then I’m the bad guy and I can’t ever bring up stuff they did to hurt me in the past because I’m known as the over sensitive one now.

Like for example. They often will take digs at stuff I like in a way they don’t do to others, or will have the whole group jump on me for a mistake instead of letting it go like they do for others. They also weren’t there for me when I revealed I was SAd which was incredibly hard for me to do. All these little things are so minor I can’t tell them to stop at the time without seeming ridiculous. But when I bring it up out that they’ve been pushing my buttons for months, they tell me I’ve hurt ther feelings. They make me apologize to them. Partially bc the stuff builds up and I lash out after so many weeks, and then I seem like the jerk.

I just feel so ridiculous because I can clearly see this isn’t a healthy situation but ALL of my friends like them more than they like me. I made the mistake of introducing the toxic group and a less toxic group together and now they all like each other more than me and have separate groupchats that don’t include me. This happens with all of my friendships- I am too sensitive so people leave me bc I’m unstable. I just wish it would stop. I wish someone liked me for who I was and that I could be normal and capable of interacting with people successfully and making them like me. I feel like there is something deeply broken in me because all my friendships turn out like this.

Hi anon,

I'm sorry to hear about what's been going on.

It's important to remember that other people's emotions are not your responsibility. If by explaining that someone's actions hurt you causes that person to be upset, that's not your problem and nobody should force you to apologize for that. It sounds like these friends avoid taking accountability for the harm they've caused you.

It's very likely that confronting them may not give productive results if they're unwilling to take accountability. That being said, if you feel it's worthwhile to try and have a conversation, it might be helpful to start by taking accountability for some of the things you've said that might've hurt them, but also explain your boundaries, and how you deserve respect like everyone else in the friend group.

I also want to just highlight the term reactive abuse, which is essentially when an abuser gets a rise out of you, either to paint you as an abuser or themselves as the victim. I'd especially like to highlight the quote from the text, "The longer it happens, the more the guilt and shame can influence someone’s perception, causing them to believe that they are not only being abusive themselves, but also perhaps responsible for any outbursts by the person abusing them." While I don't exactly know what you said that you felt was "uncalled for", perhaps it's actually justified in context.

It's important to enter friendships, or any relationship for that matter, knowing what your boundaries are, and being confident in asserting them if those boundaries are violated. This is one of the key ways to avoid finding yourself surrounded by toxic people who constantly violate those boundaries.

It may help to self-reflect and ask yourself what you want to do about these friends, whether it's continuing being friends with them, attempting to have an open and honest conversation with them, or going separate ways.

I hope I could help. If anyone else has any comments or suggestions, feel free to add on. Please let us know if you need anything.

-Bun

[adamsvanrhijn]

i might read John's showing up in Newport thing as a tiny bit less indicative of being Weird than you do... to me it seems sort of like, the sort of Grand Gesture impulsive thing you might do out of total desperation, especially if you consider they've been together a long time, John has been kind of repressing and hiding all his actual emotions about the situation so when he expresses them they come out in big bursts. Also, as far as we know, we never see him get input from anyone else about his relationship like friends etc so maybe its the sort of thing that makes sense in his head and its not like. Actually maybe this is not so good of an idea until he's already gone and done it

Thank you for the ask!! Love 2 read thoughts on this. And I see now after drafting this that you sent follow up ones too but i will go ahead publish this one first

I think my thoughts on that are. The Newport behavior makes sense as something to Think about doing... Many people think about things like that regardless of brainweirds. Winning an argument in the shower etc etc.

But actually doing it... especially when there are SO many steps to doing it. that is bonkers behavior. It isn't like, inherently mentally ill, like is that behavior someone without brainweirds would do—Almost certainly so. sometimes people do ridiculous things. Fully believe there are guys who do that kind of thing and would not get diagnosed with Weird.

But. and this is most important to my brainweirds headcanon. it is not something that seemed to line up with the rest of John's behavior. It came totally out of left field for viewers, everyone went nuts. Blog reviewers that commented on the plotline universally were like "this is deranged and came out of nowhere, what a guy". logistically it is just. ridiculous amount of effort to go to for a guy who is giving introverted and going with the flow in most of his screentime. like he absolutely snapped, he had been holding back and communicating extremely poorly and making assumptions that he could ignore it and it would blow over etc, but the Way that he snapped...

I think a normal person would leave it at the restaurant. well truly I think a normal person would not have gone there during the restaurant but everyone has times where emotions run high! but i think it would have been left there and then he would have had a whole argument in private when oscar got home...

instead he goes completely absolutely out of his way specifically to draw attention to how wonderful and fine his life could be without acknowledging oscar in it at all and that he can make himself more desirable than oscar and harm oscar's plans... there are So many things he could have been trying to demonstrate but all of them ultimately, I think, are intentionally to fuck with or hurt oscar or at least to Teach Him A Lesson...

oscar, someone he otherwise seems to be quite ride or die for and is extremely in love with and is i think trying to serve that With whatever bananas sentiment he is directly trying to express with his newport behavior. Like he cares deeply about oscar but is still taking ridiculous steps to get the upper hand.

That is the part that doesn't make much sense in the context of his previous & upcoming behavior and most of his s2 behavior as well, and makes more sense when you decide you want him to have brainweirds! imho.

because like I think the key thing to keep in mind when looking at My thoughts etc on my tumblr dot com blog is that I am reading John Adams as brainweird because I want to. And I want to because, a, it is historically fun, that family was chock full of brainweirds, but also because, b, I myself am brainweird. But i do think it enhances the text and is supported by his actions !!

Also something I think is Very interesting is that when I polled, most people seemed to think that John would Not feel anything resembling regret or embarrassment etc about his actions in Newport... which was not at All the lens I myself was looking through because of my own experiences. like when my brain makes me do crazy shit it is like. Absolutely cringe and bananas after it's over and i want to forget it ever happened. and in 1.09 when john is so sullen and pouty when Oscar teases him about flirting with gladys...

he's giving 1880s bipolar disorder. to me <3

[doublel27]

Thank you for this. I’ve seen some interesting takes and been curious after I enjoyed watching my silly disaster queers romp. Especially as going into it, I had seen a lot of Nick deserved better posts and then the instant I actually watched episode one I was like: Nick is wildly unethical and inappropriate and a little bit of a stalker. I mean, Mark is such a cutie pie that he still looks somewhat innocent, but like, Nick is unhinged.

Which is to say, while having not experienced this live in this fandom, I have experienced this in other fan spaces.

I feel like there is…something I have noticed the closer fannish spaces feel to the creators through social media, form parasocial relationships with actors, and the more we lose a space for solid analysis/discourse, the more people have EXPECTATIONS in all capital letters. And sometimes when those are not met, especially if it impinges upon an actor/character a person is very attached to, I feel like it can create a wild response that has nothing to do with the textual reality of what is happening in the text. Especially in a text that’s released in installments which gives people a chance to set new expectations between every part that very well may never be met because that wasn’t where the text was actually going.

I also feel there’s been a loss of nuance over time that has added to this. Particularly around issues that people already have sensitivities with: drug/alcohol abuse, sex/cheating, arguments in a relationship. Which leads to certain characters getting demonized over others. I’ve also seen this in numerous fandoms and it’s really sad.

And like specifically how that has fannish implications around any character that is less than perfect or doesn’t apologize correctly when they mess up or doesn’t have the words to process their problems with partners/friends in therapy speak when some of these characters have never considered therapy.

