#it's part of why i get a little uncomfortable with the rhetoric about abuser/victim that is so common on the internet these days

[cdroloisms]

Cdream be like: You can't put yourself in the Prison anymore bc of the woke >:(/lh

That man is a mess like it's facinating how messy his vision of reality is for others and himself

it is fascinating fr, and does remind me of how we'd talk a little bit about how his perspective may betray what kind of environment this guy might've been in pre-dsmp. the stick-up-his-ass about rules and rule-following, the neuroticism about conflict, and the ease with which he jumps to punishment as being the appropriate response to people who cause problems (a perspective that, quite evidently, to a certain extent, does apply to himself, doesn't it?) all seems quite indicative of someone who lived in an environment where punishment being the natural consequence of stepping outside the lines was generally something that went unquestioned. of course, this is speculative, and it's not that a #tragicbackstory is necessary to explain what the fuck is up with c!Dream, and it's hardly about justifying the choice to abuse a teenager into behaving, lmao. but while exile served his goals and exile was a lot of petty, spiteful cruelty for petty, spiteful reasons, i do think there's something to be said about how clearly c!Dream hadn't expected c!Tommy to respond quite so severely to exile and how he thought he would be "fine" with potatoes in the prison and the language he used both about exile and his own early prison stay about shit like "getting better" through punishment. of course, punitive justice as a norm is kind of ingrained in our own society (just look at the rhetoric around deserving in this fandom, lmao, which speaks more than well enough for itself) and of course that reflects onto the dream smp as well, considering how many of the characters talk quite freely about the idea of punishment/deserving/what have you, but few characters are quite as obviously a stickler for rule-following as c!dream and exile and then prison are uhhh definitely on the more extreme end of things. anyway. just some food for thought

[actual-changeling]

On unhealthy relationship dynamics

A little while ago, I stumbled across a post discussing Aziraphale's character on a meta level, and without knowing the content, I was completely unprepared when one single sentence pushed me from 'uncomfortable but doable' into 'triggered and panicking'. The post itself was triggering from start to finish, but that phrase stood out to me.

Why am I telling you this?

After calming down and thinking about it for a few hours, I realised what exactly my brain had reacted to—victim blaming rhetoric repackaged to fit Aziraphale and Crowley's situation. Victim blaming is, to provide a short summary, the act of putting blame for mistreatment on the victim instead of the perpetrator. It's a concept often used in r/pe discussions, but it can be applied to any abusive or non-abusive situation as long as a power imbalance is created, meaning you have at least one person harming another in whatever shape or form.

If you broaden the definition, you can apply it to more situations, including—and this is where we reach the actual topic—their relationship and the Final Fifteen (F15).

That is exactly what some people have been doing—putting all the blame on Crowley and absolving Aziraphale of any and all responsibility as if it were his fault that Aziraphale broke his heart

Before anyone runs to the comments, let me clarify what I assume will be the FAQ.

no, I do not think Aziraphale is abusive

I do not think that their relationship is abusive either

no, I do not hate Aziraphale

yes, I know what I am talking about

everything I will talk about is largely based on what we as the audience actually see and know, combined with interpretations of the intentional subtext Neil wrote into the show.

I have been actively in this fandom since the second season was released, and I have seen a lot of (hopefully accidental) ableist & generally insensitive takes. These are the ones I see the most and what I personally consider to be important topics of discussion, but the same logic I will be applying to these can be applied to many, many more situations.

Since my meta posts get very long very quickly, I will be posting them in parts and always linking back to the others, plus this one as the masterpost.

Part 1—Nice Is A Four Letter Word

The basic pattern is this:

Aziraphale refers to Crowley with a 'nice' term -> Crowley gets upset and tells him to stop -> Aziraphale hears him but continues anyway.

There are reasons behind Crowley's rejection, and I will go into detail, but I want to make one thing very clear: It does not matter why Crowley asked him to stop. He set a boundary, and Aziraphale repeatedly and intentionally overstepped it; this causes understandable anger and frustration.

Crowley does not owe Aziraphale an explanation, just like you would not owe someone an explanation when you don't want to be called x-term. Mutual respect requires the acceptance of personal boundaries like that, and by breaking them over and over again, Aziraphale tells Crowley that his own wants are more important than Crowley's needs.

In the 1827 Edinburgh flashback, we see the consequences of Crowley doing good/being called good (which are usually connected, meaning if they notice someone is calling Crowley good, he most likely did something to cause that) firsthand, and so does Aziraphale. He gets dragged down to hell and tortured for up to thirty years.

Even before that, Crowley expresses numerous times how hell punishes good deeds, and they are 'always listening' in on him. You would assume that Aziraphale would stop to keep him safe—and yet he doesn't because he cannot accept the reality of Crowley's situation and refuses to listen to him.

On top of that, Aziraphale only ever "praises" Crowley when he does something he personally sees as praiseworthy, aka something good/kind/nice/angelic/etc. but never when it is something that CROWLEY would like to be praised for, or at the very least acknowledged. We see it in season 2 over and over and over again: Aziraphale cares for no one's thoughts or plans except his own and has no interest in even hearing Crowley out.

Aziraphale calling him nice is not a sweet little gesture, it is an intentional overstepping of a boundary Crowley has been trying to enforce for centuries, and it reinforces the dichotomy of good angels/bad demons, with angelic existence being the ultimate goal. At the very least, it's disrespectful towards Crowley, and at worst, it is actively keeping Crowley in a trauma response, tugging on his leash whenever he tries to explain reality to Aziraphale.

