#its not what you can do for mental illness its what it can do for you

[dragonwysper]

I have shit to say about this in regards to all mental illness and neurodivergency.

There's this prevailing attitude that a diagnosis excuses all of a person's harmful actions. You see it in autism and ADHD a lot. I'm diagnosed with both, and there have been times someone is mad at me for something. Somewhere in the argument it'll come up that I'm neurodivergent (usually me saying I may have interpreted something incorrectly), and suddenly I've done nothing wrong at all, and oh wow I see your point and agree with you now, and oh you're so cool. And it's like. Why did your perception of me do a complete 180° when you learned I was neurodivergent? Why do you feel you can't disagree with me anymore? Why are you giving me the benefit of the doubt when your actual opinions are completely the opposite of mine?

And I truly do think it's because people have this weird view of mental illness. Oh this person is really rude and insults everyone, but they're autistic, so they're just blunt and can't help it. Oh this person interrupts everyone in conversation and doesn't listen to anything they say, but it's okay because they have ADHD and they can't help it. It's all treating neurodivergent people as if they have no control over their actions, and thus should be excused for them. But then it ends up extending further, into oh, this person sexually assaulted a caretaker, but they're severely intellectually disabled and don't know what they're doing, so it's not their fault. Oh, this person threw up a perfect nazi salute, twice in a row, but they're autistic and were probably trying to go for something else, so it's not their fault.

I'm not saying we shouldn't give neurodivergent people some grace. Sometimes an autistic person will misinterpret a social cues and respond incorrectly. Sometimes a depressed person will be irritable and will snap at those around them. But it can extend too far, and creates harm for everyone involved. I have known autistic people who screamed and yelled at and insulted teachers and classmates for being wrong about very simple little facts, who, when confronted, said, "I'm autistic, so I can't help it." And so they never get in real trouble, and they never get called out for other shit they pull, and they're allowed to treat people terribly. And in a sense, they don't know better, because nobody's tried to teach them better. People think they're incapable of being better because they're autistic and so they must not be able to grasp it.

People end up trying to empathize and sympathize with neurodivergent people for their neurodivergency. And then it becomes excusing the objectively bad actions of someone. Or, alternatively, the action is so bad that empathy is impossible, so it must mean they aren't neurodivergent, or, in some scenarios, that their particular brand of neurodivergency is evil and bad.

We've created this narrative of neurodivergent people being innocent, which is at its core infantilizing and abelist. And then at the same time, we've demonized disorders like ASPD and NPD, that we treat as abuser disorders and assign to every abuser ever.

And it's all led to the situation with Elon and Trump. Elon's autistic, so he didn't know what he did. Or Elon's a nazi, so he can't be autistic, he's just a shitty person. Trump's belligerent and abusive, so he must be a psychopath or a narcissist, and we should hate him for that.

Neurodivergent people deserve a bit of grace, and anybody, regardless of mental state, deserves criticism for harmful actions, are two beliefs that can and should coexist.

people roast me for believing elon musk when he says he's autistic, I think there's an assumption that I'm trying to excuse his actions, but that's not true. he's too autistic to get the script right, he messes up the party lines, he is incapable of concealing his hate speech. with social ineptitude comes moral agency, you cant be convinced to change your behavior simply because its what normal people do, for better or for worse. he totally thought he was doing a more plausibly deniable saluting motion up there.

[utilitycaster]

So I saw a post that asked the question why the Gau Drashari didn't just intervene when Avalir started shorting the tithe, and it made me realize a certain mentality present in a lot of fandom discussions as of late, so I'll answer that and then move into the more general case.

The answer is of course we don't know specifically why, but the implications of that response are, to be blunt, pretty wild. The Gau Drashari did have an insurance against this; that is the Pact of Crown and Throne. The shorted tithe was a fairly recent development. This also does not consider the responsibilities and numbers of the Gau Drashari, and in general removes all responsibility from the wizards of Avalir.