It’s the mess that allows them to grow and change as characters. And there’s not a right way to grow and fix your problems. These characters from Only Friends could have solved 85% of all of their issues through better communication and boundaries, but they didn’t, because of their own insecurities, hang ups and personal mess.

And that doesn’t mean you have to like them, but at least hate characters for valid reasons.

It’s funny that the two main couples ending up together makes it not queer media when I’ve got so many queer weddings under my belt in western queer media or death, so you know. I prefer this ending in committee relationships.

Only Friends reminded me a lot of Queer as Folk US, and I say that knowing I am a western viewer and that’s probably an oversimplification. But the Boston/Nick relationship reminded me a lot of Brian/Justin, where you have a younger character(Nick feels young) obsessed/stalk a very promiscuous, not interested in relationships man. And the textual treatment of Boston where all of his friends shamed him for his slutty ways and the fannish need to excuse adorable Nick for his stalking crimes, felt very in line with 2000s QaF(US), and when you consider that while the TV landscape was wildly different (2000s us vs current Thai), the political realm for queer people in 2000 US was not super far from current Thailand (marriage equality, trans rights to change birth certificate etc). As does Ray’s crush on Mew remind me very tangentially of Michael’s crush on Brian (different glomming on reasons but glomming on all the same). And both main couples ended up married at the end of the show that was considered the flagship queer show in the US.

All that to say, a show is not just the text of the show but the wider context of the media landscape, the production team, the reference material, the cultural mores (I just watched Perth Nakhun talk about My Engineer and the ways that some things that international fans label toxic are considered normal in Thai culture) and the political and social context. And then on top of that, being able to separate the text from yourself, and not feel that you are owed what you expected.

But that’s a lot of silly rambling to say thank you for answering my ask, even if I didn’t live it with this I have lived it in many others, and allowing me to ramble back at you as I have joined this space in the after. 💜

Okay, now I wanna know more about this tag. It’s been haunting me since this morning (as someone who watched and enjoyed after the fact).

honestly it’s hard to explain if you didn’t experience it, but while the show was airing there were some absolutely BONKERS takes going around to the point it genuinely made me wonder if we were watching the same show. like namely a lot of the out there ones were coming from f*rceb*ok stans, but there were some that persisted from people that were pretty neutral on ships and just tried to come off as being super great at analysis but it was so odd.

like we had people claiming mew and top never played games with each other and that they weren’t toxic at all, people thinking sand was like genuinely still into boeing, people that thought ray blowing up at sand after finding out about the deal with his dad was because he viewed sand as an object, people that thought nick was totally innocent and that boston was the actual devil despite everyone else doing the exact same shit he did in their own ways. also people that said it wasn’t real queer media because sandray and topmew ended up together which was like ?? huh

like there were so many people watching that show just half paying attention or trying to make fanfiction out of the show and calling it canon and it absolutely boggles my mind. like SO MANY people left that show angry/pissed and still hold grudges against and i’m just like. well maybe if you actually took the show for what it was instead of coming up with things that didn’t exist and expecting an outcome based on that it wouldn’t have been so disappointing

[abnormalityjoseph]

Corey Cunningham • General Headcanons

I LOVE THIS GUY

Oh. Corey. The guy that lives in my head rent free right now? Headcanons for him? Sure.

Totally not like I just finished the novel and was scrambling to throw this out there.

But as for my thoughts on the novel and the movie,,,I like some of the movie’s change in dialogue, but I also feel like the novel gives more..context/insight? Idk how to explain it. Hopefully there’s an extended cut of the movie that I can watch eventually.

•••••

- A very polite and well mannered guy.

-> Well, he tries to be even when the entire town hates him.

- You might have seen my previous post, but I am a FIRM BELIEVER that Corey has some fluffy hair AND I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL

- He’s so??? Emotionally distant towards anybody. If Yk what I mean?

-> [Most definitely terrified of getting emotionally hurt again. Especially with how everyone started to alienate him post-accident.]

-> Oh but he’s really touched starved.

- He may or may not…go a tad bit overboard. With affections towards his friends or a significant other(s).

-> I just think that he may seek physical contact from trusted friends. Platonic actions that would normally be seen a romantic (like hand holding), yk?

- He either gives awkward hugs or really good ones. Never an in-between.

- Corey would be very cautious of somehow stepping on your toes/boundaries. He doesn’t make many friends or ever had a romantic relationship (or generally made many friends—?)

-> Besides, he lost any friends he made after the accident. Because no one wanted to associate with the ‘Psycho Babysitter.’

- Totally would rant about ANYTHING because he doesn’t know social cues or when to stop talking.

-> Or— well, he would rant about his interests and then apologize because he feels like he talked too much. And feel like he just scared away any friend he could’ve made because he wouldn’t shut up.

-> It’s fine though because he would listen to his friends/romantic partner rant for as long as they want to talk. He’s a good listener!

- Might be a bit of a weird one, but I think he’d enjoy Twenty One Pilots and Wilbur Soot’s music. Dunno, just him listening to La Jolla/Saline Solution or Fairy Local makes sense in my head.

-> Also think he’d listen to Ship in a Bottle by fin, but I’ll make a different post for songs. Maybe.

- As for family.. I don’t know, his family life is definitely rough and tense as is.

-Resents his mother for being so overbearing (if that’s the right word for it), but can’t seem to fully hate her because she’s his family.

- He sometimes wonders about his dad, Wally, and if his life would’ve been better with him in the picture.

- He also doesn’t know how to feel about Ronald, his step-dad. He wasn’t really involved in his upbringing, but he’s nicer and way less of an overbearing parent in his life. Yet he still doesn’t do much to stop Joan.

- He doesn’t have social media. That’s probably a given but still.

- I feel like he wouldn’t vent to a friend by text, since Joan can snoop through his phone. He’d rather talk about his problems face to face, so the person can also share their problems as well.

- You know, he saw a psychiatrist for a bit before stopping? I’m assuming that’s the time just after the accident. It’s not a headcanon but it’s just something I noticed while I was reading the novel. It’s on, I think, page 207 on the digital version?

-> “…Mostly he just stayed at home. He had weekly trips to a psychiatrist for a while, but that was it. And this went on for months…”

- Corey may be able to tolerate terrible/mean customers, and the scrutiny or insults that any passerby could give him, but it’ll boil over eventually.

- He used to keep a diary/journal. But Joan (his mom) kept snooping and would find it. Now he can’t keep one in the house.

-> Well— maybe he hides it outside or the house. Maybe nearby the the place he works at.

- I think he doodles. Just on the corners of his notebooks. It’s kinda bad but hey, he never said he was a good artist.

- Post-Accident Corey can’t find that much enjoyment in Horror movies, especially The Thing, after well..you know.

-> Post-Michael Corey can though. He loves horror movies, and doesn’t feel that uncomfortable watching The Thing anymore. Just..fascinated. Over the concept of the creature, I mean. Shapeshifting alien…maybe a slasher movie would be more preferred for him still.

•••••

I… will write more stuff about a romantic relationship with Corey in a different post. And I’ll try to write more about post Michael Corey.

[pet-genius]

A complex and many-layered thing

But Harry’s anger at Snape continued to pound through his veins like venom. Let go of his anger? He could as easily detach his legs. . . .

This is the first Occlumency lesson. Harry is right, of course. Feelings don’t go away because you want them to. To let go of them when they’ve not been addressed or validated can be as hard as detaching a leg. And yet, it’s what Dumbledore asked Snape to do, and it’s what Snape had to do to survive the first war as Dumbledore’s spy. You have to ask yourself… how?