To have a healthy relationship, Aziraphale needs to stop.

part 2 - part 3

[spider-xan]

Without spoiling anything bc there will indeed be more information coming soon - the timestamp for this post is very early on May 15 with the most recent update being May 12 - but regarding posts about how Jonathan is allegedly so stupid that he doesn't understand he's in danger nor has he tried to escape, I'm not going to go over how he is completely aware that he's in trouble again or the uncomfortable implications of calling an abuse victim with self-doubt 'stupid' and 'why doesn't he just leave' rhetoric, but I do want to point out that as of May 8, which is three days into his imprisonment, he has, in fact, already tried to find a way to escape.

From the first part of the May 8 journal entry, right after the shaving mirror incident:

After breakfast I did a little exploring in the castle. I went out on the stairs, and found a room looking towards the South. The view was magnificent, and from where I stood there was every opportunity of seeing it. The castle is on the very edge of a terrible precipice. A stone falling from the window would fall a thousand feet without touching anything! As far as the eye can reach is a sea of green tree tops, with occasionally a deep rift where there is a chasm. Here and there are silver threads where the rivers wind in deep gorges through the forests. But I am not in heart to describe beauty, for when I had seen the view I explored further; doors, doors, doors everywhere, and all locked and bolted. In no place save from the windows in the castle walls is there an available exit. The castle is a veritable prison, and I am a prisoner!

And immediately after that:

When I found that I was a prisoner a sort of wild feeling came over me. I rushed up and down the stairs, trying every door and peering out of every window I could find; but after a little the conviction of my helplessness overpowered all other feelings. When I look back after a few hours I think I must have been mad for the time, for I behaved much as a rat does in a trap. When, however, the conviction had come to me that I was helpless I sat down quietly—as quietly as I have ever done anything in my life—and began to think over what was best to be done. I am thinking still, and as yet have come to no definite conclusion.

And then:

This gave me a fright, for if there is no one else in the castle, it must have been the Count himself who was the driver of the coach that brought me here. This is a terrible thought; for if so, what does it mean that he could control the wolves, as he did, by only holding up his hand in silence.

Every single one of the many doors in the castle is locked, the castle itself is built on a cliff where there's a thousand-feet drop beneath the windows and death is guaranteed if he were to fall, nevermind that he has no means to climb out anyway, and even if he were to escape through the front door from which he had entered, he would be facing miles and miles of endless forest on foot and without a map in unknown territory, of which he has no familiarity bc Dracula deliberately kept him in the dark about the way to the castle, and he knows Dracula can control the wolves to chase after him if he wanted.

And yet, he's still thinking about how to survive and get out of the dangerous situation he's in! But under the current circumstances, it makes rational sense why he wouldn't immediately be escaping the castle right now when everything is against him and his odds of survival, and it makes more sense to try and write for help from the outside world first.

[irrealisms]

hi! for that ask game, uh, i don't super know what i can reasonably expect you to have opinions about, so i am hoping this will work better if i give you a list and you can pick and choose stuff to have opinions about? ☕️+ [c!phil, c!sam, hannibal (the show in general, or just the guy if you want), pangolins, love (as a concept / as it applies to your own life / a specific flavour of it / whatever), the history of science]

c!phil - i am TRYING to like him okay i am TRYING. i. like him more than i used to. definitely. he's a super interesting character! i want to like him! unfortunately when it comes down to it i am just... ultimately not really a c!phil fan. pensive emoji.

c!sam - i loooooooove him. representation of autistics who just kind of suck and are bad people. he is so rigid and bad at understanding people and bad at plans changes and especially bad at not responding by digging himself deeper and he has a complicated relationship to [personhood], he is part of the machine that eats people and he is an awful person-machine and he never asked why do you want this horrifying prison made, just how do you want it made, and he follows instructions to the T long after it no longer makes any sense for him to do so and sometimes he enjoys the cruelty and sometimes he doesn't and either way he continues being awful in this terrible methodological way because it is too worn into him to do anything else. i love the parallels between him and c!dream, between these two sadists who made their own prison. i love his desperation to be doing a good job and obeying all the rules and i love his deep and abiding misery that comes from it and i love his power trip that comes from it and i love his self-justifications and his insistence on always doubling down rather than admitting defeat. i love the way he is both a dom and a sub (not in a sexual way but in a deeper way of relating to the world) because he gets an awful sort of enjoyment out of Enforcing Justice And Rules on others but also he does it to himself & he wants so badly for someone else to take control of his life and pat him on the head and tell him he's doing a good job. he is Crushing and Being Crushed! i love. my local Buried TMA Avatar .

hannibal - HANNIBAL MY ONE TRUE LOVE....... watched s1 for the first time when i was 13 and it dug its way deep into my brain and will not be coming out ever. the capital-r Romance of it all!!!! sometimes i think all i ever want is to be in a relationship like that, all-consuming and hungry and conjoined and eating and being eaten, understanding and being understood on a level no one else can touch, and then i remember that's why i go to church. other times i think, this is horrifying, this is abusive, why does no one see or acknowledge that this is horrifyingly abusive, like-- i realize that there is Murder involved as well but the fandom is so victim blame-y and buys into all of hannibal's rhetoric without acknowledging the power dynamic and it's so profoundly uncomfortable sometimes-- i realize there is sexism and racism in the show which we can talk about all day long but the show is so profoundly anti-ableist in a way almost no tv shows are and the fandom is so!! fucking!!! ableist!!!!! it's about love and it's about the things we do to survive and it's about trauma bonding and it romanticizes all of these things in a way that rings very true to the experience and also gives me very very complicated feelings sometimes and. screams. also it doesn't care about consensus reality but in a way that is realer than real, truer than true. it taught me a surprising amount of pretty high-level literary analysis when i was in the fandom back when i still read meta for it obsessively instead of largely giving up on the fandom in disgust. we construct fairy tales, and we accept them.

