#leave off any categories that do not apply/aren't of interest | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

arahabakis-vessel · 9 months ago

Text

@juicingbeetles sorry for the tag but it got too long for a comment, so I'll also be putting this under a read-more but via the DSM-5 (I know its not the end all be all- but stick with me here) there is four main criteria to qualify for an ASPD diagnosis.

The first criteria (A) is the most complex so put a pin in that for later, because I want to come back to it after the others. 📌

But criteria B is the person is at least 18 years old and also one of the easiest to check off. He's 22 in the main manga, nothing interesting there. This is just common for personality disorders in general.

Criteria C is that there is evidence of a conduct disorder by age 15 (usually via diagnosis, however it doesn't have to be). Now this one is the most debatable as we don't actually see Dazai prior to 15. (There's one scene of him at 14~ but it doesn't tell us much other than he was under Mori's control by that point). However the criteria for conduct disorder (and i'm copy and pasting here) is "A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of three (or more) of the following 15 criteria in the past 12 months from any of the categories below, with at least one criterion present in the past 6 months". Now out of the following criteria, we see the following present in Fifteen:

Used a weapon to cause serious harm to someone

Been physically cruel to people

Breaking into [a] building

Lying in order to obtain favors or goods (conning others)

And that's just what we see directly in Fifteen, we know Dazai's list of antisocial behaviors balloons after he joins the mafia (Intimidation, forgery, and extortion are confirmed, which fall under other conduct disorder criterion).

Criteria D is just that the antisocial behaviors present in criteria A and C aren't due to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (or other altered states of mind) but a part of their normal behavior. Based on the fact this behavior is very consistent and seems to be entirely continuous across his teen and years, I'm going to say it's probably not from another disorder (or substance) causing an altered state.

📌Now back to that pin we put in for Criteria A. Criteria A is a "pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following" which is why I wanted to cover Criteria C first. However these seven criteria (and my views on how/if they apply to Dazai) are:

Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

Ok so obviously. He is in the mafia. He has been a part of an organized crime group (officially) since he was 15. We've seen part of his list of crimes in the manga, and he canonically gets sent to prison. I don't think I need to expand too much on this one, it's also covered in criteria C.

Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

Connected to previous answer as well as criteria C, we know Dazai's crimes and also... Mafia, but also expanding on it, it's something we do see in Fifteen and continued into Stormbringer, Dead Apple, Dark Era, and finally into Entrance Exam and the main manga. From Fifteen, he manipulates the Sheep into thinking Chuuya betrayed them, so that they would actually betray Chuuya, so he could get Chuuya to join the Port Mafia. In Stormbringer he repeatedly lies to Verlaine to manipulate him into changing his plan so that Mori doesn't get killed (but also to put them in the most advantageous position to defeat Verlaine, even if that means killing all of Chuuya's friends and also letting Chuuya get tortured). (Blame Asagiri for the fact most of the light novels about pre-18 Dazai have to do with SKK). But this trait of his doesn't stop once he leaves the mafia either, we repeatedly see him lying to others to make his plans work throughout the main manga as well. While not an outright lie and more a... obfuscation of the truth, let's not forget Dazai didn't reveal he was part of the mafia until well into two years at the ADA, and not sharing any of the information he knew about the actual members even if it would have helped the ADA. ("We know nothing about [Akutagawa]" my ass Dazai.)

Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

Imo this one is mostly inapplicable. Dazai is always shown to be constantly thinking ahead. His suicidal nature is somewhat impulsive and also not very well planned out (as seen in the first few episodes, as well as in Fifteen), and he does seem to overlook things that should be probably obvious (I don't believe Dazai planned to get shot in that alley with Fyodor, I'm sorry but I can't believe it) but neither of these things happen to the point of disordered behavior (outside of being suicidal in the first place). I am saying this as someone who does deal with disordered impulsivity + failure to plan ahead due to unrelated disorders, but others may have opinions otherwise.

Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

Also not incredibly applicable, at least by the time we see him during the ADA, but definitely much more present during his time in the mafia. He's killed people for very minor things, and also tried to shoot Akutagawa (something that would kill anyone that didn't have an ability that could stop bullets) because he failed to be good enough, among his other physical abuse of him. Dazai notably is in quite a lot of fights alongside Chuuya, but as they were more work related than not I wouldn't necessarily count them, but rather have that fall under the "failure to conform to social norms".

Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

Constantly trying to kill himself. Do I need to say more /j. But also his substance abuse (before and after reaching the age of majority, which is 20 in Japan), treating others (especially their lives) as pawns, especially Akutagawa and other unnamed lower ranking members/mafia grunts.

Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

He is known as a slacker and doesn't seem to show up to work on time, but it seems like this is an intentional choice on Dazai's part rather than unintentional/disordered behavior, again coming from someone who does experience this to a disordered degree from unrelated disorders. And finally:

lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

This is one of the biggest to me. In all the media, I can count the number of times Dazai feels any sort guilt or remorse towards his actions on one hand essentially and it's only ever been towards two people, Chuuya and Oda (and Chuuya's on very thin ice there). He is never shown to feel anything other than indifference towards his actions towards Akutagawa, even further antagonizing him against Atsushi. To further this, I was actually talking with a friend a long time ago, and they reminded me of this scene from Dazai's entrance exam:

(Image Description in Alt ID)

Dazai is very clearly doesn't feel any remorse for using Rokuzo to kill Sasaki, although he's still rationalizing it for Kunikida's sake, to try and make him see Dazai's side of things, that it's clearly fine to do.

Now out of those seven, he doesn't really fit three of them, leaving four of the seven sub-criteria that he does fit, meaning he does meet the three of seven requirement to meet Criteria A. Therefore, he meets all the criteria required for ASPD according to the DSM-5. Obviously the DSM isn't the end all be all of the antisocial experience, but from being friends with people who are antisocial, as well as reading accounts from others I don't know, Dazai does share many similarities and experiences of those real life people as well.

I feel like I should say, even if it feels obvious, I don't think Dazai was intentionally written with an ASPD diagnosis in mind. Asagiri very clearly based him off of a specific archetype of a genius (think BBC Sherlock, as much as I dislike that portrayal of Sherlock, it's a very clear example of the archetype) which also just happens to be one that fits the criteria of ASPD very well. Similar to the way Ranpo was written with another genius archetype in mind, but one that is very clearly based in Autism instead.

But I also think that this being unintentional has made Dazai better unintentional representation. Dazai does seem to have anhedonia caused by depression, and possibly alexythemia or blunted emotions as well, but he still experiences a full range of feelings (vs. the stereotype that 'sociopaths are all unfeeling monsters'). He has people he cares for, and when Oda dies he genuinely grieves his death. And I think most importantly he is trying to be a better person in the series and improve from his past behavior. Not because he seems to feel any remorse for it, as shown above, but because it was what Oda wanted for him, and was literally his dying wish. I don't think that effort is any less valid just because it comes from an external motivation rather than an internal one. In the main manga we see him using a lot of the same skills that he used in the mafia, but this time he's using them for "the good guys" like Oda wanted, even if Dazai's still willing to do 'bad' things if it gets him the right result.

thinks about how we see Dazai hit the required criteria for ASPD across all the BSD media... but also how so many people blow entirely past the actual evidence and go !!! SOCIOPATH!!! MANIPULATIVE PSYCHOPATH!!!! Not seeing the "he was clearly traumatized in a way that severely affected him to the point it entirely dictates how he interacts with the world now" part of it.

#☆Reblog☆#dazai osamu #bungo stray dogs #bsd #dazai bsd #I also think that Chuuya and Oda are Dazai's exception person's/people but that's a different convo #image id in alt text #the images without alt text were giving me issues however they are all a single thin bar of solid dark red

51 notes · View notes

twiceasfrustrating · 2 years ago

Text

Slippery as an Eel

Rating: General

Archive Warning: No Archive Warnings Apply

Category: Gen

Fandom: Shall We Date?: Obey Me!

Relationships: Jade Leech & Player|Yuu

Characters: Jade Leech, Player|Yuu

Additional Tags: gn!yuu (you/your), fluff

Summary: You ask a miscellaneous question while helping Jade forage for mushrooms. He won’t give you a straight answer.

A/N: Full disclosure, I want to write more twst but I am in the phase where I can't quite get the voices right. So, you know, just writing whatever until I can get them right… or at least understand them.

