#i don't care about the positions themselves so much as the wrong-headed idea of invalidating arguments because of personal beef with

[askshivanulegacy]

Except they're not all wrong and they're not "paid fanfiction." They were written with Lucas' approval and they developed the Star Wars universe in a dry spell that lasted years. The only reason they're claimed to be "not canon" now is only because of the decision Disney made ... and that was after it passed out of Lucas' hands. He never claimed any such thing. So as far as Lucas is concerned, they're as canon as anything else.

And it's true that at the same time there are story points that conflict. All that means is that you get to explore how they might or might not still fit with other pieces of the universe, such as the movies, and which pieces you think make more sense.

There is no hard core "this is wrong" statement that you can apply to published material. The EU books are just as valid as anything else. The Star Wars universe is NOT just the movies, whether anyone likes it or not. It's a bad faith move to blockade off totally valid discussion points just because you want to gatekeep the fandom. The books exist, people read them and like them, and they get to talk about them, and no one is capable of undermining that. You don't get to invalidate real SW resources just because you don't like the conclusions some people make from them.

At the point that you want to keep your headcanons informed only by the movies, that is certainly a choice you can make. But in the wider fandom, people can and do use all the material available to them. And they will have different opinions. You don't have to like them, but there's also nothing you can do to wipe them out or to somehow magically trump them because you like your resources better than theirs.

If you don't want to see those points come up in discussions then don't have those discussions. Or frame the discussion properly up front, and it can be a fun little exercise to only consider the movies.

This is just how fandom works.

I really dislike it when anti-Jedi and Jedi-critical crowd uses EU books as a prove for their points. Why they’re all wrong:

a) The books were written by various people who didn’t consult George Lucas about what they’re going to write. Everyone understood SW as they did. When an original author has never claimed such art as canon and actually refused it – this is a definition of fanfiction, isn’t it? Paid, yes, but fanfiction nonetheless.

b) Most of these books were created way before PT. They didn’t know about the Jedi things what we know now. It becomes quite hypocritical – I mean, in the EU the clones were enemies, not allies, but somehow I don’t see any claims ‘but the clones are enemies! The EU says so!’. Even in Karen Traviss books not all the clones have a personality, but we all ignore it now, aren’t we? She wrote her books before the TCW, not knowing how the series would spin the story. So EU retcon works for the clones, but not for the Jedi?

[septembersghost]

Sometimes it feels like people like to pat themselves on the back for dissing Elvis because it’s the cool thing to do

I’m the anon who deleted TikTok btw. I was tired of the same repetitive comments about Elvis and decided finally to delete that annoying app LOL.

i'm not sure what you saw on the clock app, though can guess it was probably the same stuff that's said on twt, but any reason you feel to get rid of that app, or anything that's stressing you out!, is a good/valid one.

when it comes to e, between misinformation, misunderstandings, and decades' worth of caricatures and this almost prideful disdain towards him - the origin of which i can't quite figure out? - he's been an easily mockable and reduced figure. like even beyond, idk, judgment of his struggles and addictions and health, or the massive volume of tabloid accounts, or the cardboard camp of impersonators, or the feeling some seem to have that he was too excessive or gauche, or define him by vegas as a kind of sideshow, there are some, i've come to find, that outright reject the idea he was in any way a serious artist. the article i read recently...basically posited he wasted his entire life and talent, in a way that was so cruel and dismissive of everything he ever did after sun records. things i can't even fathom saying about a person. ("success corroded and finally destroyed a budding talent who might have achieved so much more than just celebrity. He might have been an artist...by 1958, when he was inducted into the U.S. Army, his beauty and his creativity were behind him. A few brief echoing rays of the glory that had been might suddenly shine through, yet the sun had all but set." seriously? he was 23 years old in 1958! it's a complete erasure of nearly half his life. and it's particularly jarring as some of what's said in that piece is astute and well-written, yet some of the rest of it...i refuse to even quote.) he created so much wonderful music later, but it routinely gets ignored. (plus he wasn't a songwriter, as if that invalidates his astonishing musicality and gift of interpretation and arrangement). the movies, and critical view of them due to what they are, unfortunately do not help. this embarrassment surrounding him, the sense that his talent was squandered and his legacy tarnished, mixed with misperceptions of his character, is so ingrained in the pop cultural zeitgeist that there are always going to be people set to take him down a peg or deride him or shake their heads rather than lend any sympathy for how and why things unfolded as they did.