pangolins - i'm a fan. he's just a little guy!!!!!!!!

love - ooooh this is a complicated one. it is so broad. i love so many things and so many people, at least in English, in the ways we define the borders of [love]. i fall in love so easily, much easier than i fall out of love. part of what made Christianity appealing, maybe, is agape. i want, have always wanted, to love everyone. this connects to hannibal, a little, and also to ender's game, and to a wind in the door. when you understand someone, no matter how horrible they are, you cannot fail to love them, the same way you understand and thereby love yourself. love your neighbor as yourself. the existence of a creator implies the existence of a loving creator; to will someone's existence is the same as to will their good, because [what good-for-someone is] is [Being-themselves]. i don't find that argument wholly persuasive on its own but there's a seed in there that is compelling. love is not always unterrible; cf hannibal again. love can be monstrous. i think a lot about john darnielle's quote about love love love--quite possibly my favorite song of all time--

The point of the song is, you know, that we are fairly well damaged by the legacy of the Romantic poets--that we think of love as this, you know, thing that is accompanied by strings and it's a force for good, and if something bad happens then that's not love. And the therapeutic tradition that I come from--I used to work in therapy--you know, also says that it's not love if it feels bad. I don't know so much about that. I don't know that the Greeks weren't right. I think they were--that love can eat a path through everything--that it will destroy a lot of things on the way to its own objective, which is just its expression of itself, you know. I mean, my stepfather loved his family, right? Now he mistreated us terribly quite often, but he loved us. And, you know, well, that to me is something worth commenting on in the hopes of undoing a lot of what I perceive as terrible damage in the way people talk about this--love is this benign, comfortable force. It's not that. It's wild, you know?

it is still love. bad and destructive love is still love but it's not good, necessarily. i find it beautiful anyway & this is what i mean when i say hannibal dug its way into my brain. i talked about love coming from understanding but it doesn't have to, always, i don't think; that is a certain sort of love but there are others. some people i don't understand at all & i wonder if i ever did & i still love them deeply & will never be able to stop. there was a girl (is she still a girl? i don't know. i knew her as a girl) i spent every tuesday with in elementary school and we would go to the pool and afterwards we would eat cookies and popcorn and watch mythbusters. i have not talked to her since i broke up with her, the summer between freshman and sophomore year of high school (has it really been seven years?), and we were terrible for each other but whenever i think of her i hope she is doing well. that's love, too, i think. whenever i talk with my parents we are both of us never sure what to say, and i spend much of the conversation uncomfortable and confused, and neither side really understands the world the other grew up with and lived in, and we never will, and we would both do almost anything for each other no questions asked, and we end every conversation i love you / i love you too. sometimes love is about the not understanding and loving them anyway, about my dad watching mcc with me or me watching hallmark movies with my dad. it's complicated. love is not just one thing.

the history of science - i think it's beautiful of people, and very human of us, to always be curious. to be trying to figure it out. people sometimes frame science and religion as opposed; i was too [raised on madeline l'engle] to ever go in for that, i think. if a religion is about knowledge and truth and beauty then science is no threat to it; if it's not, what's the point? certainly i know too many science people to have ever believed that science and art, or [knowing how something works] and [appreciating its beauty] are opposed! see this xkcd and this comic. so I love the history of science in that... people have always been doing this. people have always been loving things and trying to figure out how they work and rejoicing in the knowledge. but it's also complicated, because the history of science is often horrifying, is people papering over atrocities if they get in between themselves and the shining beautiful thing that they love, or taking and using the knowledge that they get to create the atrocities. but also i know that this dialectic is just... how humans are. cf. my answer about love, again. sometimes love is destructive.

[bloodyspade0000]

30-day knb challenge: Day 1- Favorite Male character

↳ Haizaki Shougo

I am not justifying Haizaki's behaviour. I think he needs a tall glass of respect woman juice and therapy. This is just meant to explain why he is my favourite character and help you better understand him as a character. Do not send hate or take my words out of context. You will be reported, deleted and cancelled. Thank you and enjoy. :)

My favourite character is Haizaki Shougo *dodges tomatoes* a lot of people in the fandom hate this guy for many reasons. It's kind of funny how many people hate him and the amount of hate he gets just for existing. Like bruh; he's sixteen, leave him alone. 😂

His whole existence is just sad. He was literally created to be hated.

Like straight up, Tadatoshi Fujimaki even admitted that he hated Haizaki. Haizaki's sole purpose of existing is to make the Generation of Miracles look better even though they’re just as problematic as he. No one is fucking perfect and is about time people woke the fuck up and realized it. Your faves are problematic move the fuck on.

Yes, the Miracles are redeemable but so is Haizaki. Yet, unlike the Miracles, he does not get redeemable. No, he disappears and is never seen again. Like bitch, what the fuck!? if you’re gonna introduce a character to only have them disappear for a long time and either have them show up again or just never mention them again. Wasting the potential they had to be a very good character or not having them redeem themselves while the other characters who were just as fucking problematic get a fucking redemption arc because they’re fucking main characters!? What’s the point of that character even existing in the first place? What kind of bullshit is that? Just to have them exist to make the main characters look good? How the fuck does that make sense? Like where is my Haizaki redemption arc? Do I have to write it on my own? I will write it. I am writing one.

