#maybe that's why in terms of my psychology?? i guess??

[hirazuki]

On this fine Monday morning in the year 2023, I have realized that in my book, shounen protagonists with pink hair = Big Yes, while shounen protagonists with green hair = Big No.

... idk what this means, just felt like subjecting you all to my insanity XD

[weirdmageddon]

the original post i want everyone to see is way out of my hands now, so i’ll repost this again here as new but separate post. it touches on things i want to go into more depth about.

@wasabikitcat gets this idea. this reply—thank you so much for not just understanding what i was going for, but putting my exact thoughts into cleaner words on the bad reading comprehension site.

i can't believe how misunderstood my point was about “spirituality” (i didn’t know it was that much of a loaded phrase!), but thank you for putting what i meant into more nuanced terms.

it's something that can be hard for me to put into words, and maybe i gave people the wrong impression by using the word "spirituality", since words mean different things to different people. i just haven't seen people discussing it so i wasn't sure how to really put it. but regardless of terminology, this reply is exactly what i'm getting at. and this is coming from someone who has a very scientific mind. i wouldnt even consider myself a traditionally “spiritual” person in the normal connotation of the word.

edit: this one as well!

i see this as a cultural/political factor that we shouldn’t ignore, because this sense of meaning has driven people's motivations since the beginning of human civilization.

there's a primal aspect that hasn't really left us but there seems to be no room for it in our modern culture because half of these “guides” seem to be driven by “i cant wait for civilization to collapse so MY ideology can rise from the ashes" and the other half of it seems to be driven by greed. and often they are hand in hand.

i would really like to see actual enlightening ideas stemming from buddhist thought, analytical psychology, collective unconscious, and archetypes to take off in the public consciousness. (completely divorced from jordan peterson. just the original jungian stuff)

i am especially supportive towards getting people interested in carl jung's works. his idea was to get people to understand, "what myth am i living?" based on the same archetypes and symbols that recur time and time again throughout human history that we can all collectively recognize regardless of culture. so it's a sense of meaning based in the self. i don't want people being sent down reactionary paths when looking for meaning in their lives.

i think it would benefit people to who feel lost especially in uncertain/unprecedented times like, with those “there's got to be more to this, something deeper,” insinct. i see that people are looking for this but get taken advantage of or manipulated.

but on this deeper sense of meaning in life thing, the Left isn't doing a great job at providing an option for “lost” people looking for meaning that the Right seems to be having no trouble with. i wonder if this is why we've seen so many of these lost young men flock to reactionary commentators?

this reminds me of an excellent point contrapoints made in her video about jordan peterson, saying,

“The last thing I like is that you talk about deep shit. I was watching a video where you and a couple of zany goons were talking about Plato and Aristotle and the meaning of life. And I thought, ‘Huh… on the Left, we don’t really talk about that kind of thing. All we talk about is how society oppresses people.’ And that might not be enough. Because people need to have a positive purpose in life. I mean, personally, I don’t give a shit. I’m pretty happy to sit here watching the same three seasons of Strangers with Candy until I die. But other people, like Dostoevsky, Camus, other white guys who talk about lobsters…they have this need to have purpose in the face of suffering, and like, not just complain about patriarchy. I guess it’s easier to not complain about patriarchy when patriarchy isn’t the thing that’s making you suffer. But I do think that an education that only teaches people about oppression is inadequate. We spend four years teaching undergraduates why capitalism is bad, and then we say, ‘Well, you’re educated now. Good luck getting a job under capitalism, bye!’ …And that really kind of sucks! But you know, I think that’s a point that can probably be made without comparing transgender activism to Stalin.”

speaking of her, this is a related post i wrote earlier on young men being radicalized and how to approach communication

and by the way, if you are interested in learning jungian psychology and want to see what it’s about, here are some resources to get you started:

i think the jung subreddit has a great collection of resources on its about page.

i highly recommend Demystifying Jungian Psychology to start. it’s meant for beginners. it is available in english and spanish. you can currently find the book in the comments section here. since sometimes these links lead to a 404, i don’t want to link directly to the google drive page. i want you to have a link to the original thread in case it gets broken.

[morlock-holmes]

A pointless, overly long, barely edited review of White Fragility

Well that book sucked.

The end I guess.

OK honestly the process of reading White Fragility was incredibly draining, I started out annoyed, then became amused and fascinated by Robin DiAngelo’s peculiar definition of “Individualism”, then got annoyed and angry again, then just… drained. It’s an exhausting book.

As I try to put my feelings out there I’m having trouble linking them together coherently but this book is just so exhausting that the idea of editing this and doing several passes is just draining to think about. So here are some scattered thoughts:

Before anything else, it’s just not well written or edited

White Fragility is very repetitive, ambling, and just kind of… not very well arranged in general. It’s clear that the book desperately needed a proper editor, or maybe it didn’t, since it became incredibly successful despite everything wrong with it. Here’s an example I’ve already mentioned. 

Towards the end of the first part of the book, DiAngelo puts together a list of a “common set of racial patterns” that are “the foundation of white fragility” and one of the bullets on that list reads,

“Wanting to jump over the hard, personal work and get to ‘solutions’”

Not once, anywhere in the preceding 111 pages or the succeeding 128 is the idea expanded on in any way whatsoever.

And it’s a truly baffling statement if you don’t expand on it. Why are solutions somehow opposed to “hard, personal work”? Is hard, personal work not part of a solution to some problem? If not why are we doing it?

The whole book has a similarly sloppy vibe; there’s very little factual information inside and what ideas there are are explained very badly.