that video analysis i shared about the film mentioned him as this sort of quintessential american tragedy, the hollowness of the dream gone wrong, even though he was still trying so hard up to the end, still sharing that love with his audience, and i think sometimes we're uncomfortable looking at tragedy and illness and exploitation, so it's easier to ridicule or blame or turn into a joke. i also think his sincerity and emotion as a performer, the movement that came to him naturally that he couldn't switch off, the unique ways he utilized the power of his voice, read as, for lack of a better word, cringeworthy, to many, because society at large struggles with raw expression. a combination of factors thus make him an easy target. he's that halloween costume, spangles on a jumpsuit and what they erroneously view as shlocky music, or he's the worst perpetuated things, but never real, never explored or offered understanding. it's lousy and disheartening, but it unfortunately is what it is. (i can imagine only a fraction of why this stuff used to upset lisa marie the way it did.) i don't require people to be perfect to care about or be touched by them. human beings are not saints. he was flawed, he had a temper, he certainly misstepped, he made choices along the way that proved to be destructive. he was also generous and gracious and forgiving and compassionate, kind in a way that embraced people and made them feel seen and like they belonged, in a way that's still radiant in recollections, and in what we find in ourselves too.

catherine martin recently said, "elvis is a humanist. he believed in people and kindness and connection, and i think he wanted to use music to bring people together." he'd say, "i'm just a singer. i'm nobody special. do you think they'll remember me?" he always marveled that people came to see him, and held fast to that idea that the happiness and love in that connection of the music was worth something. as my friend wrote to me, there's a lot of dreck out there, but it's boring. there's no fire there, no passion. without the fire and passion you can't even get elvis at all. meanwhile, here we are, nearly fifty years later, on technology that didn't even exist while he lived, still finding reason to remember him, to wax poetic about him, to connect to him and to one another, to find that same joy and solace in the music. i have to believe that matters so much more. some of this other stuff is just useless clatter, you know? there's music and there's noise. i'll choose the music every time.

[nirah10]

Some Personal Stuff

Here's something that doesn't really connect to anything but me and may not be interesting but I just want to get it off my chest because it's been bugging me.

As some of you know, I was recently diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. This had been a very big thing for me as it has finally answered some life-long questions and helped me better understand myself. My mum has been wonderfully supportive and my friends have been great in learning more about autism so that they can know me better and have actually asked about what kind of things bother me so that they could be more careful (which I never asked of them, but they're just awesome and care enough to put some effort in to helping me be comfortable ^_^). Really, almost the entire experience has been positive. I would actually say that one of the only issues I've had has been the way some of my siblings have reacted.

I have good relationships with all of my siblings and I think they're pretty cool people in general, but some of them have some really weird hang-ups from the way we were raised that they never really got past. We were raised with the very unfortunate (and vocal!) belief that mental health problems didn't really exist. We were told that things like despression didn't really exist and that people just needed to suck it up and get over it. We were told that people who practiced self-harm were just drama queens looking for attention (heaven forbid you ever want attention!). We were told that people who killed themselves were the most cowardly and selfish people in the world. I think you get the idea.

Thankfully, my mother has grown so much as a person and realized that not only are those ideas just plain wrong but they are also very harmful. She is now one of my strongest pillars of support and one of the very few people I feel truly comfortable speaking openly with about my mental health struggles. My siblings have all improved greatly, but some of them are still a little stuck on some of those old ideas. If you asked them, they would tell you without a doubt that depression is 100% real but, if you tell them that you or someone else has depression, there's a good chance that they'll become skeptical and start asking questions as if they're trying to prove you wrong. They might make comments about people self-diagnosing themselves or exaggerating or even just outright lying for the sake of attention. Quite often, they'll say things like "everyone feels like that sometimes" and completely play down someone's experience until they can dismiss it entirely.

Even before I got diagnosed, some of my siblings seemed to bristle at the mention of the possibility. When I said I was looking to be assessed, they all asked "Why?" Some of them were satisfied when I said "Because I think I might be autistic" and carried on the conversation normally or asked follow-up questions out of interest. However, some of them carried on the conversation with what felt like a determination to prove that my suspicions were invalid. They would ask lots of questions about my experiences but it quickly became clear that it wasn't in order to understand, because almost every answer was followed up with a "but" statement. "But everyone feels like that sometimes." "But lots of people would find that stressful." "But maybe you're looking too much into that." I even heard once "Do YOU think you're autistic or did Mum tell you that?" as some of my siblings seem to think my mother's change in attitude is also some weird kind of bid for attention. I was also asked by two different siblings, "Why do you WANT something to be wrong with you?"

My most common way of finishing those conversations, after hearing some version of why it's probably nothing and I'm probably not autistic (ie, "it's so easy to read about something online and think you have it"), was to bluntly say "I know. That's why I want to see a professional and get a proper assessment."

Anyway, I got assessed and diagnosed. I thought that might be enough to satisfy my skeptical siblings. Turns out, not really. While they won't say that they don't think I have autism anymore, they are still very quick to dismiss it. I had one sibling suggest that, because I'm on the mild end of the spectrum, "it doesn't really affect [me]". It wasn't a question but a statement. I have had several more shows of feigned interest for the sake of trying to minimalize or dismiss and it has been quite disheartening at times. With some of my family, I feel reluctant to ever say anything relating to mental health and especially autism because I'm tired of hearing thinly veiled denials that I'm actually autistic. Getting assessed/diagnosed was supposed to be about understanding and helping myself and not about whether or not my family was comfortable.