Haizaki is the only character I could relate to. Being second best, struggling to find somewhere to fit in and overshadowed and replaced by someone everyone thinks is better than you. It's fucking depressing, okay? You spend your whole life thinking you’re not good enough, and it hurts. I don't feel like going too deep into it because I don't owe you a detailed explanation of my trauma, okay?. So I'll save that for my fics where I self-project half of it onto Haizaki. It’s a coping mechanism, okay? Therapy is fucking expensive.

The anime ruined his whole character, got rid of his whole arc and shorted it down, and made him worse than he really is.

A post explaining how the anime did him dirty and goes more in-depth about his character

I am not trying to justify his actions, i.e. him manhandling Alex and beating Himura up. He does terrible shit. We all do lousy shit sometimes, but that doesn't make us bad people. Making mistakes is a part of being human, and we're supposed to hold people accountable for their actions and help them realize what they’re doing is wrong, allowing them to grow and change. Not condemn them and ostracize them, which leads to isolation and a lot of psychological trauma and self-hatred, and as someone who has dealt with—is still dealing with all three. It is not fun. It makes living painful. Highly unrecommended.

Haizaki does not have a positive role model in his life nor anybody he can turn to, everyone has already given up on him. Even Nijimura and Kuroko didn’t even try to help him, being more focused on the Miracles. (Yes, I know kuroko tried to stop him from throwing his basketball shoes away, but that doesn’t fucking count because after that Kuroko just gave up on Haiazki too). Haizaki has probably grown grew up knowing only violence and not a single ounce of kindness, turning him into the bitter and angry little boy he is.

Haizaki had so much potential. But instead of making him a great villain that potential was WASTED on fucking Kise.

Also, the Kaijo vs Seirin match in the winter cup was completely useless because Kise already got redeemed and he literally got no character development from it.

And Seirin was gonna fucking win anyways because duh thier the main characters. 🙄

Now some headcanons I think about a lot:

1. He gets abused. Some psychological behavioural consequences of child abuse are unhealthy sexual practices and juvenile delinquency, and Haizaki exhibits all three which are some external behaviours of most (NOT ALL) male abuse victims. Haizaki's a womanizer, aggressive, hostile and violent. Yet, he backs down when someone stronger than him comes around and puts him in his place i.e. Aomine and Nijimura.

a factsheet explaining the long term consequences of child abuse and neglect

How to help a friend dealing with family abuse or neglect

How to Handle Abuse

2. He's a victim. And when you're a victim, you either become angry and cynical with everything and everyone around you, swearing never to be a victim again and struggle with gaining back control of your life. Not wanting anyone to see you being vulnerable because being vulnerable makes you weak. Being weak makes you shatter. You always shatter like glass, cutting yourself every time you pick up broken pieces, watching as blood trickles through your fingers.

Your body is constantly on high alert. The default is flight or fight—survival to the fittest.

Or you bite your lip and keep your head down, bottling everything inside and looking for escapes or seeking validation. You want to be wanted and loved because you struggle with loving and accepting yourself. There's always a voice in the back of your head telling you, you're not good enough or that it's your fault. That everything is your fault. Self-hatred and self-doubt are your tormentors.

Or it's a combination between both—a constant struggle.

And I believe Haizaki portrays both from the way he acts and presents himself. Especially since his motto is literally "Survival of the fittest,” and he had once told Kuroko, " there are bad guys and then the really scary people," or something along those lines, which I believe he is talking from experience. You learn from your experiences. They either make you or break you.

3. He's touch-starved.

What Does It Mean to Be Touch Starved?

4. He's bisexual and has a lot of internalized homophobia. I can just feel his internalized homophobia rolling off of him. Bruh, I just know cuz I am bisexual, and I have struggled with internalized homophobia and still sadly struggle with it cuz I grew up surrounded by homophobic people.

I still live with them. 😭

Also, we live in a society that thinks straight is the default.

What internalized homophobia is.

5. His sexual awakening was probably Aomine or Kise. Could be both 😂?

6. He cries himself to sleep every night.

7. He's observant and a great judge of character. It's a fact. This guy literally predicted the downfall of the Miracles. Straight up warned Kuroko too. Too bad Kuroko didn't listen to him.

8. He's hilarious. When he first appeared in the manga, he literally called Himura a loser, lol. XD

9. He's a closeted softie and a total tsundere.

10. doesn't know how to react to kindness and will think you're threatening him or will feel really awkward and uncomfortable but will cover it up with his scowl, or he'll have a breakdown.

11. needs a lot of reassurance and head pats

12. swears a lot. Has no filter.

13. His bother is in the yakuza or some high position of power, and he feels inferior to him. It also explains why Haizaki gets away with things because he would have been kicked out of school if his bother wasn't either-or. I'm talking about his bother being in the yakuza, lol. XD

14. He and Momoi dated for a while but broke up on a mutual understanding that thier relationship just didn't work out. They're best friends and hang out sometimes.

15. Haizaki's good with kids and just genuinely likes them. He would be a great father and try his best to raise his kids right.

16. He gets sick really easily

17. He's clingy

18. He has no friends, mainly because he doesn't want people to get close to him because he's afraid of getting hurt again. Also, everyone in knb hates him.