Word Count: 792

"Do you have a second set of jaws?" The question came out of nowhere as you watched Jade kneel down to pick a mushroom you were 87% positive was toxic based on its colors and patterns. The way the corner of his mouth pulled back to reveal the faintest sliver of his teeth reminded you of that strange fact.

He didn't look at you, instead keeping his focus on the mushroom as he plucked it from the rotting stump where he'd found it. He twisted the delicate looking stem between his fingers, a small deposit of powder falling out from under the cap as he twirled it with an unyielding fascination.

You waited patiently for him to finish his examination before he carefully placed the mushroom into a bag he had brought, upping your assuredness to 100% that the thing was toxic and Jade simply didn't mind taking that risk. Or, rather, he didn't mind passing that risk onto you as he shoved the bag into your hands

You repeated the question now that he was looking directly at you and couldn't ignore it, "Do you have a second set of jaws?"

Yet, somehow, he brushed the quiry aside. "Careful with that one. It's fragile and there aren't many around to replace it if it gets damaged." He turned his back to you and marched further up the incline to continue his search.

"Back in my world," you persisted as you trailed after him across the leaf littered ground, "I read that eels have a second set of jaws in their throat and was wondering if you did too."

"As a mer-eel?" He clarified and you could only confirm.

His lips pulled back tight and you could see the faintest glisten of his sharp, pointed fangs for a brief moment. "If you asked nicely, I would be glad to let you stick your fingers back there and find out. If you find them you can tell me how sharp they are."

The leaves crunched under his feet as he came to a stop, catching sight of some time mushrooms growing under a pile of damp debris.

You stopped to pout and glare at him, but he didn't show any signs of caring. "You could just answer the question with a simple yes or no."

"You are correct. I could simply answer you." Jade moved the debris aside and his eyes practically lit up finding a colony of fat, tiny mushrooms with soft, bulbous caps. "But I don't want to."

"Why not?"

Again, he went silent as he picked at his find.

"Why don't you want to answer me?" You had to ask again so he couldn't ignore the conversation you were having.

He could almost see the silent sigh he let out as he closed his eyes for a second, likely in exasperation. "It's more fun to watch you struggle for your answers than to simply be handed them. How far are you willing to go for an answer? What assumptions will you make until you know the truth? Isn't it interesting?"

Not for you it wasn't. "I'm helping you carry everything."

"Yes, you are." He said with a faint smile as he looked down with pride to the bag you were still carrying. "And?"

"Isn’t that worth anything?" Even a simple yes or no?

“My thanks. I appreciate you offering to assist me without promise of anything in exchange.” His smile taunted you as it finally grew wide enough to show off his fangs as he stood up with his new mushrooms. “Please stay on the lookout for anything else we may come across. I expect to bring back a great deal more than usual since you’re here to help me today.”

“You really don’t plan to answer me? It would be so easy.”

“It would be. Almost too much so.”

“You’re enjoying making me wonder, aren’t you?”

“I would never.” His mouth pulled into a frown, but his eyes were still dancing with glee. “How lowly do you think of me? Believing I would go out of my way to trouble a friend of mine?”

Oh, Jade was terrible. The worst. A menace to society. “Whatever.” There was no point in letting him rile you up.

“Aww, has your curiosity been snuffed out?”

“I’m not going to try and force you to share.” Maybe if you acted like it didn’t bother you, it would reignite his interest.

Reverse psychology didn’t work on him though. “Thank you for your understanding. It’s very mature of you to forgo your curiosity for my comfort.” He was condescending you, you could feel it. “Now, may we continue?”

“Sure.” You tried to return the smile, but yours felt so much weaker and uncertain than his.

#twst fanfic #twst fluff #fluff #jade leech #mine

23 notes · View notes

onevoiceforanimalsuk · 4 years ago

Text

Latest newsletter from WildJustice.org.uk which covers some of the issues we have been campaigning on:

"Good morning!

1. A very big thank you to all of you who signed the joint NGO petition on the Environment Bill highlighted in last week's newsletter of 1 March. You helped to get, indeed you were instrumental in getting, the campaign off to a very strong start on Day 1. The petition has now been signed by over 73,000 people and many of the larger NGOs will be engaging their members as time goes on. We, and you, were quick off the mark. If you haven't got around to signing the petition yet, but think you might, then please have a look - click here. Thank you!