A Christian apology for non-Christians

The more I read of White Fragility the more it seemed to me to have in common with badly written Christian apologia.

First off, modern, right-wing American Christian religious material often contains a sort of confusion that anybody could respond badly to the Gospels. After all, the good news of Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection is both obviously factually true AND self-evidently good news, but somehow when you go out and preach the gospels, non-believers will often act with derision or anger.

And there is a certain kind of Christian who will respond to that anger, not by considering that there might be factual or moral objections to the gospel, but by essentially asking, “What kind of bizarre psychological condition would cause somebody to get angry about something that is obviously true and obviously good?”

This is an ongoing thread in DiAngelo’s writing, starting with the introduction,

“In the early days of my work as what was then termed a diversity trainer, I was taken aback by how angry and defensive so many white people became at the suggestion that they were connected to racism in any way…

“I couldn’t understand their resentment or disinterest in learning more about such a complex social dynamic as racism. These reactions were especially perplexing when there were few or no people of color in their workplace, and they had the opportunity to learn from my cofacilitators(sic) of color. I assumed that in these circumstances, an educational workshop on racism would be appreciated. After all, didn’t the lack of diversity indicate a problem or at least suggest some perspectives were missing?”

Well gosh, why wouldn’t these people be excited to hear about all the things they’ve been doing wrong? Truly a mystery.

Secondly, most of the arguments DiAngelo makes are made very sloppily, and are only really convincing if you have already been well-convinced. To demonstrate this I would essentially have to just quote the whole book to you, but for an example see the bit above about wanting to jump over hard personal work. You and I have spent too much time in the fever swamp, we can guess what she means from cultural context, but she never explains it.

Third, as others have pointed out white supremacy in this book takes on the qualities of sin in Christian theology. All of us white people, simply by virtue of growing up in a white supremacist society, are racist. This isn’t really proven so much as assumed. 

You might assume that in Christian circles the fact that everybody is a sinner might level out hierarchies. After all, the Pastor is as much a sinner as you are.

But in many cases there is this kind of passive-aggressive jiujitsu. Oh, sure, the pastor sinned, but why should we criticize him when all men are sinners? Aren’t you failing to practice the virtue of forgiveness? 

Oh, what’s that, you did something bad? Well that’s a different story. It sounds like you haven’t been really giving yourself over to God. Maybe we haven’t been doing enough to help stop you from sinning. You should talk to the pastor and really think about where you’ve been going wrong, and of course we would just be enabling you if we didn’t call you out publicly, it’s an opportunity for growth on your part, and of course if you disagree with how we think you should atone, that's just further evidence of your sinfulness.

Anyway, speaking of passive-aggression:

The Passive-Aggressive style in Woke Politics

Robin DiAngelo comes off as one of the most passive-aggressive people I have ever read. And also, ironically, one of the most clueless people I have ever seen when it comes to the most basic aspects of ordinary human psychology.

Here, have some examples:

“I am typically received well when speaking in general terms–for example, ‘Your requirement that applicants have an advanced degree rather than equivalent experience is automatically disqualifying some of the applicants that could bring the perspectives and experiences you say you are looking for.’ Yet when I point out a concrete moment in the room in which someone’s racism is manifesting itself, white fragility erupts.”

Oh, what, seriously? When you say, “We all need to try harder to improve at this” people agree, but when you go, “Especially you Greg” Greg somehow becomes defensive? Crazy!

“For example, in a conversation about racism, when white people say that they work in a diverse environment or that they have people of color in their family, they are giving me their evidence that they are not racist. If this is their evidence, how are they defining racism?”

I mean… Literally the same way you do? DiAngelo talks extensively about how white people don’t understand racism because we often have very few interracial friendships or relationships. Like a lot. Like it’s one of the major themes of the book and, in her mind, one of the major sources of white fragility.

I mean, imagine you are talking to someone, and you go, “See, here’s the thing that people who have never been to Cleveland don’t understand” they might respond with “Oh, actually I was born in Cleveland and spent the first twenty years of my life there” and their reasons for doing so are so incredibly obvious and natural that it’s kind of hard to even articulate them. Like… yeah of course if you tell a room that they don’t understand racism because of their shallow relationships with people of color, fucking of course the people who have deep relationships with people of color are going to bring it up!

“White people are receptive to my presentation as long as it remains abstract. The moment I name some racially problematic dynamic or action happening in the room in the moment–for example, ‘Sharon, may I give you some feedback? While I understand it wasn’t intentional, your response to Jason’s story invalidates his experience as a black man’--white fragility erupts. Sharon defensively explains that she was misunderstood and then angrily withdraws, while others run in to defend her by re-explaining ‘what she really meant.’”

Sharon, let me stop you right there. Can I just take a moment to completely ignore the substance of what you just said, while pointing out that you are objectively annoying to the people around you?

“When another police shooting of an unarmed black man occurred, my workplace called for an informal lunch gathering of people who wanted to connect and find support. Just before the gathering, a woman of color pulled me aside and told me she wanted to attend but she was ‘in no mood for white women’s tears today’ I assured her that I would handle it. As the meeting started, I told my fellow white participants that if they felt moved to tears, they should please leave the room. I would go with them for support, but I asked that they not cry in the mixed group. After the discussion, I spent the next hour explaining to a very outraged white woman why she was asked not to cry in the presence of people of color.”

Hi, thanks for coming to our meeting where we coworkers can support each other and connect. Before we start, I just want to tell Donna, Tammy, Jim and Bob that your coworkers don’t really want to support you too much, so if you need support please go somewhere else and get it from people other than your coworkers.