19. He watches cartoons cuz he was never allowed to watch them when he was a kid. His childhood is trash, okay?

20. He hides in the closet because that's where he feels safe the most—rhetorically and literally.

21. Sleep-deprived and only runs on caffeine and spite.

List of fics that portray Haizaki better than the anime:

Heavy is the head by extrastellar

Idle Hands by DarkWoods

Another Chance by regretting my username_ (777imou_offline367)

What Matters is that We're Together by StrawFairy

06:00:00 of Haizaki Shougo (4) by ReiClien

This Is Happening by SharkGirl

What is Love by voices_in_my_head

A completely uncalled catharsis by oddball

One-shots

intertwined, under a spell by kornevable

ԼƠƔƐ & ӇΛƬƐ by Arthuria_PenDragon

delirium by extrastellar

me with you by doublejoint

Turn My Camera On by wordsliketeeth

At Summer's End by doublejoint

Taste by Hibari1_san

I Can't Get Enough of You by HisDarkSecret

I don't care if it hurts by llowsywriter

Ashes by doublejoint

broken things by lowsywriter

Series:

Finally found each other by suzakukills

This Is Happening Universe by SharkGirl

DNA by flowerway

My WIPS:

Isn’t it lovely?

Broken Crown

Love me, Love me, Love me

Grey skies

Rabbit hole

A playlist of songs that I believe fit Haizaki

Kuroko’s basketball’s manga

In conclusion, You can hate Haizaki as much as you want. But just keep it to yourself. Haizaki is my baby and I will protect him with my life.

[anewpoliticalspin]

How Republicans took true stances but then deeply misused them

I knew something had gone wrong in the Republican Party when I saw Donald Trump come out of it and be embraced by a large section of it. I had to realize this when I saw how he won support by the Republican base and not the base of any other political group. I’m not even pointing a finger, since I’d point a finger at myself as a former Republican.

The hard question I had to ask myself was: why is this happening in this party, and nowhere else?

Also, why did the Republicans have a harder and harder time finding likable candidates? Why did they have Herman Cain, then Gingrich, then Rick Perry, who singled out gays in the military and forgot one of the federal departments he would eliminate, and Ted Cruz, who told us that we don’t need any NY values, singling out anyone from an entire state, and then finally Trump? Why did they have someone as incompetent, and unable to give any answers with much substance, like Sarah Palin?

Now, I had to do some soul-searching and digging. Here’s what I uncovered.

I believe Republicans took once reasonable and thoughtful stances on many issues and used them for the wrong purposes, subtly putting the darker sides of human nature and sometimes even malicious intentions into them. It is because of this that so many were so willing to support them, since it was always subtle. Remember, the best of traps are the ones that are subtle. They are easily brought into.

When looking at issues, it’s easy to only look at the positions being put forth. Still we have to look beyond the positions themselves and look at intent. After all, the same positions can be taken by people for any reason. It can be easy to miss the forest for the trees.

I even really liked the times when Republicans got it right. They had courage and discipline. They were able to see issues in a tough-minded way. Yet I thought I saw other intentions at play, that I didn’t see as an honest and well-intended tough-mindedness.

How so? Let’s take a look.

1) Public assistance abuse. It was true to a point when Republicans were willing to say  that public assistance can lead to dependency and sometimes abuse. 

I think they could have stuck to this and done well.

Yet there were two other things I saw done that I thought I viewed harmful intent in. Frankly, they actually caused me a little alarm when I really thought about them.

One was subtle Social Darwinism. The other was lazy stereotypes and a willingness to turn a blind eye to very real issues.

i) Did I really say Social Darwinism? Mind you, that I speak about this carefully. Social Darwinism was a belief system that viewed the poor as different genetically and deserving to be subject to the laws of natural selection. Horrible? I know it is a horrible philosophy. Trust me, it’s something your history professor will tell you very terrible things about.

Yet, there was a very difficult truth I uncovered. The Republican Party used the now infamous “Southern Strategy” to use Southern prejudice against blacks and have it swing voters to their side. This was done by associating welfare use with use by blacks and also with abuse. After all, blacks at the time were the most likely recipients of public assistance, due to poverty the were often forced into.

It’s on Wikipedia. Yes, it’s true. Read it here.  

Remember we can all look down on people for things they don’t choose in ways we don’t realize. It’s subtle and destructive. Southerners before the Civil Rights era fell victim to it in that days racism. Also, keep in mind once something has been begun, and had it’s subtle effects, these effects will stay. These motives are powerful, and there is a reason people fall for them.

Let’s ask an uncomfortable question about a former president. Why was President Ronald Reagan willing to use a term like “welfare queens” on national TV, many times? 

I’m not going to call Reagan an outright racist. I’m going to say he might have fallen trap to things that were easy for many people to fall trap to.

Have you, in every day language heard people talk of those on welfare, and how the term has frankly seemed to become synonymous with laziness? 

Do you think this might have roots in something? It did. It was the “Southern Strategy” - devised intentionally by conservative strategists. It was a strategy that propped up an image of a welfare mother, and one that would make associations with blacks in a way that would resonate with Southern voters. Remember, back in those days, fears of black people were very immediate and alive in the minds of those folks, so even a subtle message would be an effective one. I will call it Social Darwinism because frankly, I believe racism is Social Darwinist at root, and I think the way in which this was done smacks of Social Darwinism on it’s own.

There is something else too, besides the Southern Strategy and racism. Social Darwinism against the poor of any color is not new. With stereotypes about the poor like “ghetto” and “poor white trash”, it seems likely people can easily fall trap into these horrible stereotypes. Looking at the way the poor are sometimes talked about by conservatives, I would actually make a good bet there’s some Social Darwinism not racist in nature at play too.