2. Apologies for this newsletter being a day later than we said it would be - we've been having discussions with other organisations about the DEFRA gamebird consultation and one of those took place yesterday afternoon.

3. The rest of this newsletter is briefing for those of you who may respond to DEFRA's consultation on gamebird releases. The closing date is Monday. If you don't want to respond to the consultation then you can skip the rest of this newsletter, but we are asking for your help because there is plenty wrong with what DEFRA proposes.

3.1. Introductory remarks on what the consultation is all about: This consultation is necessary for DEFRA to regulate the release of non-native gamebirds, and they have to do that as a result of a legal challenge mounted by Wild Justice and settled in court last October. Because of our legal action, DEFRA must take measures which will protect sites of nature conservation importance from the impacts of vast numbers of Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges released for recreational shooting. And so obviously we think this consultation is important and so we would encourage you to respond if you can, please. Responding to a government consultation is not a bundle of laughs, and it may take you around 40 minutes to get it done. Pro-shooting organisations are asking their supporters to respond to the consultation, and we are sure that many of them will - it would be very helpful if you could make your views known too and what follows is our attempt to help you to do that. Wild Justice will make its own, more technical, response to the consultation.

3.2 Introduction to filling in the consultation: the DEFRA gamebird consultation can be found here - click here. You can fill the form online (click here) or print it out, fill it in and pop it in the post (click here). Hint: reading the pdf version first to get an overview and then filling in the online version is a good way to do it.

3.3 The structure of the consultation: there are some brief questions about yourself and then four main sections; Parts A - D. You don't have to fill in each section. Indeed, Part D asks for feedback on the form where DEFRA is hoping you say that it was a bundle of laughs. You could safely ignore Part D or answer it in very few words. Part C asks you to suggest an alternative way forward to DEFRA's proposals. You could safely ignore this section or answer it in very few words but we suggest that you do use that section and we suggest some points to make in it. Part B asks you to fill it in only if you are an interested party who releases gamebirds into the countryside. We're pretty sure that most readers of this newsletter do not fall into that category so you can safely ignore Part B. So really it is Part A that forms the consultation response and that is the longest section but it isn't too scary once you have a good look at it.

Below we take you through the consultation and the areas highlighted in yellow are ones that you might feel you could enter into your response. At least they'll give you some clues as to things that we think it is important to say.

3.4 filling in your details - that's easy

3.5 filling in Part A;

Q A1: No, and then fill in the text box along these lines DEFRA is proposing an interim licesning regime. That should start in the most precautionary way and then remove restrictions on the basis of evidence as time passes. DEFRA should not exclude the list of sites in Group 2 for four main reasons; precaution, clarity, error, futility. This licensing regime must protect SPAs and SACs (hereafter referred to as N2K sites) from damage. It is not precautionary to remove sites before they have been properly assessed. The clearest measure for users is to include all sites in these interim licensing measures and adjust the list over time when better knowledge is available. There are sites in this list which are both SPAs and SACs and yet it is unclear whether both sites are affected and there are overlaps between sites which are and aren't mentioned in Group 2. There are sites in this list which are vulnerable to impacts of eutrophication and are proposed for exclusion in error. We accept that some of these sites will not be affected by gamebird releases because gamebirds won't ever be released on or near them - excluding them is therefore futile. This list looks like a rushed and inadequate job. See my response to Part C.

Q A2: No, and then fill in the text box along these lines This very consultation states that most studies of gamebird movement have been restricted to 300m and so cannot have looked at issues at greater distances. Moreover, the Madden and Sage review quotes studies that show that both gamebird species travel further than 500m. Those studies are mostly limited to the shooting season. Moreover, the 500m buffer erroneously appears to be based only on known impacts of droppings and physical disturbance and ignores issues such as predation of reptiles and amphibians, increases in predator populations as a result of increased gamebird carrion etc. The GWCT's Head of Advisory said on BBC Radio4 recently that 'The majority of birds [Pheasants] don’t disperse more than a kilometre' so a 500m Buffer Zone is clearlyy inadequate. You ask whether a 500m buffer zone will ensure that releases do not cause deterioration or significant disturbance of protected features of N2K sites and the answer is most definitely No as it is not based on science and is not precautionary. See my response to Part C.