This does not, to be clear, mean the Gau Drashari hold no responsibility; but the idea of "why don't the Good People Who Knows What's Right Stop The Bad Thing From Happening" relies on a few assumptions that, if left unchecked, become dangerous. The first, and one I won't go into as much depth in this post, is of course that when we're talking about fiction, the bad thing often does need to happen for plot reasons. If your standard is "why has anyone in this story ever let anything bad happen" (and to be clear, I do not think that was the intent of the specific post that sparked this, but it certainly is an argument some people make) then you are absolutely incapable of having a conversation about narrative. The more serious one is one of agency, responsibility, and stewardship, and I'll define those below but in short, is the person who bears responsibility for an ill consequence the person who directly caused it? Or the person who failed to stop them? Can responsibility be shared? And if it is shared, who must act? Is authoritarianism right so long as the Good People are doing it? [it's not, but that is the logical endpoint of this mentality.]

Now, I started writing this prior to the wrap-up, but the idea that the Ring of Brass shared responsibility was explicitly stated; the idea was to have PCs who made it clear this was a “cascading disaster”, not just Vespin Chloras as history’s lone greatest villain. This is explicitly discussed in the text as well by Vespin in his moment of clarity; he knows how he will be remembered, whether or not it is entirely true, and hopes the Ring of Brass will have the mercy of being forgotten, rather than remembered as complicit. Between Patia’s orb and Cerrit, they may have a third option: to be remembered as both complicit and also those who gave their lives in sacrifice to save as many as they could.

The Ring of Brass, indeed, is an excellent opportunity to describe agency, responsibility, and stewardship. Agency in this context is the ability to act - the ability to make choices and act upon them. The Ring of Brass, as important but in many cases less public figures (or public figures with room for a private life, at least). The Ring of Brass make many decisions and are largely free to make them. Responsibility is not just about the outcome of those decisions - responsibility means what you are supposed to be doing - your commitments, your contracts, your promises - but also what you have done - what outcomes were the results of your actions. Laerryn is responsible for maintaining the arcane devices of the Meridian Labyrinth; she is also the one responsible for diverting arcane energy from the Arboreal Calix to power the Astral Leywright. She is responsible, at least in part, for the destruction of the Tree of Names, and the loss of its protection. She is also responsible for the mitigation of the worst case scenario of Calamity by using the Leywright to divert the titans under Cathmoira.

Stewardship is a special type of responsibility. Stewardship is not about the consequences of your own actions, necessarily; a steward takes on responsibility for something that might not be their creation or a mess that might not be their fault. It is an assumption of a mantle of responsibility for something one did not necessarily cause; it’s freed from the two-way street of “responsibility.” Indeed, this comes up specifically at the end of EXU Divergence, which serves as a bookend to both Calamity and to the start of Critical Role; The Platinum Dragon tells the All-Hammer that “it is time we entrust our children to be stewards of this world you created.” Or as was said in the wrap-up about the nature of society after the Divergence, “every single person shares an equal slice of responsibility for building.” This is a responsibility for a destruction many of them did not participate in; indeed, the three mortal PCs and many of the NPCs spent most of their time focusing on survival in the cataclysmic world they were born into. They are not responsible for the destruction or these circumstances; but they are responsible for - stewards of - rebuilding when it ends. It is a task to which they admirably rise.

One needs agency to be responsible, either in the space where responsibility overlaps with stewardship - in performing necessary duties or actions - or in the space where responsibility means that an outcome is the result of one’s choices. If you truly have no space to act and no choices to make, you cannot in any way affect the world, for good or ill; you cannot be held responsible. Similarly, having agency grants some measure of responsibility. It may be a small measure; but it is a measure nonetheless. Now, I think true non-agency is vanishingly rare; but I think there is an unfortunate faction on the internet that wishes it upon their favorite characters and upon themselves as an escape from the possibility of being tasked with responsibility and therefore criticism - how can one be criticized if one is never responsible?

Unfortunately for them, I find few things more loathsome than a shirking or denial of one’s responsibility. To sacrifice agency as self-protection is ultimately a losing game in real life - you will, inevitably, wish for that agency when the protection runs out, and the initial sacrifice is still a choice for which you are responsible - but again, I think true non-agency is rare and most cases are merely a case shirking or evading - passing the buck, as one might say. Saying “well why didn’t someone stop me from doing the bad thing - I didn’t know” is a particularly loathsome specific case of this loathsome practice. Returning to that first example, Laerryn undeniably does have agency (and to her credit, she never claims she doesn’t); if she does not know the purpose for the tithe that is information she could have tried to obtain, and likely had the resources to do so given the power to which she had access. She chose not to; choosing not to do something is still a choice.