Trapped animals chew off their own legs to escape. It’s a sacrifice they make to survive.

If there’s one thing in a fic that turns me off it, it’s the idea that Occlumency shields are a thing, that Severus was so gifted at it because he’s got some power like Second Sight or being a metamorphagus. I always preferred to think of Occlumency and Legilimency as skills that can be learned, even if some have more aptitude for it than others.

Severus entered Hogwarts with the kind of life experience that primed him for developing these skills, and left it with even more. Occlumency is magical dissociation, a post-traumatic coping mechanism, and Severus has C/PTSD. More under the cut; tw: just general angst.

To survive, he would have had to develop a knack for telling how explosive and unpredictable people feel. Over his life, he faced at least two egregious examples of what Pete Walker, author of “Complex PTSD” calls “the Charming Bully”.

Especially devolved fight types can become sociopathic. Sociopathy can range along a continuum that stretches from corrupt politician to vicious criminal. A particularly nasty sociopath, who I call the charming bully, probably falls somewhere around the middle of this continuum. The charming bully behaves in a friendly manner some of the time. He can even occasionally listen and be helpful in small amounts, but he still uses his contempt to overpower and control others. This type typically relies on scapegoats for the dumping of his vitriol. These unfortunate scapegoats are typically weaker than him. […] He generally spares his favorites from this behavior, unless they get out of line. If the charming bully is charismatic enough, those close to him will often fail to register the unconscionable meanness of his scapegoating. The bully’s favorites often slip into denial, relieved that they are not the target. Especially charismatic bullies may even be admired and seen as great.

These would be James Potter and Tom Riddle, who are distantly related, I might add. Harry inherited the tendency to default to the fight response, but since he grew up the scapegoat and not the golden child, he never becomes quite as appalling, and after all, a fight response is normal when they are after you. Even so, Harry, who has both James and Voldemort inside him, triggers Severus to no end. It’s not a coincidence that the memories Harry sees when he is with him are largely horrible, and vice versa. There had to be happy or at least neutral or even boring moments, but these two detest each other, and they know they detest each other. Negative emotions and associated memories are so close to the surface they can’t be contained. This is the purpose of the Pensieve in this context - to contain the emotions. Since Severus knew what was in there when he pulled Harry out, my theory is that you don’t suddenly forget the memories you placed there, but rather you make them less fraught with emotions.

“Get up!” said Snape sharply. “Get up! You are not trying, you are making no effort, you are allowing me access to memories you fear, handing me weapons!”

Harry stood up again, his heart thumping wildly as though he had really just seen Cedric dead in the graveyard. Snape looked paler than usual, and angrier, though not nearly as angry as Harry was. “I — am — making — an — effort,” he said through clenched teeth.

“I told you to empty yourself of emotion!”

“Yeah? Well, I’m finding that hard at the moment,” Harry snarled.

“Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord!” said Snape savagely. “Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily — weak people, in other words — they stand no chance against his powers! He will penetrate your mind with absurd ease, Potter!”

A lot to unpack here.

“Memories you fear,” “weapons”, “easy prey”.

Fearing your own memories, viewing your own lived experiences as weapons to be used against you, being easy prey… Severus could not be speaking louder of himself here. He is the one whose mind had been penetrated with absurd ease, he is the one who handed weapons to Voldemort, and he is the one who had to do the psychological equivalent of detaching his own leg – again and again – to survive.

I’ll argue that Severus developed a fawn response and a flight response, as fighting had never really worked out for him if it was possible at all. He had at least two more people I’d describe as bullies in his life, Tobias and Lucius.

Again from Pete Walker:

These [fawn] response patterns are so deeply set in the psyche, that as adults, many codependents automatically respond to threat like dogs, symbolically rolling over on their backs, wagging their tails, hoping for a little mercy and an occasional scrap. Webster’s second entry for fawn is: “to show friendliness by licking hands, wagging its tail, etc.: said of a dog.” I find it tragic that some codependents are as loyal as dogs to even the worst “masters”.

Remember what Sirius called him? Lucius’s lapdog. Bellatrix called him Dumbledore’s pet, Dumbledore said he dangles on Voldemort’s arm, the narrative compares Snape to a rabbit in SWM and Harry compares the Half Blood Prince to a beloved pet who had gone feral (yes, this does mean a lot to me on a personal level, yes my username is not a coincidence).

His unconscious fawn response might have been his undoing, drawn as he was to figures like Lucius and Voldemort. As an adult, I think he utilized the skills he had developed to survive in order to stitch these people up, and involuntary dissociation and fawning became Occlumency, which to me, is his signature magic. Harry needed only to banish Voldemort from his mind; Severus could not settle for this. He had to give Voldemort something, and knowing how to fawn meant knowing what to give him and how to draw himself in such a light that Voldemort would believe it. We see how he wanted to be seen by the Death Eaters: a self-serving coward who sought to hide behind Dumbledore’s apron, playing his pet. But that’s Pettigrew, not Snape. Imagine the self-immolation, the self-violation, it must have taken to convince everyone that you’re an ersatz Wormtail! Snape is a man and a prince, and the text recognizes this as Harry calls him, in the end, Dumbledore’s man, the bravest man, and as that chapter is called “The Prince’s Tale”. Voldemort thought Snape was nothing more than a “good and faithful servant,” and that his last words were “My Lord”.

But Severus had an unequaled gift for Occlumency, specifically against Voldemort, because Voldemort could not legilimens what he couldn’t feel; and he couldn’t feel love, grief, guilt, and remorse. This was Severus’s secret weapon, which would not have worked against Harry - who can feel these things, and who is also Lily’s son. I can prove it. The first time Harry gets the hang of Occlumency is after Dobby dies:

His scar burned, but he was master of the pain; he felt it, yet was apart from it. He had learned control at last, learned to shut his mind to Voldemort, the very thing Dumbledore had wanted him to learn from Snape. Just as Voldemort had not been able to possess Harry while Harry was consumed with grief for Sirius, so his thoughts could not penetrate Harry now, while he mourned Dobby. Grief, it seemed, drove Voldemort out . . . though Dumbledore, of course, would have said that it was love. . . .

Harry learned to dissociate, though fortunately in a healthier way than many of us ever get to.

Of course, Snape was a good and faithful servant… to Dumbledore, which brings us to the flight response. The chapter wherein he escapes after killing Dumbledore is called “Flight of the Prince”. He should be fighting, he had just proven that he can cast a killing curse, and yet he flees. He can literally fly, in fact: He, Lily, and Voldemort are the only ones we see pulling this off.

As a child, we see this too: He copes with his home situation by reminding himself “it won’t be long and I’ll be gone.” He is thrilled when he imagines Hogwarts, his escape; he follows Lily out of the carriage instead of confronting James and Sirius head-on (which might have saved them all a lot of pain eventually). But this doesn’t work out, we see that in terrifying detail. The next attempt at an escape is joining the Death Eaters, but this too doesn’t work out.

He can’t flee anymore.

“Severus, you cannot pretend this isn’t happening!” Karkaroff’s voice sounded anxious and hushed, as though keen not to be overheard. “It’s been getting clearer and clearer for months. I am becoming seriously concerned, I can’t deny it —”

“Then flee,” said Snape’s voice curtly. “Flee — I will make your excuses. I, however, am remaining at Hogwarts.”

Shortly thereafter:

“Severus,” said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, “you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready . . . if you are prepared . . .”

“I am,” said Snape.

He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely.

