#i. am. willing. to. debate.

[ohumokay]

Firstly, this is a long post about romanticizing and misinterpreting OCD. If you "ain't gonna read allat", MOVE ON. This is a topic I am very passionate about and willing to debate. Secondly, if you are an individual struggling with OCD or OCPD, I commend you and open my messages to you if you ever want to talk <3.

OCD - "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is characterized by unreasonable thoughts and fears (obsessions) that lead to compulsive behaviors... excessive thoughts (obsessions) that lead to repetitive behaviors (compulsions)." [Google]

OCPD - "Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder is a mental health condition that causes an extensive preoccupation with perfectionism, organization and control." [Google]

Now that we have the definitions that anyone can look up on the internet so I'm not denounced, let's talk about the fact that romanticized OCD is just water downed OCPD.

Good afternoon.

We all have seen some person on tiktok or any social media saying "Oh my gosh, I'm so OCD lol" and they simply reordered their desk or something. And, depending on which side of the internet it falls on, the response will either be "OMG SAMEEE", or a long paragraph arguing how OCD is a real disorder and shouldn't be the butt on a joke.

Both are entitled to their opinions, it makes me no difference. And, from a 10 second video, I can neither confirm nor deny that the person has OCD, but I can firmly say that rearranging a desk is not a definitive sign someone has OCD. Too many people claim OCD or use OCD to degrade and invalid another, and not only are they mocking the very real and very destructive disorder, but the symptoms that they claim correspond with OCD are more commonly diagnosable in OCPD.

I'll admit, I was a part of the problem for longer than I'd have liked, but I corrected myself after researching OCD, OCPD and the contrast. Again, Google is free, and the definitions above come from there, so no one has to take my word.

Romanticized OCD is typically associated with perfectionism, over controlling tendencies, and habitual cleaning. There are cases of people without OCD claiming they want partners with OCD specifically for the reasons listed above. On the other hand, there are people who are separated from their partners for the reasons above and claim they couldn't handle their ex-partner's "OCD". While both parties are well within their right to these opinions, classifying these behaviors solely as OCD is where they are wrong.

True OCD is the act of appeasing reoccurring compulsions in order to soothe irrational fears or obsessions. Individuals with OCD often perform repetitive behaviors to ease intrusive thoughts (which are also romanticized in the media and mistaken for impulsive thoughts). True OCD is an anxiety disorder and is commonly aligned with GAD (General Anxiety Disorder). True OCD can and has included perfectionism, over controlling tendencies, and habitual cleaning, but it's because of irrational fears blown out of proportion that need the ritualistic acts to calm them.

True OCD is commonly labeled as crazy (which is universal for most neurological disorders), while Romanticized OCD is labeled as relatable. OCPD is never mentioned nor given its credit for being the true foundation of Romanticized OCD, and consequently, both True OCD and OCPD are backgrounded to Romanticized OCD.

Similarly to many other disorders, an individual can be obsessive and compulsive without having a disorder, and can have a controlling personality without having a personality disorder. Relating common behaviors to the severity of a damming disorder not only negates the intensity of said disorder, but can also lead to self-misdiagnoses.

I am, in absolutely no way, shaming self-diagnosed OCD, nor am I invalidating it in any way. I'm just a girl with Google and a scattered brain. This is me trying to present what I believe is true with evidence that is accessible by the masses. If you have any disagreement with what I've said, feel free to debate me publicly or privately. I am not prideful nor immobile to opposing opinions and factual information. And if I'm spreading false information, please check me.