On the other side of the coin, the prisoners of Rybad-Kol do have harshly restricted agency but they are not without it, and they consistently choose to exercise it in service of resistance, whether it is Nia trying to push the limits of her scrap of power as a medic to save as many people as possible, or Fiedra developing a plan to rescue Crokas, or Garen introducing structural flaws in the oubliettes. It is very little, but at no point do they collapse to the ground and declare themselves powerless victims of circumstance, however wretched and unfair to them the circumstances may be.

To round out the Calamity-era trilogy I must cover Downfall, which is, I think, the most thorough exploration of what it means to be responsible, in all senses of the word. I think an unstated theme is that the Prime Deities must constantly ask themselves “should I have stopped mortals from doing the bad thing” and balancing that granting of agency and stewardship to mortals with their own responsibility. As with Calamity it too is a cascading disaster of multiple people’s flawed choices; and as with Calamity, the group of PCs ultimately decide to take on this responsibility and mitigate it, knowing it is not enough, that many will die, and that better choices could have been made earlier, but again not collapsing to the ground in despair. The Divine Gate is a creation born from this sense of responsibility - that the best choice they can make is to leave, knowing it too is imperfect and harmful.

Campaigns 1 and 2 are also explorations thereof, and many of the characters are defined by taking on responsibilities for things that are the result of actions over which they had limited control - at least a partial loss of agency. Percy’s creation of the gun was in part due to external influence, and its spread across Exandria the result of Ripley, in a very direct case of him failing to stop her; he sees it as his fault and endeavors to be a better person as a result. Vax intended his promise to be a simple trade of his own life, but accepted, instead, a divine duty. Keyleth rose to leadership despite her insecurities and despite it being a responsibility she had little opportunity to abandon, and in doing so also accepted that she might need to live with imperfect action. Caleb, Fjord, Yasha, and Veth were all put into situations of external influence, and all set out with the intention of learning more or making things right; the parties as whole accepted responsibility for situations that were in no way their doing or for which they truly had no way of knowing the outcome.

One may be able to see where this is going, which is, of course, the ascension of responsibility-shirking and agency denial in Campaign 3. I think the first sign of this mentality among the fandom rearing its head is, of course, the gnarlrock fight. In it, Laudna (as controlled by Delilah) destroys the gnarlrock. Imogen gave it to her and asked her not to do anything to it, and after this, it was broken. Now, was it Laudna’s intent to break it? No. Is it still her responsibility because it resulted from her actions? Yes, in the way that if you accidentally knocked over someone’s expensive sculpture and broke it, they would likely find you responsible even though that was not your intent. This is not a difficult concept, and yet it recurred endlessly (and especially but not exclusively with Imogen and Laudna; discussed here and more recently here.) Indeed, in the specific case of the gnarlrock it raised a question of “are you taking responsibility for the fact that Delilah can overtake your body and cause you to do harm”, which I would say she did not. The idea that it was Orym’s responsibility to stop Laudna, and not Laudna’s responsibility to stop herself, was a similar case. And overall, this attitude became the calling card of many of Bells Hells’ defenders: how dare you ask the party to consider other people’s feelings? How dare you expect them to put themselves at risk? How dare you expect them to understand that they now wield power?

This attitude, as discussed above, has the opposite effect on me; saying “well they had trauma harm they do isn’t their fault” is a condemnation of a character, not a defense, and makes me think even less of them. The idea that abstention from a choice recuses one from responsibility is itself a form of shirking and therefore is, as said before, loathsome and repulsive. Not knowing or even not intending is relevant in discussions of someone’s character, but they are still responsible for the outcomes of actions in ignorance.

I would be remiss to not briefly address this as a mentality outside of fandom, or within fan-to-fan interactions. I’ve more than once received, in response to me asking someone not to spoil something within my tags, the response “How was I supposed to know.” Firstly, it’s in my pinned post and you could ask, but secondly, this is not a defense that will enamor you to me. You didn’t know. You know now. You are still responsible for this action. Correct it. And more generally I think the combination of self-diagnosed non-agency and “why didn’t the good people stop the bad people?” is all too common in a lot of political discussions. If your interpretation of “no ethical consumption under capitalism” is not “do your best but don’t berate yourself for imperfect action” but rather “you can do whatever”, are you someone who is prepared - and indeed, willing to work for - the fall of capitalism? Or are you secretly glad to have an excuse to shirk one’s ethical responsibility? Are you secretly glad to be able to blame the “good” people for not stopping the bad people because the responsibility of fighting the bad people is a much greater one, even though in doing so you separate yourself from the good people and, simultaneously, do absolutely nothing?