He was ready, and he was prepared. He didn’t fly; he walked toward what might well have been his end with open eyes, armed only with the strength of his mind. Before Voldemort killed him, he looked pale, again, and terrified.

“I sought a third wand, Severus. The Elder Wand, the Wand of Destiny, the Deathstick. I took it from its previous master. I took it from the grave of Albus Dumbledore.”

And now Snape looked at Voldemort, and Snape’s face was like a death mask. It was marble white and so still that when he spoke, it was a shock to see that anyone lived behind the blank eyes.

I ask myself if this was the moment he realized he had been betrayed, that by giving Dumbledore a painless death he had secured his own. Maybe he wasn’t pale because he was scared; maybe he was pale because he was shocked. He was at his absolute limit, Occluding with all his might when he could have easily saved himself. The dam is about to break. All the memories he feared, all the weapons, the entire content of his heart is about to spill through - literally.

He fawned for Voldemort, the worst of all possible masters, but in the end, he was Voldemort’s undoing. All the ways in which he was weak and powerless against Tobias, James, Lucius, et al., proved to be part of goodness and source of his power. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Snape is so loved. I’ve never actually seen such love for any other fictional character. He represents a kind of courage that many of us need to get by, lest we simply become evil or give the fuck up (“I wish I was dead”). A kind of courage rarely celebrated. The more time I’ve spent in the fandom in general and in the Snapedom in particular, the more I am convinced of this.

[fcntasmas-archive]

100% agree with your thoughts on the trial. never before have i seen this kind of vitriol against a person for DV case and it's alarming to see. i did have one question about him being an abuser - i saw a post the other day talking about how in abusive relationships, the victim fighting back and standing up for themselves should not be seen as abuse since they are being manipulated. it made me rethink the way id been writing him off.. was wondering if you had any thoughts on that?

ok sorry this took me a minute but i had to pull myself together lmao so. i have made a numbered list of everything i know -- and this is everything i know because it is all publicly available, if anyone's wondering:

1) johnny depp has admitted to having substance abuse problems long before amber heard was in the picture. johnny depp has been proven to be unprofessional and violent on film sets before amber heard was in the picture. just something to keep in mind; this behavior, as much as his PR team wants to spin it otherwise, is not new, and it’s not “out of nowhere.”

2) johnny depp was proven in the court of law to have abused amber heard — and part of his defense was the reactionary defense, which was not sufficiently substantiated in court to serve to prove him innocent because there are literal paper trails proving he began abusing amber heard far before amber heard began becoming reactionary (for example, her first piece of tangible evidence dates back to 2013; his dates back to 2015, even though he claimed it happened in 2016, which - i'll explain why this matters in a second). just look at melissa benoist, who admits during her own dv testimony that she, too, started becoming violent against blake jenner, but nobody calls that "mutually abusive", nobody calls her evil and conniving; because it is an understandable and unfortunately normal reaction in abuse victims.

3) even if this is something you don’t want to believe about him (not you you, just. in general) johnny depp is objectively a shit person. he openly supports known child rapist roman polanski and serial abuser marilyn manson. he fantasized about murdering amber heard in graphic detail with his pal paul bettany. he’s been violent towards crew members, refuses to memorize his lines in projects, dated winona ryder when she was still a minor and he was about a decade older than her, and has been caught in over 80 lies throughout this entire defamation trial, none of which seem to matter to the people who want to believe him or continue to support him, because they’d rather focus on the inconsistencies in amber’s story.

4) i will say this over and over and over: amber heard’s allegations date far back than any “proof” johnny depp might be able to provide about her violence against him. even a picture he once submitted as evidence during their dv trial was dated a year before he claimed it was taken, because he tried to make it seem like it had been amber’s doing. he lost for a reason. his evidence was insufficient, his lies were many.

5) johnny depp lost his first defamation trial against “the sun” for calling him a “wife-beater”. you can take a gander as to why he lost. (here’s a hint: the judge called the term “substantially true”.)

6) every piece of evidence after the first trial (e.g, a recording of amber heard saying “i was hitting you”) is provided without context, despite the context having been provided already in the first trial, and hashtags like #AmberHeardIsAnAbuser start to show up on twitter with these context-less clips.

7) this is, quite literally, a public smear campaign. she has videos. she has voice recordings. she has photos. she has texts. she has witnesses. she had enough evidence so that she won her case against him. it’s the reason jd is suing her for defamation and nothing else — because he knows he doesn’t have enough evidence to win against her in a dv case, and he knows that whatever happens, whether or not he wins, he has successfully defamed and humiliated her. and that is evident even now by the parodies and memes and everything else happening with the public, whose sympathy leans towards depp. brands are making fun of her. fucking. snl is making fun of the trial. he’s eating this up. 

i know most of this is going to sound like i’m defending amber heard: and that’s the crazy thing. i’m not actively trying to. i’m literally just stating the fucking facts. if it reads like i’m defending her? it’s probably because the evidence sides with her. as simple as that.

make no mistake: johnny depp’s pr team is fucking amazing at their job. they know exactly what they’re doing. they’re banking on people having this opinion. they know people want to be able to like johnny depp publicly again. they’re aware of the disdain many people have towards amber heard. they know people aren’t going to bother doing their research. i have been following this case since it became available to the public, back during their first court case. i have studied the evidence, i have heard the witnesses, i see exactly what they’re doing. unfortunately, a lot of people are just tuning in to this trial and i’ll admit, none of it looks good for her. but that’s very much the point of the whole thing. whatever happens here, whether depp wins or loses, he’s won. and he’s made sure, as her abuser, that he’s humiliated her and exerted his power over her one last time.

[fuckyeahbakumatsu]

When it comes to this kind of thing I normally think really really hard about what I'm writing and then I read it over and over because I tend to be naturally bad at communicating my real feelings with things like this. For some reason last night a little voice said "eh it's fine just say what you're feeling and hit post" and for God knows why I said "sure, ok." So now that I created this mess (sorry), I'll try to clarify some things.

I don't want to push my interpretation of Souji on anyone. I swear that was never my goal even though looking back at my reblog it really sounds like I was. I've gotten a bunch of backlash in various places for my interpretation that Souji isn't the world's most sexually experienced dude. This goes hand in hand with my interpretation that he's autistic (as I also am,) which can (not always) alter how someone experiences sexual attraction. While I'm happy anytime to talk about why I interpret him as such, I've found myself desperately defending myself to people who know nothing about autism saying that my interpretation is wrong, when it is actually well backed up by canon to the point where it seems obvious to me. That said, of course, my interpretation is my interpretation. Everyone should have their own. I just got set off "f for Souji fans who want him a virgin" because my Souji headcanon defending traumatized ass read it as "anyone who thinks Souji's a virgin is fucking stupid." So yeah, I already fucked up in that sense. I've become so frustrated by needing to fight off people telling me my interpretations are wrong that I accidentally ended up sounding like I was trying to invalidate another. Not that I should have pushed you into feeling the need to provide it, but the context of Hirose Daisuke also helps because yeah. Hakumyu Souji has definitely had gay sex.

So, some corrections:

When I said "Souji literally is [a virgin] though?" I should have said "It's not contradictory to canon to interpret him as such." When I said "I get it's an otome game but y'all are pushing horniness on him so hard that just isn't there" I should have said "A lot of people I've talked to in the past tried to force the idea of a highly sexualized Souji on me which was unfair because my interpretation was also valid and I'm grumpy about that right now." When I said "I think it's less that people want him to be a virgin and more that he's actually characterized as such" I should have said "It's not that people want him to be a virgin super bad. That makes us sound weird. Many of us just see him as not sexually experienced because of what we've interpolated from canon. This is a reply to a text post that I'm taking more personally than I should because I'm still mad at some people that are definitely not you."