The lazy welfare mother and abuser stereotype, frankly to me, seems to smack of Social Darwinism at it’s worst. It seems likely it used both racial and non-racial Social Darwinism.

It looks like we used an unconscious, but powerful and destructive Social Darwinism against whole groups of people.

ii) It made us feel more comfortable with difficult truths by thinking the social safety net has made the poor more comfortable.

Think of this mind game. Once you’ve heard over and over again that large swaths of people are getting generous benefits they aren’t entitled to, what will you start to hear? You'll create a mindset of thinking it’s easy to go on public assistance, and you’ll associate it with over-generosity.

Have you wondered why Fox News was willing to run a series on people buying lobsters with food stamps, or one called “Entitlement Nation: Makers vs. Takers”.

Or why a Fox News Contributors was willing to state her opposition to Pell Grants on the grounds that they pay for people to get drunk and party? Yes, it happened. This one made me laugh a bit. Here is the video attached. A commentator says at 2:20 that taxpayers should not subsidize partying and binge drinking. Well, yes, some people might do that in college and I’d say it’s their choice, but is that what the Pells Grants program really does? Are people really only binge drinking in college, or are they also doing something they might need to do to succeed? See, what we can seem a little quick to say?

I’m not the only one who sees this happening either. I’m by no means the first oen saying this. Will McAvoy from HBO talked about "The New Republican”. He says here at 1:09 (click for video) that to be a Republican, in our new era, you now have to “believe poor people are getting a sweet ride”.

That’s exactly what I mean-the belief that the poor are getting a generous, and sometimes too-generous deal.

I laugh because Republicans have liked to preach against self-indulgence and laziness. Well, look who might have done that on their own. They’ve embraced a convenient lifestyle.

2) Poverty. Republicans were willing to say that poverty is at least sometimes caused by poor choices.

Yet, this was so terribly misused. Republicans fell into using a legitimate reason and instead frankly turn it into an excuse. They were willing to let us get into the mindset that poverty is generally caused by poor choices, and the poor have generally earned their justice.

Why was Newt Gingrich willing to say, “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.“

It was used to let Fox News run a series about how many “poor” families ( the series used quotes over “poor”) have microwaves and refrigerators. Please Google for reference if curious.

Thinking about poverty in America may not be pleasant, but isn’t it what is demanded of us?

Taking a point and turning it into a generalization makes us miss the point entirely.

3) Illegal immigration. Yes, it is illegal.

I say it’s fairly reasonable that Republicans see how people have come into America without legal status and said that they should be deported. No, it’s not what I personally support. I can see how a person would say this without racist intent. They pointed out the costly parts of it. The increased crime. The financial burden of it. The fairness of it being done illegally.

Yet I couldn’t be unaware to something else that happened.

Why do you think Donald Trump was willing to say  "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

He is not an unsavvy person. Trust me, he plans out what he says. He wouldn’t put effort into saying it if he didn’t. He’s a smart man. He’s known for knowing how to capture a room of people-he’s done that his whole career. He knows there is an audience who wants to hear this, better than most of us do.

I strongly wondered if it was something else.

I know because I went to a Trump rally. “Build a wall” was a chant heard all night. Can this be supported, in its own right? Yes. Yet, with the other rhetoric used by Trump, I can’t help but wonder.

Keep in mind, a poor minority (the Jewish people) were blamed when Germany had an economic crisis in the twentieth century.

The lesson is that something that was once true can be misused and turn into something different. 

Let’s use things the right way.

[messrsmemoirs]

Woops! I definitely didn't mean shipping a relationship between Remus/Greyback - far too disturbing. I meant to imply the broader definition, sorry for clumsy wording! What I was trying to get at is how do Remus & Greyback view each other and inevitably interact. Stuff like: pride, fear, bitterness, possessiveness, making people into something symbolic, disgust, laughter, trying to use each other to advance their own rhetoric. Hopefully made myself clearer...

You did, you did, and sorry about misunderstanding the first time. This is another question entirely, and quite a loaded one, so let’s dig right in.

There are a few things we can pull from canon directly that paint the relationship quite strikingly with just a few lines to go on. We never know if Remus and Greyback interact directly. It isn’t stated outright, and for my part I think Remus probably did his best to avoid it. Both as a spy who would have wanted to remain anonymous and as a man personally victimized by a coded child predator, I can see him wishing to remain in Greyback’s shadow yet firmly out of his awareness. And that’s when he has to have contact with the other werewolves, something I suspect he did very infrequently unless asked. But we do know firmly how Remus feels about Greyback whether or not they’ve met.

“You haven’t heard of him?” Lupin’s hands closed convulsively in his lap. HBP16

This is the first time Remus talks about Greyback to Harry. Before this, Celestina Warbeck is playing over the radio. Arthur Weasley is handing out eggnog. And Harry and Remus are having a conversation on Snape and Dumbledore’s trust in him, in the traditional teacher-pupil fashion. Then, it slowly deviates into werewolves, and where Remus has been: “Underground, almost literally.” His facade melts a little when he expresses some bitterness at his assignment, but nothing of note happens until they begin to talk about Greyback; until his hands close like that.