This idea again of the good people being responsible for stopping the bad ones is also I think at the core of the dislike of the gods that Bells Hells and some of their defenders hold. If everything is the fault of the gods not stepping in, then no one else has agency and no one else can be responsible for anything and you can never blame anyone else. This of course leads to the incoherence demonstrated here; are the gods an ultimate good then, to be granted this responsibility, or an ultimate evil to not use it to override all mortal actions? If everything is the gods’ fault and responsibility, then nothing can be Bells Hells’ fault. This, of course, however, brings up the question: so why am I watching some people who apparently can’t do anything when I could be watching the far more interesting entities with freedom to act? Is it not more compelling to follow the story of the gods, faced with no choice that will ever absolve them, still try to make choices that help as many people as they can, than to follow some people tediously avoid making a decision until a god tells them they can’t put it off any longer?

The fall of Avalir is designed to be a failure on many separate points, for which many are responsible. The Ring of Brass are among them; they become heroic through taking on the responsibility of mitigation. To defend a party’s failure to rise to their responsibilities or assume stewardship, and to blame some other power for failing to intercede is to forfeit their heroic and indeed, protagonist status.

[maskedcrawford]

Sick Day

G-Dragon x Reader

Summary: Jiyong takes care of you when you feel ill.

Warnings: None, just all the fluff.

A/N: I hope you feel better soon, nonnie. I hope this can help bring some temporary relief or even just a little comfort with all the crud you have going on. <3

Requests are OPEN

You called out of work yesterday, completely forgetting you and your boyfriend were supposed to go to dinner, so when Jiyong showed up, you mentally slapped yourself. You answered the door, blanket wrapped around you, messy hair and an exhausted, and slightly sweaty, look on your face. His smile dropped the minute he saw you and he swore he’d take care of you.

He ordered dinner last night, since you hadn’t had the energy to go grocery shopping, and decided he was going to stay the night to take care of you. He held you when you wanted it, and didn’t when you didn’t. He rubbed on our stomach when it became painful and helped keep track of the fever you had. He was at your every beck and call.

That’s how he wound up getting up early the next morning and grabbing some groceries for homemade comfort meals. He got things for soup, some things for your absolute favorite meal, and he also got you the medications to help your fever and throat, including a humidifier, and something to help you sleep.

“Here, jagi, take this.” Jiyong hands the fever reducer and you take it from him without hesitation. He sets up the humidifier in your room for you and turns it on.

“I don’t want you to catch,” you think for a moment, “Whatever this is. You should go home,” you try to reason with him but he won’t have it.

“Absolutely not, I’m staying right here to take care of my girl,” he smiles and kisses your forehead.

“After dinner you can sleep some more,” he says as he walks out of your room to work on the homemade soup. After a while of laying in bed you start to miss his presence so you get up and walk into the kitchen, your blanket still wrapped around you.

“What’s wrong, baby?” he abandons the pot on the stove and walks over to you, you lay your head on his shoulder, feeling pitiful.

“I missed you,” you mumble as you relax against him. He smiles to himself.

“It’ll be done soon, ok? Go lay back down or get comfortable on the couch. I’ll bring it to you.” He hugs you close and you reluctantly pull your head off his shoulder. Walking over to the couch you sit there and wait for dinner.

Jiyong grabs two bowls and portions out two servings of the delicious meal. The food is great but your energy is depleted. You put the spoon down after only a few bites and he arches his brow as you set the bowl down.

“I can make you something else, or order something if it’s not good,” he says and you shake your head.

“I’m just tired,” you yawn.

“Well, you need to eat, so,” he trails off as he picks up the bowl and gets some of the soup on the spoon. He holds it up to your mouth for you and you give him a second glance before allowing him to feed you.

“This is so stupid,” you mumble feeling slightly embarrassed.

“Why?”

“I’m not a baby,” you whine as you take the soup from him.

“You’re my baby,” he says to give you a different perspective.

“Would you not do the same for me if I needed it,” he asks genuinely.

“Without a second thought.”

“Then stop complaining and let me help you,” he feeds you another bite and you huff. After dinner you get back into bed and Jiyong’s not far behind you with your sleep aid. You lay down and get comfortable and once you do, he’s right next to you pulling you into his side.