So TL;DR:

-Sorry. I fucked up. I'm really grateful for how you replied. You could've dragged me so hard and it was nice of you to not do that.

-I have literally nothing against you I just really suck with communication sometimes

-When an autistic person says "hey I think this character is autistic," trust that maybe they know what they're talking about a little? You don't have to agree but don't tell them they're wrong. That character not acting like your 8 year old autistic brother is not the valid argument you think it is. (This is definitely not directed at you I'm just screaming into the void)

-I'm bitter about that stuff to the point it's affecting my judgement and that's shitty. I'll be more aware of that now

-Tumblr should go back to the days where we didn't act like cops about people's headcanons (also not directed at you I'm just turning my apology post into a soap box like a true social media influencer)

-That last meme? The "I'm not exactly horny but" yeah. Exactly. That's it. That's perfection. I love your blog.

-I'm felt like I should make some of my own memes but I have so much homework and I'm not as funny as you anyway

-(ok just one)

-Sorry again for freaking out about a meme. I'm usually more sane I swear

pt. 1 of hakuoki images with things i've said on discord that got pinned

[mrdarcysdadbod]

It is pretty fucked up how Amy is mostly reduced to the baby of the family when she's around them(coming in the next day to find Mrs. Laurence sitting in her mother's lap, as if being made `the baby' again,) would've loved it if she and Laurie had settled down somewhere else. Also childless, because I really don't see either of them being parents, they're not like Meg and John or Fritz and Jo, them being caged in a white picked fence never felt right, and I'm so glad you pointed it out because I'd never been able to put it into words myself.

Same anon here this is CONT. It also would've showed, as you said, that not everyone needs to seetle back home with children to be completely realized. Completely missed opportunity, putting Amy and Laurie in the same box as Meg and John and Jo and Fritz didn't fit them as charactes and I fully believe LMA didn't care enough about that

Good pull on the quote there! Appreciate you

I wouldn't go so far as "fucked up" myself just bc sibling/birth order dynamics are pretty normal (and as a baby of the family myself it's a pretty sweet gig lol). I think it fits in with the general dynamic that LMA is setting up and exploring throughout the novel, and at the same time I think it stifles Amy's growth as a person and restricts her to a certain role and persona within the context of the March household. I talked about the bias LMA has towards Jo (for obvious reasons, as the author insert) and I think that the character of Amy (as well as Beth, for a completely different reason) is one of the places where the use of the Alcott family as a template and source is a weakness rather than a strength. For all LMA is a skilled writer, poor Amy just doesn't get her character dug into and explored with the same depth. And that's a hard thing to do, balancing four characters like that! It's a testament to LMA's skill that they're all as well developed and vivid as they are, and I'm not going to ding the book for being biased.

We do diverge on our opinion of Amy's ending just because I would've preferred she didn't end up with Laurie at all. I don't think I would've liked both of them settling away from home, just because I like Mr. Laurence too much to have his boy far away from him, but I also just... Don't like Laurie. I liked him early on, but he got less charming as the book went on, and I'm very much still not over the fact that he said on the page, twice, that he was settling for Amy cause he couldn't have Jo. I know he didn't continue to hold this position, necessarily, but it still sours the whole relationship for me that that was something he said/felt at all. It didn't have to be in there, and it was, and that's telling of him as a character. Ultimately I think Laurie ends up doing many right things for completely the wrong reasons and I just. Don't like it.

That said, in terms of the ending they DID get, I think it was basically the best possible option. I can't see either of them having the same joy in parenthood that Meg or Jo do, no, and the text kind of acknowledges that when it talks about their daughter in the last chapter, but it also says that her being sickly brought them together like nothing else could, which I can absolutely see. In a weird way, I think that the anxiety of having an ill child would have them both be more present and involved as parents than they may otherwise have been, just because being good parents would feel more urgent for a child who might not live long. And there's the fact that they experienced Beth's passing separately from the rest of the family, but together with each other.

I think my preferred ending for Amy would've been, like... She realizes at some point that maybe Laurie isn't a dream she wants to pursue, and either decides to stay in Europe and study art (which I know is not in keeping with the idea of "genius" at the time) or has a genuine romance with some completely new guy who's only ever known her as the self-possessed and fully-realized Amy, rather than the fourth March sister, and she gets to come to the realization that her ambition was less about being fancy or famous and more just about distinguishing herself and finding an identity that's hers alone.

Ultimately I think the sticking point that I come to with the novel, thematically, is that it has kind of a one-note image of the family relationship as, like, if you love your family you want to be around them all the time and get pretty much everything you need within that dynamic, and there's not really space for loving your family but needing to have your own life and identity outside and away from the family. Which kind of draws in other questions about contemporary and historical attitudes towards the family, but I don't think "I love my family but I need to exist outside of them" is necessarily a revolutionary take for 1868 since it's present in more than one Austen novel, at the very least.

Boy that got long! Thank you for the ask.

[ailuronymy]

do you think every disabled character in wc is handled poorly? i understand theres def some cases of ableism but at the same time when i hear ppl say that its usually bc the disabled cat wasnt able to become a warrior due to their disability. and i feel like ppl forget, that not everyone irl CAN do what they want after they become disabled. ex. someone wants to be an athlete, but their legs have to be amputated. a cat like briarlight esp i feel is p realistic and could be a source of comfort

Hello there, thank you for writing in. I’m going to reply to this question with a series of questions I think are a bit more useful, given what you’re trying to ask me. I hope that’ll clarify what is a deeply complex, multilayered issue. 

Do I think Erin Hunter handles anything in the series “well”? Not really. I don’t have a high opinion of the work of the collective and, broadly speaking, I think every right note they play, metaphorically speaking, is an instance of chance rather than effort, skill, or intention. Stopped clocks are right twice a day, mediocre writers will sometimes do something cool by accident, similar principle. That’s not to say Erin Hunter hasn’t ever done anything on purpose--just that overall the underlying drive of the series isn’t so much quality as it is quantity, and speed of production, and it shows. 

Do I think Erin Hunter puts any significant research into how they portray disability? No. I do not think it is a priority for this series. They’re not trying to make a meaningful work of literature, or capture a realistic experience of disability, or tell especially impactful or thoughtful stories, or even make a particularly good or coherent fantasy world. Warriors is a specifically commercial product that was commissioned by HarperCollins to appeal to a particular demographic of drama-loving, cat-loving kids. It’s not really trying to do anything but sell books, because it’s a business, so the text in many ways reflects that. They’re not going for disability representation, in my opinion. They’re including disability in many cases as a plot-point or an obstacle. 

Do I think this means that people can’t connect to these characters and narratives in meaningful ways? No. Often I say that a work is completed only when it is read. Before that point, it doesn’t have a meaning: a reader finishes the work through the act of reading, and interpretation, and filling in the spaces and resonance of the story with their own values and experiences. When people talk about subjectivity, this is what they are talking about. What this means in the context of disabled characters in Warriors is that these characters and their stories can be multiple, conflicting, even mutually exclusive things at the same time, to different people, for different reasons. 