Our hands reveal a startling amount about what’s going on inside our heads. When you feel more confident, your hands are spread out and there will be more space between your fingers. But when you feel stress, that space diminishes. People tuck their thumbs under their fingers, or rub their hands together. Clasping and squeezing hands together is a self-pacifying gesture. A person who does this is uncomfortable, maybe even nervous or fearful.And it’s a way to say to yourself, “Everything is going to be alright.” Remus is not rubbing his hands together, but they are together. This is one of those subtle gestures that may try to portray confidence or respect when it fact it really means frustration, restraint, anxiety or negative thoughts. And the fact that they close convulsively is another dead giveaway: convulsive literally means, “likea convulsion in being violent, sudden, frantic, or spasmodic.” A convulsion is an abnormal, violent, and involuntary contraction in muscles. At the mention of Greyback, Remus involuntarily acts to protect himself and we watch walls go shooting up in his mind. And then, he explains:

“Fenrir Greyback is, perhaps, the most savage werewolf alive today. He regards it as his mission in life to bite and contaminate as many people as possible; he wants to create enough werewolves to overcome the wizards.

“Greyback specializes in children… Bite them young, he says, and raise them away from their parents, raise them to hate normal wizards. Voldemort has threatened to unleash him upon people’s sons and daughters; it is a threat that usually produces good results.” HBP16

Look at that language. Savage. Contaminate. Overcome. Remus is getting this information from the werewolves. He’s getting this information from the time he’s spent living among them, first hand. Fenrir Greyback is a self-described weapon, looking only to be promoted to weapon of mass destruction. The very language used to describe him is warlike and brutal. Greyback is raising his own army of werewolves who have been effectively brainwashed by their creator, by their abuser. And he does it for self-satisfaction. He does it because he wants to, because he feels justified, because it’s his self-given purpose in life. And not only is he a weapon, but a biological weapon–perhaps one of the most feared types of weapons, and the reason we even get uncomfortable in line behind someone with a cold at the supermarket. But Remus is also saying this through his filter; everything he says to Harry, for the most part, goes through that filter. And I don’t think that his words for Greyback would be less sharp or brutal behind a closed door.

“I did not know, for the longest time, the identity of the werewolf who had attacked me; I even felt pity for him, thinking that he had no control, knowing by then how it felt to transform. But Greyback is not like that. At full moon, he positions himself close to victims, ensuring that he is near enough to strike. He plans it all. And this is the man Voldemort is using to marshal the werewolves.” HBP16

Greyback is a little like a mass murderer. He probably is, too: Muggles are much less likely to survive a werewolf bite according to Pottermore. But even metaphorically speaking, Greyback kills these people. Many probably finish the job once they realize there is no hope of a cure. Greyback is a terrorist, and he is proud of it. And Remus can’t help but have a little of that hatred and resentment come out in his voice while he speaks.

Do I think Remus is afraid of Greyback? Yes, and no. No, because he’s an adult. Because he knows any power Greyback had over him was in his mind. No, because he has a support network of people in the Order, the support of Dumbledore. Rationally, Remus is not afraid. But subconsciously, whether Remus acknowledges it, he does show distress. So, ye: likely because Greyback targeted his family. Yes, because Greyback is the man who turned him into a werewolf over an insult. Yes, because he’s seen what Greyback will do to people. Yes, because he might still impact someone Remus loves. Yes, because Remus wonders what kind of power he might still have over him.

And yes, because there’s always a level of fear when facing your attacker, or your abuser, or your nightmare. Let’s not pretend 5 year old Remus didn’t have nightmares that went on well into his teen years about a faceless werewolf who attacked him in the night. And now, to know who the werewolf is, to see that he’s a monster? What kind of psychological impact must that have?

As far as what must Greyback feel towards Remus? I can’t think of anything except for possessiveness. “I created you.” I imagine Greyback is the type of man who hears the name “Lupin” and comes down to investigate. Where Remus actively tried to avoid him, I don’t hesitate to say that Greyback actively sought him out if it came to light that a Lupin was in his camp. Why would Remus hide his name? It certainly serves it’s purpose, but let’s not forget that people already know who he is: he’s the professor who got kicked out of Hogwarts. It was probably in the paper. It probably had a picture of his face. That could give him credibility when trying to gain the trust of the other werewolves: “I’m no better off than any of you. I hate them just the same as you all do.” And assuming he didn’t hide his identity, Greyback would have come for him. Not a violent confrontation, either, but more of a meeting. Greyback sets his eyes on Remus and laughs. He probably asks Remus, “How’s life been? How’s your father?” All while wearing this horrible, wolfish grin that would have made Remus seethe and his stomach contract in disgust.

Let’s not make the mistake that Greyback was particularly fond of Remus, though. Greyback has bitten loads of children, for a handful of reasons. Remus isn’t exactly special. But what he is, is a toy. Someone to insult, someone to push. Remus clings to his humanity, his perceived differences between the werewolves and him. An Us vs Them, and Greyback very much likes to be a part of the Us. Remus is loathe to be an Us, and Greyback wants to make sure every moment that he can that Remus knows he isn’t one of Them. To Greyback, Remus could even be proof: he could use Remus to show the others that even though he’s tried to be “sophisticated,” to live among “normal” wizards, that they still shun him. He would use Remus to further his cause. Remus is the ultimate example of the failings of wizardkind: not only was his father a hateful man, but now here his son is, no better off than the rest of them. Of course, none of that is true. But that’s all Greyback and the others need to see. That’s all they do see.