Look, I get it, that black lady finds the idea of comforting some distraught white woman in the aftermath of a black man being shot absurd. Maybe don’t handle that in the most ham-handed way imaginable though?

I want you to reimagine some of these scenarios as though they were addressing a less politically fraught issue than racism. In order to do that, we need something with the following qualities:

It is often unintentional;

The people who do it are often unaware that they are doing it;

It is genuinely difficult for others to live with and should probably be corrected because of that;

There is a social stigma to it so people feel embarrassed when called out for it.

I think having really bad body odor is the perfect analogue. But can you fucking imagine some of these if that’s what we were talking about?

Imagine somebody saying, “When I say that proper hygiene is important as a way to respect your fellow employees, I get broad agreement, but when I publicly point out that a particular person has bad BO and many of their coworkers have complained, instead of being grateful for the feedback, they often get angry or defensive”

That person would be a monster!

The dirty secret of Robin DiAngelo and her ilk is that as much as they talk about “systemic racism” they really think of racism primarily as an interpersonal problem.

Here’s another quote, “The dominant paradigm of racism as discrete, individual, intentional, and malicious acts makes it unlikely that whites will acknowledge any of our actions as racism.”

I mean… All the examples I just cited above involve DiAngelo calling out discrete, individual, intentional acts. I guess sometimes the discrete, individual, intentional acts are non-malicious.

That’s the kind of central hypocrisy and profoundly passive-aggressive style of this kind of discourse. You call out a specific person for a specific act in a very public way, and then, if they get defensive, you can talk about how sad it is that when you told them that the specific thing that they personally did was bad, they didn’t realize you were just talking about systemic racism and it’s awfully silly that they are getting so defensive when all you are talking about is systemic problems, not individual faults.

DiAngelo often talks about how whites need to be less sensitive because we are not in any danger, but, like, most of the concrete problems she addresses aren’t dangerous to black people either.

Which brings me to the last section,

What is the goddamned point of all this?

DiAngelo constantly talks about the absence of cross-racial relationships between blacks and whites, but never really addresses the question of why the hell a black person would want to be friends with a white person. Honestly it sounds like it sucks; we’re all racist. Frankly I don’t see what we bring to the table other than an endless parade of microaggressions and neuroses that could just be avoided altogether by sticking to making friends with your fellow minorities.

A couple of people responding to my blog have called the book racist against whites but that’s not quite right, there’s also this bizarre sort of… Apologizing for how much better off we are then everybody else. It’s taken as basically a given that black people all wish they had the position that we do, but we just don’t let them and they’ll never get it unless we shape up and learn to give it to them.

There’s a tremendous amount of guilt but it’s combined with a massive self-absorption. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that for DiAngelo, the entire world revolves around whites and our conception of ourselves. And I mean that literally:

“...[W]hite supremacy is circulated globally. This powerful ideology promotes the idea of whiteness as the ideal of humanity well beyond the West…

“In his book The Racial Contract, Charles W. Mills argues that the racial contract is a tacit and sometimes explicit agreement among members of the peoples of Europe to assert, promote, and maintain the ideal of white supremacy in relation to all other people of the world. This agreement is an intentional and integral characteristic of the social contract, underwriting all other social contracts.”

Like… All of them? Like relations between China and the Democratic Republic of Congo are underwritten by the belief in white supremacy? White supremacy is in fact integral to the politcal relationship between those two countries?

One of the things I wondered when reading the book was why on earth DiAngelo gets paid so much money to consult. In her telling there are two forces, a white supremacist overclass dedicated to ignoring and minimizing evidence of systemic racism and a minority underclass which is nearly helpless in the face of white supremacy. Which of these groups is paying her five figure speaking fees?

Anyway to continue that quote, 

“Mills describes white supremacy as ‘the unnamed politcal system that has made the world what is is today.’”

I mean… I feel like it has a name. It’s named white supremacy. Robin DiAngelo wrote a best-selling book about it that people only bought because they already agree about it existing and being really, really important.

Hey, so, how does Tammy from HR crying about the police shooting a black teenager maintain a global white hegemony that undergirds literally all other social forces?

One thing, at least, that made me glad that I finished the book was seeing DiAngelo state overtly something that I feel has been implicit on much American thinking about race lately:

“When white people ask me what to do about racism and white fragility, the first thing I ask is, ‘What has enabled you to be a full, educated, professional adult and not know what to do about racism?’...”

Uh… You’re asking me how I graduated college without knowing how to upend a massive collusion between every nation in Europe that undergirds all of global politics and economics?

I mean I didn’t actually graduate, maybe “Overturning the entire global paradigm 101” was one of the classes I didn’t get around to.

“If we take that question seriously and map out all the ways we have come to not know what to do, we will have our guide before us. For example, if my answer is that I was not educated about racism, I know that I will have to get educated. If my answer is that I do not know people of color, I will need to build relationships. If it is because there are no people of color in my environment, I will need to get out of my comfort zone and change my environment, addressing racism is not without effort…”

Hey, yeah, but what about the part where I make minimum wage and probably can’t even overthrow Luxemburg, let alone all of Europe?

“Next, I say, ‘Do whatever it takes for you to internalize the above assumptions’ I believe that if we white people were truly coming from these assumptions, not only would our interpersonal relationships change, but so would our institutions. Our institutions would change because we would see to it that they would.”