[overthinkinglotr]

Has read the Silmarillion and enjoyed it: Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Frodo, Sam, Faramir Has read the Silmarillion and hated it: Gimli Hasn't read the Silmarillion: Merry, Pippin, Boromir Has read the Silmarillion, then wrote passionate Silmarillion fanfiction poetry that made Aragorn try to gently explain the dubious ethics of writing RPF about Elrond's dad: Bilbo

[noot-noot-shoot]

Presidential debate (yaoi version)

[insomnya777]

etho and joel are nick and gatsby variants. that's it that's the post

[stormofdefiance]

Dkdkdkdks this is not a serious analysis in any way at all but the podcast I’m listening to has started going through Plato’s dialogues & in one of them (The Symposium) an excruciatingly handsome young man, Alcibiades, tries desperately to seduce Socrates with his good looks in the hopes of gleaning more wisdom from him. In it Socrates does get into bed with him, but all that goes down is Socrates ‘not moving at all’ and rambling endlessly on about philosophy. Idk I’m just pishing myself, this is just so incredibly Ratio/Aventurine core dndndndxndn

[abortionado]

The idea that misogyny is a real axis of systemic oppression whereby men are privileged in some ways and women are subjugated in some ways is THE most baseline fundamental building block of feminism, and if you refuse to believe this then you are not a feminist. Like point blank, end of, you are not a feminist if you don't believe in institutional misogyny. Having some vague idea that women shouldn't be second class citizens does not make you a feminist

[alicentflorent]

Instead of Alicent meekly agreeing to Ottos dead toddler parade for PR and only going along with it out of “duty” they should have given her her own motivation: RAGE. Perhaps Alicent wants the city to see the child that has just been martyred, to remind the people of the cruelty inflicted on her family by her enemies. She wants them to remember the little Prince Jahaerys and what was done to him. She wants people to see what they did to her girl, their beloved queen, who is in so much pain. She wants people to feel her families pain and suffering so they remember what the blacks did to an innocent child, not just as a ploy to keep the people on their side, that’s ottos reasoning, but because Alicent wants everyone to know their pain, so she puts her families pain on display because she is done hiding it. After hiding her pain for years, suppressing her feelings and remaining dutiful and poised. Alicent is done pretending. Unfortunately, this leads to Alicent hurting her children, the parents of the murdered child, as her pain and rage consumes her more because they didn’t want their child to be a martyr or for his body to be on display for strangers to see on the day of his funeral.

[tiredguyswag]

look if you're a desi blog following me on here (this goes for everyone actually) you need to recognise india's currently committing war crimes and settler colonialism in kashmir, and you need to understand that the biggest exporter india receives is from israel (and it's mostly weapons) which are used in occupied kashmir and that india makes up 45% of israel's arms exports. kashmir is one of the most militarily dense regions on the planet. kashmiris are regularly brutalized by the indian army.

and if you believe any of that stupid 'hinduphobia is a thing that happens in india' please just get out right now

i will not stand for any islamophobia. this is people's lives we're talking about. this is not up for debate.

[straightlightyagami]

maybe the reason people on here do not understand what terfs/gc radfems believe and often cannot even tell them apart from transphobic conservatives,or just transphobes who are not radfems in general, (like they will say stuff that is in most cases very obviously untrue about terf beliefs like “terfs want women to be feminine” and “terfs have nothing against cis men actually they only care about trans people”) is that they cannot grasp that terfs genuinely view trans men as women and trans women as men. and then they get mad when people tell them their perception of this ideology is incorrect. i think this is a pretty dangerous trend bc this is how they recruit people, someone hears all this stuff radfems supposedly believe, arguments against strawmen instead of the actual thing, and then they hear actual radfem beliefs and go “so i was lied to.” since this person doesn’t understand the basis of this sort of bigotry, they may begin to believe it if it is introduced with a different explanation.

so to say, in order to defeat your enemy you have to understand them and you clearly do not

[commandernachos]

[exar547]

clothes other than shoes, gloves and hats are the sonic universe's equivalent of gendered fashion

OKAY let me explain.

almost every female character wears clothes, dress, pants shirts right? and almost every male character only wears shoes and gloves (sometimes a hat or mask) right?

my theory is that this is the mobian equivalent of gendered fashion.

AND before you argue with Sally Acorn: i believe she's meant to be depicted as a tomboy, everything from how her personality contrasted every other female character back when she was created to her entire rebellious ordeal, i think her fashion is what's considered tomboy fashion. i'd also like to make it clear that i'm referring to her archie design; this one right here.

so, with all of this aside...

why'd i make this post?

all to say this.

if Dr. Ivo "Eggman" Robotnik were a mobian, he'd be considered a femboy. (hell, it's possible he's considered a femboy anyway)

i can and will debate this.