Do I think characters have to be “good” to be significant to someone? No. I think genuinely “bad” (i.e., not researched or poorly researched, cliche, thoughtlessly written, problematic, etc. etc.) characters can be deeply meaningful, and often are. Ditto above: for many people, and especially marginalised or stigmatised people, reading is almost always an act of translation, wherein the person is reading against the creative work of the dominant culture in a way that the author likely didn’t intend or didn’t even imagine. There’s a long documented history of this in queer culture, but it’s true for just about everyone who is rarely (or unfairly) represented in media. Disabled people often have to read deeply imperfect works of fiction featuring disability and reinterpret them in the process--whether to relate to a kind of disability they don’t experience themselves but which is the closest they’re offered to something familiar, or to turn positive and meaningful what is intended as narrative punishment, or simply to create what’s commonly called headcanon about “non-disabled” characters who echo their personal experiences. 

Do I think everyone has to agree? Extremely no. As I said before, people will actually always disagree, because all people have different needs and different experiences. What can be interpreted as empowering to one person might be very othering and painful for another. There is no “right” answer, because, again, that is how subjectivity works. This is especially true because marginalised communities are often many different kinds of people with different lives and needs brought together over a trait or traits they share due to the need for solidarity as protection and power--but only in a broad sense. It’s why there is often intracommunity fighting over representation: there isn’t enough, there’s only scraps, and so each person’s personal interpretation can feel threatening to people whose needs are different. You can see examples of this especially when it comes to arguments over character sexuality: a queer female character might be interpreted as bisexual by bisexual people who relate to her and want her to be, while being interpreted as lesbian by lesbians who also relate to her and want her to be like them. Who is correct? Often these different interpretations based on different needs are presented as if one interpretation is theft from the other, when in fact the situation is indicative of the huge dearth of options for queer people. It becomes increasingly more intense when it comes to “canon” representations, because of the long history of having to read against the grain I mentioned above: there’s novelty and, for some people, validation in “canon” certainty. And again, all of this is also true for disabled people and other stigmatised groups. 

Do I think this is a problem? Not exactly. It is what it is. It is the expected effect of the circumstances. Enforced scarcity creates both the need for community organising and solidarity and the oppressive pressure to prioritise one’s self first and leave everyone else in the dust (or else it might happen to you). The system will always pit suppressed people against each other constantly, because it actively benefits from intracommunity fighting. Who needs enemies when you have friends like these, and so on. A solution is absolutely for everyone in community to hold space for these different needs and values, and to uplift and support despite these differences, but it’s not anyone’s fault for feeling threatened or upset when you don’t have much and feel like the thing that you do have is being taken away. It’s a normal, if not really helpful, human response. But until people learn and internalised that the media is multifaceted and able to be many things at once, without any of those things being untrue or impacting your truth of the text, then there will be fighting. 

Do I think my opinion on disability on Warriors is all that important? No, not really. I can relate to some characters in some moment through that translation, but my opinion on, say, Jayfeather is nowhere near as worthy of consideration than that of someone who is blind. I don’t have that experience and it’s not something I can bring meaningful thinking about, really. That’s true for all these characters. If you want to learn about disability, prioritise reading work about disabled rights and activism that is done by disabled people, and literary criticism from disabled people. And as I mentioned above, remember that community isn’t a monolith: it’s a survival tactic, that brings together many different people with disparate experiences of the world. So research widely. 

Finally--do I think there’s only one kind of disabled narrative worth telling? No. For some people, a disabled character achieving a specific, ability-focused dream is a good story. For other people, a story that acknowledges and deals with the realities, and limitations, of disability is a good story. The same person might want both of those stories at different times, depending on their mood. That’s okay. Sometimes there’s power and delight in a fantasy of overcoming seemingly impossible obstacles and defying all expectations. Sometimes there’s value and catharsis in a narrative that delves into the challenges and grief and oppression experienced because of disability. There’s no one truth. 

To round all this off, I’m going to give my favourite example of this, which is Cinderella. I think it’s a great and useful tool, since for many it’s familiar and it’s very simple. Not much happens. In the story, she is bullied and tormented, until a fairy godmother gifts her over several nights with the opportunity to go to a royal ball, where she dances with a prince. The prince eventually is able to find Cinderella, due to a shoe left behind, and they are married. In some versions, the family that mistreated her are killed. In others, they’re forgiven. 

Some people hate the story of Cinderella, because she is seen as passive. She tolerates the bullying and never fights back. She does every chore she’s told. She is given an opportunity by a fairy godmother, and she doesn’t help herself go to the ball. She runs from the prince and he does the work to find her again. Eventually, she’s married and the prince, presumably, keeps her in happiness and comfort for the rest of her life. 

For some, this story is infuriating, because Cinderella doesn’t “save herself”: she is largely saved by external forces. She is seen as a quintessential damsel-in-distress, and especially for people who have been bullied, infantalised, or made to feel less capable or weak, that can be a real point of personal pain and discomfort. 

However, for some others, Cinderella is a figure of strength, because she is able to endure such hostile environments and terrible people and never gives up her gentle nature or her hope. She never becomes cruel, or bitter. She is brave in daring to go outside her tiny, trapped world, and she is brave to let the prince find her. She doesn’t have to fight or struggle to earn her reward of happiness and prove her worth, because she was always deserving of love and kindness. The prince recognises at once, narratively speaking, her goodness and virtue, and stops at nothing to deliver her a better life. 

Depending on the version, the wicked family disfigure themselves for their own greed--or are punished, which for some is a revenge fantasy; or Cinderella forgives them and once again shows her tenacious kindness, which for others is a different revenge fantasy. 

The point? Cinderella is the same character in the same story, but these are almost unrecognisable readings when you put them side-by-side. Which one is right? Which one is better? In my opinion, those are the wrong questions. I hope this (long, sorry) reply is a set of more useful ones. 

[salt-volk]

Blocking is an abusable feature

RE: post/677862479385313280

TBH I don't see the issue with anon's statement. Blocking over a disagreement is petty, as nothing of grave import can BE discussed on DV (such as stances on important issues or beliefs).

I mean, it was recently re-established that people block for ridiculous reasons - such as username envy. So yes, there is a real fear that if you interact "wrong" with a custom owner, or if they encounter you interacting with others and judge you unworthy, they'll block you off from ever getting their custom - which normally, within reason, would be their right. But in this specific context, it's unreasonable, often targeted, and usually discriminatory.

Moving past that momentarily, though, because I'm not even arguing in favor of any strictly-customs-related discourse here. My greater point is that I simply wish people would re-examine why they block others.

Top 3 worst blocking reasons that I've encountered:

3. Someone's typing style was "annoying" (Meanwhile, the mute feature is right there and would've solved this without causing undue anxiety for the person who struggles with their typing due to disability. And no, sorry, "They use light colored text!" isn't a more valid reason. Bright text is easily read by simply highlighting it, or hitting the quote button.)

2. Someone had neo-pronouns (If you don't like 'em, simply don't refer to them at all. Most people on the forums already just use others' usernames. Better yet, bite the bullet and stop being nasty about someone else's harmless life choices. It takes less time to simply use their correct pronouns than it does to hunt all visible neo-pronoun users.)

1. Someone was under 18 (Extremely idiotic since we are on a PG-13 game site;  many minors don't make their age or age range known; and there is literally no harm in interacting with a minor in the first place, as you're not hanging out with them, having an in-depth discussion, or taking care of them. You're passing them by in a thread, or dealing trades deals with pixels. Minors are people too. Everyone was a teenager once. I don't understand the ageism rampant on the internet these days.)

In summary, there exist some really pathetic reasons to block, and I feel that blockers should be ashamed if their reasons aligned with any of the above. It's a feature for making your experience more secure and comfortable, away from nasty users, scammers, or bullies - not to enable YOU to bully others that YOU were being judgmental towards. Which, in the end, only reinforces whatever silly biases you had, since you're accustomed to freely discriminating and drawing a line between you & them.