Not long ago, my Mum shared a video on Facebook that was meant to raise awareness on autism. It started with the speaker telling you to imagine trying to watch a TV show and listen to five radios on different stations all going full volume at the same time, and then explained that that's how life can feel to an autistic person all the time. The video carried on for some time after that and covered other experiences. I messaged my mother privately to discuss some of the things discussed in the video and I told her that I hadn't wanted to leave a comment because I didn't want other family members to see it and start leaving dismissive comments. After talking to her for some time, I decided that I would leave a very simple comment on what I felt was the easiest thing to understand, simply saying "The example of the TV and five radios is spot on." I kid you not, it took maybe two minutes for one of my siblings to respond with something along the lines of "Yeah, I get really stressed out when there's lots of noise too."

Part of me wanted to let it go and leave it be but, after talking to my Mum and seeing how much she had changed and how much work she put into beng supportive, I felt upset and got stubborn. I responded that anyone gets stressed out in loud environments, but that that was not the same thing. For an autistic person, sounds can be so distracting that it can become hard to function and lead to panic attacks, even if it's not loud. The answer was (paraphrasing) "I get that. If I'm driving and the radio is on and the kids are being noisy or screaming in the back, I can forget where I'm going. I have to turn the radio off sometimes so that I can focus." Okay, no. Just no. That's not the same thing at all. I quickly answered with a detailed explanation of why it's not the same thing, also emphasizing that there's a big difference between getting stressed by actual loud noises and having your brain completely shut down over sounds that might not even be loud. They quickly backpedaled and said that they knew it wasn't the same and that they were just saying it was relatable, a family member who had joined in said that they hadn't even watched the video and was only responding to the other's comments about finding noise stressful. That was followed up by another comment saying that maybe they hadn't communicated properly and they hadn't meant anything by it, which I felt much better about. I still didn't buy the idea that the inital comments had no intention of being dismissive, but I could believe that they realized partway through the conversation that they were being upsetting and wanted to fix it. Still, the conversation has stuck in my head as a very disheartening experience.

Sensory overload is one of my biggest difficulties with autism. I am very easily upset by sound and it doesn't take much for me to shut down. Volume is rarely a factor but, rather, the number of sources, whether I can distinguish one sound from another, and whether I can locate the source. I used to have panic attacks in school during tests because being able to hear twenty-some pencils scratching but not being able to distinguish between pencils sent me into a complete panic. Those pencils may as well have been cannons in my ears. They were the loudest things in the world.

Tonight, I sat down at the nursing station at work and immediately noticed a sound that I'm not accustomed to hearing there. It was quiet enough that I couldn't tell exactly what it was and, worse, I couldn't tell WHERE it was. I became so distracted by the sound that I completely, physically froze. I don't know exactly how long I sat there but, at the end of this little experience, my tea had gone from freshly made to just a hair above lukewarm. The entire time I sat there, half my brain was desperately trying to locate the sound and identify it and the other half of my brain was desperately begging the first half to ignore it and just let it go. My heart rate went up to what I would expect it to be if I had just run a short distance. A sense of panic gripped me, the same kind of feeling I had the first (and only) time a cop pulled me over. I literally could not think about anything else.

After several minutes, I finally managed to calm myself because, without having to move from my frozen position, I was able to both identify and locate the source of the sound. What was it?

Do you see it?

A watch. It was the sound of a watch ticking in a basket of found items sitting several feet away. That was all it took to put me into a state of shutdown and had me edging towards a state of panic. A watch that somebody found and left behind, leaving a barely audible but unexpected source of sound in an environment I am familiar with took me from independent and capable to frozen, vulnerable, and moments away from hyperventilating and bursting into tears.

But autism doesn't really affect me. But I barely register on the spectrum, so I don't really count. But everyone gets overwhelmed by noise sometimes. But everyone has trouble focusing in stressful situations.

Someone being on the mild end of the autism spectrum does not mean that they don't suffer or that they don't really have it. It means that they present well. It means that they're better able to control their outward reactions and/or better able to learn what's expected of them. Saying someone's autism is "mild" is a reflection of how much other people are affected by their autism rather than by how much the individual is affected. On the outside, I would have simply looked like I was deep in thought and anyone who walked past probably wouldn't have looked twice. On the inside, I was freaking the hell out. It definitely affected me, even if there were no observable manifestations in the outside world. I have avoided furthering my education or looking for a better job because of experiences like this. I have missed work, which later meant I struggled to pay my bills. I have lost friendships. I have passed up opportunities. I have never left the town I grew up in, even though every single member of my family has moved away. I will likely never have biological children because I don't think I can handle pregnancy. I don't know if I will have children period because the process of adoption might be too overwhelming for me. I am terrified of having children and failing them as a parent because my autism might cripple my communication with them or cause me to be too impatient or inflexible. I am not likely to achieve many of my aspirations because little moments like ticking watches in unexpected places happen all the time, even if nobody except me knows it.

I have "mild" autism and it affects me.