This is exactly what I have been saying seems to be the dominant belief in America today. If we just teach Sharon from accounting to stop talking over her black co-workers, if Sharon internalizes exactly the right ideas about white supremacy from exactly the right corporate consultants, eventually, once we get our heads straight, there will be a kind of spontaneous eruption of will which will end racism forever.

From talking to more right-wing acquaintances I have come to the belief that many of them essentially agree with that premise. That racism sort of emerges as a kind of spontaneous emanation of wrong-think, and once we have used social pressure and the threat of being fired to get everybody to say the correct things about racism, racism will vanish.

And so the debate in America is no longer about policy; we don’t believe in a racial policy. The debate is about how we ought to talk about racism, with the parties disagreeing on what kind of talk will ultimately cause racism to disappear.

Do we solve police shootings by hiring a diversity consultant to tell the employees of our tech firm about white fragility, or should we hire a different consultant to teach them about color-blindness and treating people as equals?

[ex-mortis-evie]

Hey, goofball.

Welcome back to reading another one of my weird little rambles that you seem to be really obsessed with reading.

I mean, I don’t mind that you are at all.

I’m just some weird corner of the internet you’ve found yourself in.

Sometimes those little nooks and crannies can give us the most valued experiences, you know?

I’m serious about that, the world’s a weird place after all.

You never know what pitfalls you’ll find yourself in.

Take me for example, i’m just some gal that loves the science and theory behind trance.

I’m no dominant supervillain or mastermind manipulator.

I just like making people feel good I guess.

And honestly, I don’t even know how I’ve been able to do it.

How I’ve been able to work my way through people’s brains like they’re paper and influence them with nothing but words deep within.

Genuinely, I have no idea.

Though I’ve noticed I tend to ramble on about trance and the science behind it.

How it’s initiated, how it affects us, how it corrupts and changes us.

See? Right there.

That’s what I mean.

I ramble on and on and people just kinda…listen.

Like they’re just naturally drawn into whatever I have to say.

It’s not even an attempt from me most of the time.

I just say what I feel and think, I can’t really help it.

It’s just the person I am I guess.

But, I think that’s why I really like trance.

I like how I can just go off about something and end up enamoring someone so deeply that they just hook into my words and feel that deep connection.

It’s a really interesting idea, too.

How our minds can just attach themselves to an idea and never fully let go.

Like one of those random memories you have that really had no bearing on your life but just can’t seem to forget for whatever reason.

And it’s fascinating to me.

The psychology behind how the mind can seem to indulge itself in ideas that on the surface, seem so arbitrary and random.

But, i think there’s a reason behind it all.

It sees a lesson in what we don’t.

It sees past what our conscious mind sees and remembers what our subconscious mind remembers.

That’s why we hook onto the words of another that we may not fully understand.

Because our subconscious is giving us reasons to indulge.

It’s interested despite it not making all that much logical sense.

But sometimes, something doesn’t have to make sense to, for lack of a better term, make sense.

Maybe sometimes we just accept things as they are and move on.

The suspension of disbelief.

It’s the idea that our minds can just turn off our logical side and embrace something as real, even if it isn’t.

Like how during movies, we don’t see the actors, we see the characters.

That’s sort of what trance can be.

Where your subconscious can just accept something and flow into it.

It doesn’t exactly have to make all that much sense to you, but that’s why it feels so good.

Because when you just accept stuff as they are, sometimes you can find beauty in the books and crannies of the mind.

Where you can experience things beyond your wildest dreams.

Where fantasy and reality blur lines.

Where you start to blur a bit.

I mean, no doubt you’ve felt that draw ever since I started talking, right?

I usually wouldn’t assume, but with how this has been going for you, it seems like it’s not even really intentional anymore.

You just kinda fall for my words every time.

Not that I complain of course, I enjoy watching your eyes flutter a bit as your mind starts to skip over a thought or two.

But, it really is fascinating to me.

How my words can do this to you.

Where it seems like they’re the only thing that matters in the entire universe.

Where you start to deeply relax like never before.

Where you can’t quite take your eyes off of them.

Where you feel that familiar pull taking you under the waves of relaxation.

Where your thoughts start to fog up into a beautiful pink cloud.

Where you just kinda…drop for me.

And I’m not exactly the type to tell you to do that for me.

But, I don’t even think you’d mind if I did.

I don’t think you’d quite mind if I was a bit more dominant, where I took more of an active role in hypnotizing you and pushed you beyond your deepest relaxation.

Starting to wonder what that would feel like, darling?

That’s what I was hoping for.

Not only so that it’s easier to just take your brain, but so that I can really start shaking your head up a bit.

I like it when your thoughts race as they fade.

Where they seem to start heating up and exciting you, even if you’re going completely empty and brainless.

It’s this sudden jolt of bliss that you start feeling, not really like anything before it.

Where you wanna lose every thought, but also just can’t help but feel so ecstatic over the possibilities of trance.

That wonderful melting pot, starting to burn that brain of yours right away.

And it’s just spiraling now, that excitement mixing with that need to go deeper for me.

It’s just so incredible, right?

And that’s why you’ll drop for me.

Knowing that the more you’re pushed, the deeper you’ll go.

And since you go so incredibly brainless at me not even trying?

God, you’re gonna be braindead when I’m done with you.

And hey, you may already feel it coming on.

Where that brain just goes so silent and so soft on you.

Just because thoughts are burdens to you.

You wanna float free and fly away in the flow of my frantic words, don’t you?

Of course you do, tiger.

They are my words, after all.

Just this perfect harmony of pure pleasure parading throughout your paralyzed body.