Blocking others affects all aspects of the site - especially the forums and tradesmarket - which can put a dent in playing, and thus should be done conscientiously and for sound reasons. Otherwise, you're selfishly marring someone else's experience out of prejudice.

And in that same vein, with direct relation to customs/the original anon that I started out addressing: I do feel that a customer owner lording power over someone that they picked out of the pack for being "lesser-than" (weird, cringey, edgy, too young, too old, weeby, speech disorder, etc), by denying them a chance that everyone else has available to them, is flat-out wrong. Discrimination is wrong in all contexts and social spaces, including games.

[panlight]

I wonder why the Cullens think killing animals is better than killing humans, to be honest. The animal might not "know", and it won't be able to think about death the way we do, but...

SM addressed this a bit on the Lexicon lo many years ago:

A lot of you are vegetarians. I applaud your compassion and dedication. Vegetarianism is a very popular thing right now, because we live in a society with a conscience, and we live in a society of plenty. You don’t generally have the first without the last. Were there vegetarians 200 years ago? Maybe a few. 300 years ago? 500? The further you go back, the more likely it is that the answer is “no.” Why? Because throughout the majority of history, people ate to survive. Except for the kings and lords, perhaps, people did not eat for pleasure. Death by starvation was a common thing (it still is, sadly, in some parts of the world). Starving people, people whose children are starving, don’t have the ability to be ethical about what they eat. They eat whatever they can.

[. . .]

So what does this have to do with anything? First of all, on the subject of the Cullens killing animals to survive—none of them were raised in a time when the vegetarian mindset was prevalent—most of them had never heard the word while they were human. They don’t think of animals that way. They don’t kill them cruelly. They prevent suffering wherever they can.

She goes on to say that another part of it is that by keeping human blood off their tongue they protect all humans. Even if they hunted BAD humans, or drank donated blood, SM claims that would make ALL humans more tempting to them, that it's safer to just forgo human blood completely. It's sort of the analogy it's easier to not have any cookies or chips rather than just eating one and stopping.

These are all SM's explanations, btw, not necessarily mine. I get where she is coming from and to a certain extent I agree, but I think it's more than that.

Carlisle is of course the major piece of this puzzle, as he started it all (at least in this "branch" of vampirism. The Denali sisters had their own path to vegetarianism), and I think it comes from two main things: 1) humans eat animals therefore vampires drinking animal blood is more 'human' and 2) Carlisle knows what it's like to be the victim of a vampire.

Point one is addressed in the text, when Edward is telling Carlisle's backstory.

One night, a herd of deer passed his hiding place. He was so wild with thirst that he attacked without a thought. His strength returned and he realized there was an alternative to being the vile monster he feared. Had he not eaten venison in his former life? Over the next months his new philosophy was born. He could exist without being a demon. He found himself again.

Humans (as a general rule) don't eat other humans. Humans do eat animals. Thus, it seems more 'human' to drink only from animals. He's not thinking of it in terms of whether or not humans are more worthy or if animals are more innocent, it's a coping thing for himself to feel less monstrous. I think Rosalie's reasons are along these lines. She killed her attackers, but didn't want to drink their blood.

The second thing is that Carlisle is one of the rare people to have survived a vampire attack. Most characters who were turned into vampires are turned intentionally. The vampire is careful. Even Maria and Victoria were careful. Carlisle was careful. Alice's creator was careful. They all wanted these people to live. This was not the case with Carlisle. He was attacked and received random wounds (revealed in MS to he hand and arm which . . fine, I guess, but it's weird that he--and thus Edward--had bites on the hand AND SO DID BELLA FROM JAMES and it . . . never comes up. But okay. Whatever). He KNOWS what it's like to be attacked and bitten by a vampire. Had his friends not showed up when they did, he probably would have been drained. This point is also kind of addressed in the text, although in a different context. He's talking to Bella in New Moon about wrestling with the idea of creating a companion, and saying "I could never justify it to myself, doing to someone what was done to me." In this context it's about turning someone else, but it can also apply to this idea that he knows what it is like from the human's POV when a vampire attacks, and he doesn't want to do that to another person. He was attacked and left for dead, watched the vampire kill two of his friends, and run off with a third, presumably to drain him. You don't need Super Compassion to look at this from a human POV and be like "yeah I'm not gonna do THAT."

Emmett was a hunter in his human life. Killing animals to eat to live is normal to him. Esme grew up on a farm, so the same may apply to her. Then you get into spiritual/religious stuff that probably influenced SM a lot whether or not it influenced the characters (humans being created in God's image, Thou Shall Not Kill, etc) and I can see where they are coming from.

But certainly from a modern, secular standpoint, there's a very good argument to be made that if you have to kill for blood, do what Edward did and kill murderers and rapists. But most vampires don't have a gift like Edward's so I'm not sure how they would be able to pick out only terrible people (and who are they to judge who is terrible or not?), so it has its own problems.

[inkdemonapologist]

SESSION TWELVE of the BatIM Call of Cthulhu game, aka Continuing to have a Great Time At The Masquerade! : )

Joey and Bendy destabilised early on, meaning Joey went through the ENTIRE masquerade UNABLE TO STOP SMILING

getting some mixed messages here, Joey

Sometimes u dress ur characters up as rabbits for fun but then you have a lot of emotions about them losing their minds and then u gotta draw them losing their minds while dressed as rabbits... anyway Jack being mind-controlled did NOT help Sammy hold onto his mental stability at this nightmare party in case you were wondering,

ANYWAY HAVE, MORE OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTES, UNDER THE CUT

[Sammy is played by me, Joey is played by Boo (inkyvendingmachine), Henry is played by Maf (inkcryptid), Jack is played by Mochi (whatyouwantedmetosee) and Thren (haunted-hijinxer) is our GM!]

[GM] Joey, make a POW roll also... [Joey] Oh, boy, [GM] ...because Bendy was also told to enjoy this party, and you guys just passed a plate of food, and he wants to eat! [Jack] FEED YOUR SON! [Joey] No!!! [Henry] HES A HUNGRY BOY! [Sammy] A GROWING BOY!

[Henry] Henry will look back to see if Moonlight is trying to follow them! [GM] He will see that Moonlight has grabbed onto the railing of the stairs and is hobbling slowly down them. [Joey] *extremely evil-sounding cackling*

[Jack] All Cthulhu Official Dice actually come weighted, to make you fail.

[Henry] Gotta try harder than that, bitch! [Henry] ....that wasn't in character. [Jack] It's in character, but he's only thinking it. [Sammy] That's the golden text you see on the wall if you use the seeing tool

[Henry] My Luck is 68, I don't know what y'all are doing! [Jack] We're spending Luck so that we'll fail! [Sammy] BEING UNLUCKY! I've barely spent any Luck, I'm just NOT A LUCKY GUY

[Henry] Oh, Avedon's here, [GM] There's a gunshot, and he tries to shoot Fowler! [Joey] Um, well, uh, whoops!, rest in peace Fowler! [Sammy] Yeah, that'll sort itself out, let's go! [GM] Moonlight seems to reconsider from telling people to grab you guys, to grabbing Avedon instead. [Joey] Oh! THANKS AVEDON, your sacrifice will, not be thought about in the slightest!!!

[Sammy] Is... weird question, does this room look like it matches the architecture of the rest of the house? [GM] [GM] [GM] ...make a sanity check.