[irenespring]

I was going to make my next politics post about Project 2025 and its likelihood of trying to ban fic in the US but then I saw this and fuck it, we're talking about this right now.

Not sure whether my Jewish alarm bells or history person alarm bells are ringing louder, but this is getting really scary. This is Nazi shit. Full-tilt unabashed Nazi rhetoric. He's talking about assigning people numbers and putting them on buses in massive groups. He wants to do it with violence. With the Supreme Court the way it is right now, he could do it. He can kill people with impunity, as long as he's doing it as President. That is the current law.

If you can vote in this election, you need to vote for Harris. Whether you like her or not, she is not using Nazi rhetoric and elevating admitted Nazis (*cough* Robinson in North Carolina *cough*). She is the only one with a shot at victory.

We need to stop this man. If that means making a pragmatic move and voting for someone you detest on some issues but who is not going to assign humans serial numbers and round them up into detention camps bloodily---fucking pinch your nose and do it.

Take it from someone who has to spend a large portion of their week reading history studies...history will not remember your supposed reason for not voting. You will be remembered as a Trump supporter, because you supported Trump.

Tldr: We need to stop this man in this election. Vote for Harris.

[ebenelephant]

^

lesbian.

hope u understand.

[incorrectafcrichmond]

Colin, singing: Which one of us has a vibrator in our bottoms? Which one could it be?

Will, singing: Yeah! One of us has a vibrator in our bottoms. Do you think it could be me?

Jamie, groaning and wincing: mmmmmmm oh mmm oh my god! Oh. MMMMMM oh god!

[spite-and-waffles]

I get so infuriated when people reduce Jason's ultimatum to "trying to force Bruce to kill someone to prove his love". The dishonesty of it. Remove all context from the situation and make it sound like an insane inhumane choice. I can do that too actually. Batman is a rich kid who whales on poor and mentally ill people instead of going to therapy. He colludes with cops to bypass due process and collect evidence illegally. He creates child soldiers and makes them into canon fodder for his obsession. It sounds pretty indefensible when you remove every single context and convention that makes a story work doesn't it? Almost like you're only willing to extend the in-universe rules to the rich white manbaby and not the child whose death he was responsible for, huh?

Also? Moral absolutism is harmful and egoistic. You shouldn't kill people, not even criminals, of course not. But that doesn't mean refusing to kill in any situation whatsoever is the moral choice. There's a difference between killing to protect and killing to avenge. Between killing an active threat who will definitely escape and slaughter a family and killing one who is safely contained. Any rule that's taken purely prescriptively and without regard to the individual context of the choice is simply dogma. Especially if the role you have voluntarily taken on requires the willingness to do whatever it takes to do your fucking job. That's why morality isn't fucking black and white.

That's the crux of it for me; why I take this defense of Batman's choices so personally. I don't trust people who see the world in such a black and white way (this includes Jason, who is exactly as myopic as Bruce, but happens to be right about the Joker imo. Fortunately he's a fictional character and also a kid who has not yet had the opportunity to grow, unlike Bruce). I don't trust people who think morality is about a set of correct judgements rather than the process by which you arrive at said judgements. I don't trust people who won't fucking choose. Inaction is complicity, bitch. The consequences of your choices exist and fall on other people regardless of your refusal to take responsibility for them. Bottomline – if your version of "mercy" results in the death and suffering of other people, maybe consider that you're the villain of the story.

[iphyslitterator]

Not adding directly to this post, because I just want to make one specific point. If I accept [TV show] as a cultural watershed, I can still easily accept Tommy not coming out until years later. He grew up in a deeply hostile environment, of course he's not quick to trust that societal attitudes have changed. We get a hint of this in Tommy saying, "You'd be surprised how accepting most people are"; the implication is that he didn't feel safe enough to come out until the culture had already changed significantly, and even then, he didn't expect things to go as well as they did.

It's plausible to me that a guy just realizing he's gay in 2009 would come out earlier than Tommy who'd been closeted for years by then. Josh's point is that Tommy will always be from the pre-[show] world, and that does seem worth talking about.