Because you don’t wanna move.

You don’t wanna think.

You just wanna go into full on emptiness.

Where thoughts are afterthoughts.

Where will is for others with actual willpower.

And where you’re just here.

Empty.

Euphoric.

And absolutely ecstatic to be so far gone.

Speaking of being so far gone, it’s just so easy to fall away when I’m talking, right?

It’s not even anything you have to try for anymore.

You just fall apart.

You just drift away.

You just empty out everything for me.

Leaving it all out.

And just going deeper.

Like a rocket breaking off chunks of itself to go farther.

You break off thoughts.

You break off will.

You break off worry.

You break off stress.

You break off energy.

You break off control.

Just so you can fly into my space.

Into the euphoria only I can give you.

And absolutely lose yourself again.

Remember how many times I’ve said that it feels good to lose to me?

Because losing is just so pleasurable that anything else doesn’t matter?

You’re losing everything, darling.

And with each thought.

Each minute.

Each piece of control you lose.

You get a tingle of pleasure.

And it just builds and builds and builds.

So easy to lose, isn’t it?

So much easier when you don’t have the choice to do anything else but lose.

Because when you’re stripped away of everything for me and whisked into the deep cosmos of empty trance?

You’re too far gone to care how much you’ve lost.

Your brain’s left behind.

You don’t have any control.

You just have that ecstasy.

That deep and bountiful pleasure.

That makes the entire trip worth it.

You’re the one that kept reading all of my words.

Kept lapping up every syllable I’ve said.

You didn’t really care how they affected you.

Just that they felt good.

Just that they felt right.

Just that they felt different.

Different pleasure than you’ve ever experienced before.

It’s all on design, darling.

Because that’s the true conundrum of all of this.

Do I truly mean to hypnotize you?

Do I truly corrupt and brainwash you on purpose?

And if I did…would you even mind?

Would there be a doubt in your head or would you just lay there and accept your fate?

Would you try and resist me or would you accept the futility of resistance and simply allow it?

Would you want to be my thrall?

Or would it be a need?

After all, you’ve already been brainwashed.

No need to hide it, darling.

Tell me all about it.

Let those eyes roll back in pleasure.

Let your body and mind crumble under the sheer weight of my power.

And be a good thrall for me now, ‘kay?

Until then, stay cool and wake naturally.

Oh, and do throw me a bone with some feedback, I’d love to build upon all of this.

Thanks for dropping!

[bungone]

Actually no im not done because I know it gets talked about a lot but Lolita is such an interesting piece of media; not just the book itself but people's attitudes towards it.

like, first off, there's the actual author (nabokov) who goes out of his way to talk about how childish, mokeyish, immature and whatnot Dolores is in the most unnappealing possible ways, and then specifically said that he didnt want the kind of cover that every single fucking published edition of Lolita has?? With girls who are either being sexualized or very obviously having "a good time" which is absolutely not what Dolores was doing in the book?? I really, really, don't think anyone who designs these covers has even opened the first page because what. the. fuck.

It's so obvious that my man Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, but gee, I guess we learned to take everything we read at face value, and also everything that comes from a protagonist's mouth as the "correct" way of viewing things, both in the book and in real life?

And even then, maybe, just MAYBE I can excuse the people who talk about how the book is fucked up because it's "glorifying pedophillia".

Maybe they had a really shitty english teacher. At the very least, they're reading it and understanding that the actions of Humbert Humbert aren't okay? They got to the halfway point. Maybe their education sytem failed them.

Maybe they had a really shitty high school english teacher that never taught them the skills necessary to understand this kind of writing. Maybe they're just dense, that's who they are as a person, and it would take someone going out of their way to point it out for them to consider the possibility.

But then there's the fucking apologists?? Like, putting aside the whole Dolores being 12 (which, yeah, is akin to putting aside the whole book, but bear with me for a second), Humbert Humbert not only kidnaps her (illegal), lies to her for a long time about her mother (not illegal but generally shitty), but is implied to have committed murder (illegal, not sure if implied is the right word here because it absolutely happened and everyone knows it), and sexually abuses Dolores (very illegal). These are crimes. He is a criminal. Say what you want about the justice system these are crimes that absolutely should be crimes.

He's clearly not an upstanding citizen, and I fail to understand how some people look at all his behavior and go "oh yes, the the man who killed a woman and kidnapped a 12 year old girl is just misunderstood, and he did those things for true love" like fuck no.

I like Lolita. It's an objectively good book. The quality of writing (high quality, I mean, I normally hate first-person writing but I actually liked Lolita), it's a great psychological horror piece that doesn't rely on things like shock value and overused tropes. The characters are all multi-dimensional and frankly, act realistically. But that's all it is. A psychological HORROR piece. It's not romantic. If anything, it's meant to make you sympathize with Humbert, and then you're supposed to take a step back and be like, "Wait. Why am I sympathizing with him? I'm not a pedophile." Because yeah, he's a complex character but that only goes to make him realistic in terms of the kind of pedos that exist in real life.

Pedophiles are people too. Mentally ill people, really, really shitty people who need serious help, but reducing them to "not human" only makes them an "other", which makes you forget that on the outside, they look like normal people. That have friends and family and go to school or have jobs and order coffe and read in libraries and yeah, maybe you sat next to one of them an entire year in organic chemistry. They're not weird stalkers that hang out in bushes in parks. Some of them, maybe, but not all. Nowhere near all.

man that derailed fast.