[Sammy] It would be a like, Come on Jack, do you know where you are, shake it off, snap out of it, kind of thing. [GM] Why don't you make a... a.... oh boy, [Sammy] One of my REALLY persuasive social skills?

[GM] This probably just registers to Jack as, Sammy griping about a party, which isn't that strange. [Jack] Yeahhhh, he wants to leave. He always does that. I wanna stay at least a little longer! [GM] That just means it's Jack's job to find them something fun and good to do. [Sammy] Oh boy, [GM] I don't think Jack is being compelled to be aggressive about this necessarily, he just feels like he's Jack at a party, doing the things Jack normally does, and trying to have a good time! [Sammy] Ah, and everyone else is being weird, [GM] Yeah! Everybody's being really weird! You're at this nice party, and now you're in this weird room? The party's back there somewhere! [Jack] I mean not that he's opposed to bein' dragged into side rooms at parties by cute boys, but,

[GM] The table looks like a table that Henry has in his house, actually. [Sammy] Have I ever been in Henry's house? These are questions I didn't expect to need to ask tonight.

[Sammy] Jack, this is weird! You see this is weird, right?! [Jack] Well yeah, it is kinda weird that we're in-- what are we doing here? [Joey] Joey is going to grab Jack's arm, and point to the next door, and go "Party is this way!"

[GM] Peter looks worried... [Sammy] Sammy looks worried too! Well, Sammy looks angry, but in a worried way.

[Joey] Joey is going to scream frustratedly. [Sammy] Is there ink in this room? [GM] There is not. [Jack] Is there a party in this room? [GM] Definitely no, only the party you bring with you.

[Joey] Joey is going to scream again. [Joey] He's also going to kick the door. He might stub his toe. [Sammy] Through all this, Joey is smiling. I just need us all to remember that. [Joey] YES. Also his tail is furiously going. [GM] Bendy is also upset! There is nothing to eat here.

[Joey] Joey is going to try to feed Bendy some ideas, [GM] He doesn't want ideas, he wants food!

[Joey] So.... what happens if you fumble a sanity roll?

[GM] See, here's the silly part. At this point, right? At this point, the best place to do the tasks you want to do, involve either getting the stone out of the room with the safe, or having the staff that Henry is currently holding. [Sammy] So you would arrive, by completely different means, to the same place that we are! [GM] Clearly Joey is inside the safe.

[Jack] Bad and naughty Joey Drews get put in the safe to atone for their sins!

[Henry] Henry is going to channel his inner Joey Drew and round the corner and say "No, sorry about him, we're just here on inspection, we need to check the safe." [Henry] Which is probably a Fast Talk, which I hope it isn't, because my Fast Talk is a 5. [GM] Unless you wanna try to turn that into a persuade somehow? [Henry] I'll do Persuade! [GM] What are you doing to persuade them, rather than just lying? [Henry] *rolls* I failed... I'm gonna push it... [Sammy] *uneasy noises* IF YOU PUSH IT AND IT GOES BAD, IT GOES WORSE [Henry] AH! HAHA! I ROLLED A SIX! [Sammy] THAT'S STILL NOT LESS THAN FIVE! [Henry] WELL IM DOING PERSUADE! [Sammy] That means you have to NOT LIE! [Henry] ....Fuck. [Henry] Okay, uh, there's an emergency, we need the contents of that safe. [Sammy] THATS STILL A LIE??? [Joey] NO actually, THAT'S TRUE! [Henry] It IS an emergency!!

[Sammy] Sammy cannot believe that this is working.

[GM] Bendy does wonder what his plan is for getting out of the safe. This does not seem like a fun party place. [Joey] Um, [Joey] Joey says it's a surprise.

[GM] Henry, the safe does indeed open! And there's a Joey! [GM] Bendy says "Oh wow!" [Henry] Henry tries his best to keep a straight face, like yes! this is exactly what he came here for! [Sammy] (Sammy is NOT keeping a straight face) [Jack] (Straight? In this party?)

[Jack] He's probably saying something like, "What are you doing, he's one of us!" [Jack] And that could go either way. That could mean "No, he's chill, I will persuade you to stop!" Or that could mean, "We are also criminals!"

[GM, as the guards] Then why does he look like the Yellow King's messenger? [Henry] *not missing a beat* We get that a lot.

[GM] Something falls from the sky and lands in front of him. And it's a person! [Joey] Is he alive? [GM] Very much not. [Sammy] How... how Illusion of Living canon-compliant is this Joey...?

[Jack] So... it would probably occur to Jack that this is weird for a party,

[Henry] Joey don't touch it! [Joey] Why not? [Henry] There's runes around it. I don't know if you can touch it. [Joey] Joey's gonna touch it. [Henry] *long-suffering sigh* If you get zapped, I'll tell you I told you so!

[Jack] Jack really wishes we were just back at the party right now, you guys... [Jack] Only bad things have happened. [Jack] Pete's traumatised, Joey's goopy, the Lurker ate all of the snacks,

[Sammy] Can I try to break free from Henry? Sammy's gonna try to run over there. [Henry] At this point, Sam can go, if he wants. [Sammy] Okay, cool. Then Sammy's gonna go and put ink in his mouth! [Henry] Goddammit. I was hoping you were going to check on Joey!

[Joey] You can’t take all of the sanity hits! You have to leave some for other people! [Jack] Says you! You got so many temps!! And an indefinite!!

[GM] Bendy probably is complaining loudly about WHY DID HE WALK THROUGH THE RUNES??? [Joey] Oh! I thought he was going to complain about the party, or lack thereof, [GM] That’s part of not having fun at the party, he’s not into that! [Joey] Well, [GM] This is not a fun party activity!!

[GM] But he doesn’t think it will destroy either of them, if you do it right! [Jack] That’s a nice, way to end that sentence,

[Sammy] Let us hurry! May I take the stone? [Joey] Joey shrugs. [Sammy] Sammy will, uh, attempt to reach inside of... whatever this is, and find the stone. [Henry] Reach INTO your LOCAL boss, and you will find A Friend And Boy,

[Sammy] Is there anything in this room that I can pick up, and then hit him in the head with? [GM] Henry has a stick... uh....there’s a projector.... [Sammy] Can I pick that up? [GM] No, you cannot. [Sammy] It would be REALLY funny if Sammy dropped a projector on someone else’s head. [Sammy] HOW THE TURNTABLES!!!

[GM] ...Can you impale with a rocking horse...???? [Sammy] I don’t want to impale, I want to knock him in the head so he passes out!!! Rest your head, it’s time for bed!!!

[Jack] I don’t think Jack has any plans after this! [Jack] I meant that in the sense that he doesn’t know what he’s doing next, but the way I phrased it, now it just sounds like he’s hitting on Fowler, like, he doesn’t have anything to do after this, are you free? That’s not canon.

[Joey] I don’t know how this will go, [Sammy] Good luck! [Joey] But Joey would like to-- [Sammy] Sammy believes in half of you! [GM] w-which Sammy? wHICH HALF?!

[Jack] I know you said “note.” But my brain at first processed that word as “milk.” [Henry] *laughing* “Did you get my milk, Fowler?” [Jack] He drank the last carton and he didn’t buy more! [Sammy] “I’m going to the store, want me to get anything? *jumps into the lake*”

[GM] Combat Jack! [Jack] *exasperated* He’s not a Combat Boy! Jack is soft and warm, like mashed potatoes!!!

[GM] Norman is wondering to Henry if he oughta be concerned about you all getting what you want out of this. [Henry] .....Maybe.