“This should help,” he says as he hands you the stuff. You grin in response and before you know it you’re out like a light, he rubs up and down your arm gently, helping lull you to sleep. He closes his eyes and drifts off to sleep next to you.

A couple hours later you stir awake due to the pain in your stomach and you groan, hiding your face in his neck. Jiyong slowly opens his eyes, forgetting for just a moment where he was, until he realizes its you laying next to him.

“Hold on, I’ll be right back.” He grabs you some Ibuprofen for the pain and you take it.

“My throat is killing me,” you rasp out.

“Give me a few minutes and I’ll be right back.” He kisses your forehead before grabbing his keys. About ten minutes later he comes back in with two servings of ice cream.

“This might help,” he says as he hands you your desert.

“You know me so well,” you grin as you take a bite of the delectable dessert. He turns on your favorite movie as you both get comfortable again, and eat your midnight snacks. Once your done, cuddling resumes and you kiss his shoulder.

“Thank you,” you whisper softly in his ear.

“For what?” he peeks down at you.

“For taking care of me, I don’t mean to be a burden,” you look away from his eyes.

“You are never a burden. I like taking care of you,” he reassures you. You smile to yourself and lay your head on his chest, feeling the steady rhythm of his heartbeat. As you watch the movie, your eyes slowly start to close and before you know it, you’re out like a light with Jiyong not far behind you.

✨️Comment to be on the taglist✨️

[vanrougenui]

may this post find every avemujica fan in good faith idk all my commentary on the anime after episode 11 got blown out of proportion to the point that i got called illiterate multiple times by different people which is very funny because i am someone who always preaches about media literacy... so i am here to make myself clear on everything. why i think what i think and in general why i am so disappointed

my main problem stems with the fact that they made uika and sakiko RELATED. firstly, i have to state that i quite liked uisaki before episode 11 got aired. in fact uika was my favorite character in avemujica. i enjoyed their dynamic and it was very interesting. to me personally, i clearly saw their relationship as something that was romantically coded based off uika's behavior towards sakiko. uika is very clearly obsessed with sakiko and that obsession stems out of love (and trauma and mental illness). from the lyrics of imprisoned xii and to hugging sakiko's preformance outfit and sleeping next to it as if its a pillow and other cases, it was all obsessive behavior because uika loves sakiko, she wants to bind herself to her forever. many people like me thought that it was romantic love and even if it wasnt romantic, seeing how uika acted towards sakiko and then learning that they are related (aka aunt and niece) makes it so weird. i think i have full right to be upset. my complaints come from the fact that they could have handled this so much better and written it in a different way. the genealogy between sakiko and uika just popped out of nowhere and was very much unnecessary.

saying that the anime was always meant to be weird and uncomfortable doesnt help it. when you frame their relationship this way and then turn around and make it incestuous cant be written off as uika just being mentally ill. incest is a very sensitive topic to many people such as myself for example, so this plot point just was unexpected to me and made me feel upset just because of how it was handled.

what makes it all worse is that we know that the writters can do a good job, take mutsumi/mortis and her excellent representation of disassociative personality disorder or take the whole mygo anime for example. its not like they cant write well, hell even in that episode, uika's identity crisis and everything connected to her sister was so interesting, we could have had that twist as itself as we already had uika twin/sister theories circulating from start so it would have made sense at least and further developed her.

queercoding, queerbaiting and then dropping the incest on everyone was vile. it wouldnt have been as bad if they hadnt built this brick by brick just to crash it down. you think uika being related to sakiko added any depth to her character? it sure as hell didnt. and i will keep on thinking this way until its explicitly said that uika lied about something idgaf. "uika is an unreliable narrator" okay then she better be lying about being related to sakiko idk, uika already was a terrifying and interesting character without being sakiko's aunt. this isnt about media literacy, its about being uncomfortable with incest and the fact that people are condemning others for feeling this way is insane. incest just made uika lame and all the other people defending it lamer like i dont know go stand in the corner with your incest ship and think about it

i hope this isnt my last thoughts on this, well until the anime ends that is. which is in two episodes.. i will remain of this opinion most likely until uika proves the whole weaver of lies thing and if its stated that she isnt related to sakiko then great! will i still like uisaki? no and it doesnt mean that i dont like ave mujica or bandori anymore and that i am leaving the fandom. no i am not. just because of incest i will not stop liking the franchise or ave mujica i will just promptly ignore the incest and not pay attention to it or engage with anything relate to it for my own good. it just left a bitter taste in my mouth and i decided to state how i felt, i could have never guessed that people would get offended...