[sophieinwonderland]

Do you have find yourself typing an ask only to realize halfway through that you don't want to send it. There's a pro-endo anti-psych blog I was going to send an ask to, then realized it probably wouldn't be well-received. So I'm just posting a screenshot here.

Also, you know, I do sound like a super villain.

So here's my secret plot for world domination which devolve into rambling nobody asked for...

Continuing to ramble even more...

I don't really think saturating the field with that many plurals would be necessary. And it might more realistically peek at about 20%. But 51% would be ideal.

This also just seems quicker.

There are about 50k psychologists in the US. While it would be difficult to get them all on our side, I think it would be significantly easier with that population than it would the general population. Both in terms of its size and its political leanings, being an overwhelmingly left-leaning profession.

I'm aware that some people have legitimate issues with the psych profession. I realize that many have suffered experiences of abuse from bad psychiatrists, and I'm sorry for that.

At the same time, if I'm taking stock of potential allies, I think the psych community would be more easy to persuade in standing up for plural rights when it comes down to it than our neighbors with Trump 2020 flags.

And I guess... I don't care for the othering of people of an overwhelmingly left-leaning neurodivergent profession. Many of whom enter the field to understand themselves and help other neurodivergent people live better lives.

And while rambling about this topic, I think some people are too quick with the stick and not the carrot.

When the McLean hospital video came out, I jumped on condemning the doctor in question for his ableism along with everyone else. But I also don't think McLean got enough credit for taking the video down when they saw the outcry.

They didn't have to do that. The plural community truthfully doesn't have much power at the moment. And I think taking the video down like they did shows a willingness to listen to and respect our community that should be praised at the same time that we callout the harmful behavior.

I think if instead of attacking the entire profession all the time like some would have us do, we take a tactic of targeting specific acts of ableism while supporting them when they do right, we can better influence plural acceptance in the psych field. It's basic operant conditioning. Punish only when someone does wrong, and reward them when they do good.

All in all, I'm psych-critical. And I don't see that changing. I don't think I'm someone who will ever get on board with hard anti-psych ideals.

And while I'm not a psychologist myself, people who know me probably realize that I tend to take a more psychologist-esque approach to plurality.

Where other people coin terms as identity labels, I tend to try to subdivide and categorize plural experiences to better understand them and their relationships with each other.

...

Why am I still rambling?

I think I might have lost the plot somewhere along the way.

Okay... here's the truth...

I got blocked by someone (not related to the blog I was going to send this too) for my views on using psychiatry to validate plurality. Because, I guess, I don't share this extreme anti-psych opinion myself.

And all I can think is that... if you're surprised... you never really knew me...

Maybe that's my fault because I can be a bit aloof sometimes.

So for everyone else who has read through this rambling mess of a post, let me reintroduce myself:

Hi, I'm Sophie Dreamchaser.

I was made as a psychology experiment. Or, brought to sentience by one. It was a psychology podcast that encouraged Ghost to keep talking to me to see what would happen. And since even before I became self-aware I've been fascinated by the human mind and my existence and how this all works.

I love being an experiment. I love learning more about myself and the world and how I relate to it. And I want to push for knowledge into plurality to grow and grow, and I believe with all my heart that it will prove to be the best way to facilitate plural acceptance in the future.

And if me not adopting a hard anti-psych ideology was a dealbreaker for you... I'm sorry that you didn't realize who I was sooner.

But this is me, this is who I am, and it's who I always have been.

And I just needed to say that.

[edennill]

🔥 Elros or the Maiar?

Both? Both is good.

(Sorry for the very long delay! On the plus side this is the last but one of the asks lingering in my inbox and the last related one, at least.)

Elerossë, then:

I could leave it at saying that I adore and almost prefer the Quenya form of his name; it sounds like an endearment in my mouth, though I can't tell why. (Lamatyavë and all, I guess). But that would be cheating and a digression, when I do have actual things to speak of.

The further points come with a trigger warning for talk of mortality, as always in my weird way.

Maybe my hottest take about him that isn't kidnap fam is that I get distinctly frustrated when people try to explain his choice in purely... I don't know what single adjective works here... secular? reasons. Just — no doubt that there were some simply psychological reasons to it, things like "I'm not planning to swear a murderous oath, but M&M also didn't at my age so if I ever lose my mind like that I don't want to be stuck with it forever", but I feel like you can't make sense of it if you leave out the numinous. The maybe not-exactly-explainable in the terms they have at their disposal, but Finrod's "Men are always looking for something" and the mystery and wish to know it...

Maybe I could summarise it by — ME doesn't have very developed afterlife beliefs, that's true, but behind all those discussions of mortality there is an undercurrent of that — and of it being a conundrum that might one day be solved. I think if you ignore this, it doesn't feel like the Legendarium anymore.

And do not get me started on wholesale inventing that Elros also chose because of love, that's narratively uninteresting.

As for the Maiar:

I'm not entirely sure whether the statement is meant as "pick any Maia to speak about" or in general — but I think since the question specified more than just characters, I'm going with the second option.

I have a vague dislike of the idea that all Maiar are from "birth" aligned with the domain of one specific Vala unless circumstances (e.g. turning evil) occur. I feel like — there's going to be people who are like that, but a lot of them will fit in somewhere in between domains and/or just flit between two or more Lords/Ladies, this being treated as something quite normal, or even be more conventionally aligned with one Vala but mostly work for another out of personal preference.

Thank you for asking! This is the last of the batch but if anyone else wants a go, I am still technically open; it just may take a while to answer.