Q A3: Yes and then fill in the text box along these lines But not sufficiently effective to meet the requirement of protecting N2K sites.

Q A4: No, and then fill in the text box along these lines This proposal allows releases to continue in undiminished numbers according to guidelines that are out of date (they were published in 2007) and where compliance is admitted by the shooting industry itself to be extremely poor (see link below).

These proposals do not limit the numbers of birds released, nor the number of release sites, not r their locations, only the densities of birds with release pens. These measures are totally inadequate and if implemented DEFRA will not be fulfilling its obligation to ensure that N2K sites are protected from damage. No gamebird releases should be allowed on N2K sites or in the buffer Zone around them as the first step in licensing gamebird releases. See my response to Part C.

Q A5: Yes and then fill in the text box along these lines This is welcome and very important as a first step in effective regulation.

Q A6: Leave blank.

Q A7: I do not believe there should be any gamebird releases within the Buffer Zone. This is what is needed to protect N2K sites.

Q A8: I do not believe there should be any gamebird releases within the Buffer Zone. This is what is needed to protect N2K sites.

Q A9: Yes and then fill in the text box along these lines I agree with this and my representation is that this measure is essential and urgent.

Q A10: Do not tick either Yes or No but fill in the text box along these lines I agree with a sunset clause but I disagree that it should be after two years as this is too soon for the necessary research, analysis and consultation to be carried out. As far as I am aware DEFRA has not commissioned independent research or monitoring, nor provided Natural England with sufficient reseources to carry out the necessary work. A period of at least five years is needed even if such resources are made available.

3.6 filling in Part B:

Q B1: if you are not a gamebird releaser then answer No and move on.

3.7: filling in Part C:

Q C1: Yes and then fill in the text box along these lines

My proposal is that DEFRA scraps Group 2 sites, institutes a 1km Buffer Zone around all N2K sites and that no releases of Pheasants or Red-legged Partridges should be permitted for a 5 year period in that zone or on any N2K sites. That is a precautionary, clear and effective interim arrangement that protects nature. If appropriate, these modest restrictions can be loosened on the basis of good evidence in future.

I would like to make some further points.

a. I do not consider this consultation to have been properly conducted as it lasts only three weeks, was delayed and DEFRA has imposed ludicrously short word limits on answering complex questions.

b. DEFRA appears to have written the consultation with measures that the recreational shooting industry would want rather than ones which ensure protection of N2K sites of conservation importance.

c. This consultation clings to the myth of 500m being an adequate Buffer Zone despite DEFRA being well aware that there is little scientific evidence to support this (see here https://markavery.info/2020/11/05/gamebirds-victory-16-the-500m-myth/ ) and so this consultation is knowingly misleading. And in any case, the measures proposed to apply to the Buffer Zone are nugatory.

d. Part B does not in any way properly address economic impacts, which in any case must be subservient to the need to protect N2K sites from damage. Since the measures do not limit overall release numbers, and hardly limit current practice, there can be no overall economic impact. The consultation simply invites unverifiable moans about impacts from the very industry that needs to be regulated in order to protect the environment. At most, any restrictions on release numbers locally can create opportunities for releases in less sensitive sites and so others, who are not invited to comment, will benefit. Further, there are economic impacts of gamebird releases on the general public which are completely ignored in this consultation.

3.8: filling in Part D: voluntary.

That's it!

3.9: Closing remarks from Wild Justice

Remember, the deadline is Monday. The more responses DEFRA gets the better. We'd be delighted to hear that you have responded - send us an email if you like. We hope this advice helps but you should make any points you wish and in any way you wish. If you have questions or queries about filling in the consulation then we may be able to help - email us at [email protected] and give your email the title GAMEBIRDS and we will try to help but we cannot promise that we'll be able to answer long or complex questions very quickly - we'll do our best.

Thank you for reading a long, technical newsletter - we've done our best to make it as simple and clear as possible. It is important that DEFRA gets feedback on what it needs to do.

Wild Justice (Directors: Mark Avery, Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay).

0 notes