I’ve also speculated before that the reason Remus and Greyback look so physically different is because of the nature of their illness: Remus shuns it, but Greyback embraces it, and he embraces the savage nature of the werewolf. He enjoys killing, even children. And he enjoys what he is. To Greyback, the fact that Remus hates being a werewolf is almost surely another disappointment. Not that he would go so far as to claim he gave Remus a gift, but Remus has essentially been given a kind of power that other wizards simply don’t have. He could be a weapon, and he could use the boons that come with lycanthropy. Instead, he finds them disgusting. Greyback, who loves what he is and what he does, probably sees Remus as a waste. A waste of power, a waste of magic, and a waste of space. Supposing he really was trying to lift the werewolves up, which I doubt, he might also see Remus as an enemy. There was no trust between them, not ever. Not even if Remus won over the others. And Greyback would have ripped Remus apart with his bare hands if given the reason or opportunity. Literally.

Hope this is more towards what you were looking for, dear.

Like what you’ve read? Give me more prompts.Or, support the blog. Buy me a coffee?

[colorisbyshe]

it makes me feel really sick that people saying "please don't tell people to lie back and think of england" is being called predatory. that's classic predator behavior-- isolate the vocal victim, flip the terminology around and try to point fingers @ them for x behavior. ace culture was why i took being raped lying down and thought it was normal... these people respond like this bc speaking out limits their access to sex. if we say "hey rape is bad" then people who benefit from it will push back

I think the real issue is most of these people claiming it aren’t the rapist partners--they are the unwilling sex partner.

Which is why the denial comes from two different places--being in denial that it’s sexual assault (or sexual assault-tangent) for mental health reasons and being in denial of their lack of aceness (often for mental health reasons).

There are a lot of people who identify as ace as a bandaid laid over a gaping wound, a stopgap to avoid introspection and confrontation. When women, LGBT people, people of color, disabled people, neurodivergent/mentally ill people, fat people, and all other sorts of marginalized people are raised to believe that they either shouldn’t have sexual desires or that their sexual desires are deviant--bad--wrong--dangerous, I think some people cling to asexuality as a way to sort of nullify that narrative. Which is why we get a lot of “more pure” implications of “I don’t want my partner for their body, I want them for their soul, I mean we still fuck and I still want them, but like... I’m not like the other girls.”

“You guys get horny just seeing strangers on the street but I just appreciate how good they look, enjoy their personality, and then want to fuck them.” “I still want sex with them but it’s for intimacy, unlike you fools.”

We’ve all seen this shit dozens of times. Raised in sex shaming society where sex is both built up to be this big thing (fireworks! life changing! you get hard/wet just by seeing a hint of navel!) and something required (good girls do what their husbands want, real men fuck women, a never have i ever game that just devolves into drugs/alcohol/sex questions where you feel left out because you haven’t fucked in the laundry room knowing someone else’s load--haha--was in the machine) and also something disgusting (whore, slut!, pervert), it’s tempting to negate that by acting like sex is a requirement for everyone else but it’s just an option for you that you choose with a clear mind unlike those animals. Feeling like its a choice makes you feel less chewed up and spat out by a system--by rape culture. It’s a way of taking back control and even feeling superior over it.

So, these people likely are experiencing sexual attraction, enjoying fully consensual sexual experiences (although, again, a partner who thinks their other partner doesn’t desire it is still a wannabe abuser, to put it lightly), but refuse to say such lest they be grouped in with the rest of us.

On the flip side--

I think with a lot of bad sexual experiences (especially if you are a woman), there’s a knee jerk impulse to rationalize how it wasn’t that awful, how maybe you wanted it, and how it could’ve been worse. “Real” rape is violent. “Real” rape requires a no gone ignored. “Real” rape can’t just be someone knowing your sexual boundaries being ignored because someone wanted you, your body, to exert power over you.

So, this ties back into the first one--the not really asexual asexual--but it’s the inverse. They are ace but are rationalizing in sex positivity/neutrality to make sense of a life where they know most of their partners are going to want/expect sex from them and this is a way to pretend like it’s okay.

We actually see this a lot with non-ace women. Remember the cat person story? Or maybe the stories that came out about Aziz Ansari?

It’s the same exact thing and in those cases most people condemned the Cat Person/Aziz. Because people who have sex with people who are not eagerly consenting--who maybe never say no but never asked for it in any way either--are abusers, toxic, dangerous. And also that those stories are how things really play out when you’re having sex with someone you aren’t attracted to and don’t want to have sex with--they aren’t somehow still pleasant, they’re awful and nauseating and uncomfortable.

And how hard it is for women to say “No” or “I don’t want it, at all” even after that. Because setting up boundaries often isn’t allowed.

You can set up fake moral-justifying boundaries--I have sex because I want to have sex but not because my body wants it, my mind now (sex positive ace)--but you can’t really set up REAL boundaries like “I don’t want sex” without at least a little fear of retribution.

Violence. Judgment. Something “real” unlike lying beneath someone who is taking sex from you but somehow isn’t raping you because theoretically it’s not that bad, it’s like washing dishes or eating vegetables.

Both mentalities feed into rape culture--they are created by and reflect and amplify all of the most insidious parts of our society that views sex as something owed, something required, something disgusting.

Caught in the crossfires of this rhetoric are a bunch of young people who are going to think their unpleasant experiences and the demands made onto them aren’t that bad,

If a 30 year old wants to delude themselves, I can’t stop them. I feel sorry for them but wish it wasn’t happening to them but there’s nothing I can say to them to make them stop.

But there are kids at 12, 14, 16, 18 who are gobbling this up and having sex they aren’t ready for, maybe would never be ready for or want, and are being told to grin and bear it.

And that’s what makes me truly upset. Like I’ve said before--the ace community, as it exists now, was a mistake and I deeply regret ever identifying within it, for falling victim to it (literally, I was victimzed by adults in it), and for encouraging it.