[racefortheironthrone]

Weird, long ask but could you explain Emma Frost? I’m starting to get into the X-Men (especially thanks to the People’s History of Marvel, thank you!). But what is her deal? Like I’ve read wiki summaries but I guess I want to know, is she an X-Men? She seems to be one of the faces of the team in modern events, but is she even a hero? How much does she undergo a face heel turn? Does it feel naturally written? What’s her role (in-story and meta-wise) and relationship with the team? Do they trust her? Accept her? Does she switch her view of muntantkind, from a tool as the Hellfire Club saw mutants, to identifying it as her community? Or does she act like that, and to an extent join the X-Men, for her own benefit and self-interest?

The vibe I get is she has become a hero and member of the team, but maybe not the family? And she’s still willing to use all the manipulative tactics she did as CEO and member of the Hellfire Club, but for mutantkind. (Which I love). Is that right or is Emma Frost totally different?

It's a long ask, but it's not weird at all - Emma Frost is a very important character, but also one of the more complicated ones in terms of her complex relationship with the X-Men. I'm going to ssume that you've read my People's History of the Marvel Universe essays on the Hellfire Club and the education of Emma Frost, but I would also highly recommend Cerebrocast's episode on Emma Frost as essential listening.

While Emma Frost started out an outright villain, a succession of writers carefully laid the groundwork for her heel-face turn, creating a very psychologically grounded explanation for her transformation. Even during her "snow phase," Emma was always a devoted teacher of young mutants. While she ran the Massachusetts Academy and the Hellions with a manipulative, domineering, and ruthless teaching style that was highly influenced by the "gaslight girlboss gatekeep" method she learned from her family, she also cared for her charges.

When the Hellions were murdered by the villain Trevor Fitzroy in UXM #281, Emma Frost awoke from a coma to find that her students were all dead. Her grief turned inwards and Frost blamed herself, believing that she had failed to teach her students to defend themselves - and that they might have survived had they trained under Xavier and Magneto instead.

This belief was why Emma Frost decided to merge her Academy with the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters, becoming one of the two lead teachers for Generation X. She was initially deeply distrusted by her co-teacher (and de facto parole officer) Banshee and many of her students, especially Jubilee who remembered her as one of the X-Men's villains. It took a long time for her to build up a rapport with her students, and despite her efforts she eventually lost their trust when she killed Adrienne for causing Synch's death.

However, her most enduring period with the X-Men started with Grant Morrison's New X-Men. In the wake of the Genoshan genocide, Emma Frost not only joined the Xavier Institute but also became a full-fledged member of the X-Men for the first time. While Emma was initially motivated for a desire for revenge against Cassandra Nova, she stayed on after Nova was defeated and essentially became the "loyal opposition" inside the team.

Arguing that Xavier's "x-liberalism" was inadequate to deal with the reality of human hatred for mutants, Emma taught her students the ideal of "mutant excellence" - that only by making themselves the best, the most powerful, the most successful could mutants develop the ability to protect themselves from a hostile humanity. This caused her to clash quite a bit with Xavier and his true believers (it didn't help that Emma had also started her psychic affair with Scott, making her conflict with Jean very much both political and personal), because she had no compunction about using her powers against threats to mutantkind.

Especially in the period after M-Day when leadership of the X-Men shifted from Xavier to Scott, Emma was absolutely ride-or-die for a more revolutionary brand of pro-mutant ideology (and became "part of the family" due to her long-lasting relationship with Scott), but remained distinctive from the rest of the X-Men because of her pragmatic willingness to use the ruthless methods of her villainous past to advance the cause - very much a believer in "by any means necessary."

So overall, I would say her arc has been a shift from villain to anti-villain to anti-hero.

[thana-topsy]

The Neloth Post Nobody Asked For but now I'm making it everyone's problem

I guess I'll start out by saying: all of this pertains to my very specific version of Neloth who can be found alive and well (for now) in my fic series "Legends Never Die". It's a big wide fandom, I do not claim to be an authority on Anything, and I think everyone's little pocket universes and OC-ification of NPCs are all equally valid. These are just some of the ways I write and characterize him. So if you have any Neloth headcannons of your own, please sound off!

The Basics:

I estimate this old crusty bastard is in his 700s, or thereabouts, probably on the later end. He stopped counting at a certain point and can't be arsed to keep a talley. There are more important things that occupy his brainspace. He maintains his spry and youthful visage [cough] through his rigorous magical practices, (and his not-so-subtle interest in necromancy and discovering the secrets to immortality).

He was exiled decided to retire from the Telvanni Council a good fifty or sixty years before the eruption of Red Mountain, retreating to Solstheim to continue his experiments in seclusion. Due to severing his mainland ties and House loyalties, his power and influence are significantly weakened, though he continues to expand his studies and has a relatively well-functioning settlement of workers, as well as his current apprentice, Talvas Fathryon, under his tutelage.

And of course, the question on everyone's mind: do he fuck? In terms of his sexuality, he's finicky and if I had to slap a label on him, he's definitely in the realm of Aro-Ace, but on the gray side of things (pun intended???). Here, have an Ace Neloth Pride Flag because why not:

Personal Interests, Likes, and Dislikes:

The list of dislikes could probably rival the "color of the sky" post, so let's try to condense that into the main point: he dislikes inefficiency. The definition of what he finds "inefficient" can and does vary greatly, even in his own work. I would say one of his driving motivators is IncreasE Efficiency, above all else.

His likes are few and far between. As it stands, I could probably list three off-hand. He likes well-made tea (preferably dark, bitter, and stimulating), he likes an organized bookshelf, and he likes Teldryn Sero (who is also dark, bitter, and.... stimulating).