[sophieinwonderland]

Thinking more about dehumanization and how it's a process, and I'm wondering if the whole "fakers" narrative could be considered to at least border on dehumanization.

It's not necessarily the label itself, but the identity ascribed to it. When you hear people from cringe subreddits, or sysmed blogs talk about fakers, there's a certain identity they have given this mythical group. People who are going out and role-playing a mental illness for the fun of it or for attention. Sometimes even intentionally to make "real" systems look bad.

At the very least, the narrative suggests that these people, if not actively behaving in a malicious way, don't have any other motives deeper than pretending to be systems for fun or attention.

A rational person who thought critically might question why anyone would go through so much effort. Let alone thousands of people.

Occasionally, some might point to Factitious Disorder, which they'll sometimes refer to by its previous name as Munchausen's Syndrome. But this armchair diagnosis doesn't make sense either. People with factitious disorder usually are people who are seeking attention by pretending to be DISABLED. They want SYMPATHY.

The people who pluralphobes fearmonger about are usually not that. They are not usually claiming to have a disability, nor are they playing up the disabled symptoms. In fact, the reason people are accused of faking is usually the opposite. They aren't talking about the disability parts enough.

Another aspect of this is it is usually presented as a dichotomy between traumatized and non-tromatized people. But generally, the type of psychological profile of somebody who would tell these massive malicious lies for attention to the point that they create an entire false identity around them would be people who had learned to lie as a child. Either by being abused when they would tell the truth making lies become habit, or they were neglected and found that lies help get them attention.

It seems incredibly unlikely that there would be a group of completely non-traumatized people who did not suffer any neglect during childhood who would be lying and pretending to be systems when they aren't. That just doesn't seem like it would be a very common psychological profile. It's not impossible. But probably wouldn't happen to be degree that we see endogenic systems online.

But if that's not it, then what is the alternative? Are endogenic systems pathological liars who were traumatized or neglected and then just decided to pretend that they did not suffer trauma or neglect and pretend to be systems?

If that was the case, then why not just pretend to be traumagenic systems? They would certainly get more support that way?

There's just no universe where the whole fakers narrative makes any sense at all. But it's not supposed to make sense. It's supposed to give sysmeds an out group that they can have power over. A made-up villain who they can fight against, harass and bully, and feel good about themselves while in reality maintaining a status quo that oppresses them.

Endogenic systems are real.

This shouldn't be a debate. Practically every psychologist and psychiatrist who has ever publicly commented on the subject has affirmed that you don't need trauma or a disorder to be plural.

But even when you put aside the professional opinions, it doesn't hold up either when you actually look at the mythical fakers as actual human beings and think critically about what would cause such a huge number of people to pretend to be endogenic systems.

There's just a no way for this to make sense when you are thinking of the so-called fakers as actual human beings who would have human motivations for doing what they do.

[darksisterk]

Hannibal Season 1 is a Psychological Horror🩸💉🧠

There should probably be more complex trigger warnings considered for some people before watching Hannibal. Of course, if you decide to watch a show named “Hannibal” you probably know what you’re getting into to a certain degree. However, disregarding the certain murder and cannibalism, there are the themes and plot surrounding mental illness that escalate throughout season 1. The professional and emotional abuse and neglect on both ends from Hannibal and Jack Crawford. The gaslighting, medical gaslighting, medical malpractice, abuse of power, and unorthodox/inhumane treatment. Not to mention how the invalidation of one’s own internal experience is abuse in and of itself—which Jack and Hannibal constantly do to Will. It’s the inevitable feeling of spiraling into insanity when everyone around you is lying and you begin to question your own self-identity and thoughts.

Those who have struggled with mental illness of any kind can relate due to the stigmatization and neglect of mental health in our society—whether that be a chronic or more mild form of illness. This includes the character of Georgia Madchen that relates to Will’s arc involving mental illness and its common themes of medical neglect and hopelessness when seeking treatment. For some of us who have experienced and/or have triggers surrounding psychological horror, Season 1 of Hannibal is rife with them.

[siffrinsometimes]

Back to the Ground

[pleasedontcareaboutme]

It's missing my father hours rn so imma just dump a bunch of pictures here and cry

( sorry i don't know the source of anything I just had them on my phone)

(also dont read the tags i just need to let it out lol)

[timelyrmdoodle]

I need to know… do you think Royal margarine is scared of bugs? Like would he scream and climb on top of furniture with a pantufla in hand ready to throw it (horribly) at the bug or is he a brave guy and just carefully takes the bug outside again?

(Please don’t mind this very oddly specific question, I just think it would be neat if you drew Royal margarine with a little (or big) buggy creature)

OH DEFINETLY THE FIRST ONE

he for sure SAYS he would confidently take the bug outside for you if asked and the bug would be safe and everything would be fine but i dont think he could actually even throw anything at it, hed cower behind buttercream until the bug either just leaves on its own or someone else takes care of it

this also reminded me of this one meme everybody was drawing from however long ago and i wanted to do it for such a long time and i did im sorry couldnt contain myself

also a bonus little doodle of him actually getting the courage to carry said buggy

he would only do this if forced to take care of it by himself with no outside help and then he'd be fine and boast about it for the next 2 hours

[carnivalls]

.

See the thing is. I know I'm good at writing. Like I have my weak areas or things I need to improve in, but it's not a skill I otherwise spend a lot of time feeling insecure about because a) if I don't believe in my writing literally who will b) if I want to publish my writing I ought to at least feel a resting level of good about it because editors and agents likely will not be cradling my face like a prize cat and telling me how talented I am while asking for their edits c) I've always had an audience for my writing even at its worst– I started sharing my original works online when I was around 16 & that really helped sell to me the idea of 'there will always be someone out there who likes what you do' d) untalented men never think this hard about the quality of their works and they always end up published anyway and e) I don't have many other thoroughly developed skills so why not have one I feel good about. Having said this. Awkward feeling to realize you're one of the authorial weak links in your postgraduate creative writing degree's social circle

[unsettlingcreature]

i was gonna be productive today but then i sat at my desk and it was cold and my hands hurt and my pc is being slow and all of my motivation died

[wackywatchdotcom]

man, i have to go do something in a minute here, but i am CONSTANTLY think about like... how long DOES the average circus member last before they abstract?

we dont have a lot of information about the passage of time in general in the show (which is infinitely painful to me, who likes to know about technical details very in-depth. but i understand writing wise why its like this) other than that the first 4 episodes take place over the span of 4(? or 5, depending on how you interpret the ending scene of episode 4) (which this also intrigues me that 8-9 days will pass over the course of the show... and also makes me curious about just how eventful the average day truly is in the circus!) days and that everyone in the circus has likely been here for at MINIMUM 2 years

(i say that because jax says "weve been stuck here for years" which implies that all of the people there at the time have been there for more than one year and because of the plural years, a minimum of 2. maybe. he also could just be oversimplifying things but unless given reason to think otherwise im interpretting the line this way)

we know of a at least ~18 people whove been in the circus total, but i frankly think its more than that. we know ribbit abstracted before kaufmo, but we dont know when ribbit joined the circus, or how much time was between these

it also depends on how long you think the circus members have been trapped for. i personally think this has been going on for at minimum 10 years (i have my own hcs abt it being ~16 years, but thats just hc and based on a bunch of my interpretations of random details) but we dont really know this, and how long this has been happening, and how long kingers been here, and whether or not kinger has or hasnt been here the longest

like if its been like 5 years thatd mean like... 3-4 people join the circus each year (on average). if its 10 years thatd mean 1-2 people join the circus each year (on average). and we dont even know how many people the circus has in it at one time on avg!! like theres the theory it floats around 6, but thats just a theory and not smth we know for sure. point being, we dont even know how often people join the circus and that effects a LOT of things

idk..... i guess the question really is 'how often can a person last in the circus before they literally cannot take it anymore' which is a much sadder question. we dont even know how long ago queenie abstracted, or ribbit abstracted. did zooble know ribbit? did ribbit get here before or after zooble did??

it just haunts me a little

[undeadsparkles]

REDRAW!!!

[yourflame]

Best thing I ever did to combat rp insecurities: stopped giving a fuck

[seithr]

powerful sorcerer with magical storm blood who can still magic and rend minds and transform people btw

[vaniliens]

Hmmm the more I learn about osdd / other dissociative stuff like that the more im convinced i have it & that i dont have it ❤️