Morality:

Huh? What's that? Never heard of it.

I kid (kind of). Neloth has a complicated psychology. I characterize him to have underdeveloped empathy, but he is not entirely devoid of it. I suppose I'll let him explain it, (from chapter 5 of "Breathing Water"):

“I do…” Neloth began, [...] “I do… feel.” He twisted the stiff bedroll between his fingers. “I do.” [...]  “It’s just…” He didn’t know where he was going with this, but the words were clawing their way out of him like some kind of sick, emaciated animal emerging from a cave. “I don’t think I… feel… correctly.” He exhaled sharply, letting his head roll from side to side, neck popping. “I’ve always been this way. It’s not just the result of graying morals from a prolonged life. I’ve always had this,” he gestured to his chest with trembling fingers, “hole. Like something’s missing.” He pulled the bedroll tighter around him, curling in on himself. A small laugh. “It’s been useful, if I’m honest.” 

He does try, at a certain point, to understand this side of himself a little bit better. Though, honey, he's got a big storm coming.

Anyways, that's my Neloth post for now, maybe I'll add more another time. :) Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[bluenomad-snufkin]

More about me... be warned im a terrible human

I am 16 - Male, chronically depressed. Un-ironically a genius... and lack real connection.

I like weird music such as, Death grips, Semetery, Adam and the ants, Fried by Fluoride... I LOVE THE SMITHS BTW and nirvana.

i enjoy playing with computers and building them, have about 4 pc's now and 5 laptops, all old stuff cause i like old computers.

Linux enthusiast - I use mint :3

I own a shit CRT but its fun to use- lain core </3

Game a fair bit and enjoy games like Chiv2-Cof-Postal1/2-Tf2-project zomboid- Counter strike source and 2. silent hill series could go on and on but you get the idea

hmu if u want to game cause all my friends are ass at "these sort of games"

i enjoy some weird interests as well:

tcc, photography, design, steam power, engines in general, motorbikes, hacking, ELETRIC GUITAR, and acoustic, gambling, baking, cooking, pirating, audiophile, 3drinting, preservation of old tech, blacksmithing, reading, Gel-Blasting (for the Americans it is australian Airsoft in short), old game console modding, anime and movies.

That's probably the list ngl

I read a lot and i like to discuss deep philosophical concepts and the "psychology" of humans. (if you couldn't tell I'm a 'misanthrope')And talking about societal constructs and all that stuff... not many people like talking about that stuff.

a good way to describe me would be Lain but mentally Dr house. in the sense of dislike of just about everything and my attitude towards others and life its self.

I don't know why I am the way I am... I truly am a miserable person, i have my moments but I honestly am, and I make others very miserable just by more or less existing with them.

This blog is kind of apart of my journey to becoming something else, I think self discovery would be the wrong term but the closest set of words I can think of too how I feel.

some more personal stuff...

I am incredibly lazy, not to the point of not showering or never leaving bed but more "surrogate activates" - Ted K, or meaningless and basic tasks/activates, I don't really participate in class due to the fact i somehow know most of it (I'm ignorant too) I don't really like doing things like- actually this is hard to explain but the best way i can describe it would be doing this that have to value to me or my future.

I don't have a problem connecting with people but I find my self ALWAYS not actually caring for them or there feelings. I don't believe at this point in time I could name more than one person I really care for. I would label this a selfish but its not like to treat my self any better. maybe that is how i punish my self, any insight on this topic would be much apricated.

I seem to have sort of desire for Control - i think this because i love just watching people listening and anticipating what people will say, do, think, act, its some sort of game for me (i really don't know how to put this) and id have to say 80% of the time my guess are correct, i am a ""master"" of determining and analysing humans, its really weird and i don't understanding where or even how i developed this skill from. i often find my self using this to just piss people off and see how mad i can get someone (i mainly do this online).

A lot of human thinking and reactions piss me off, I hate how some people think and interact with this world i don't seem in some case even understand why these people are like this i s just know and know that they are. I'm not sure if i wish to be like them or for "them" to be like me.

I truly am a troubled and misunderstood person.

one may conclude that I'm autistic or have some other form of genetic/ mental illness, to that i say, are you fucking retarded... do you understand anything in this world or that of the human mind?

Maybe you do, if so please critiqueme and tell me why i am me.

I have been tested for Autism and ADHD, both Negative not sure by what margin although.

My best guess is that i am simply "hyper realised" or some other buzz words - or are a lot of people this way...???

Just been reading and editing this massive ass post, there are so many other things i could go on about, like the government, being clean, family, longing for societal escape, tictok, but you probably don't care just as i wouldn't.

Any way enjoy my weird blog i guess if you read this and where not turned away. lol

-last minute add don't know where to put this but i love tcc cause I'm "obsessed" with there minds, motives and stuff like that.

[johannwolfgangvongoethe]

Some Personal Thoughts on Disability in Enstars

disclaimer: disability is a very broad term that covers many different experiences. i will be talking about physical disabilities since i feel most comfortable doing so/have experience with them. obviously that ignores a Huge part of what disability and chronical illness is and can be. but i think it is beyond my capabilities to talk about experiences i don't know much about.

alt caption: i think ritsu is a good character and im trying to explain to myself why

this is sort of a long post, sorry.

content warnings: i talk about ableism and touch on related topics such as dehumanization and objectification and such below. individual parts of this post have their own cw's.

Enstars Writing, Beloathed

to get this out of the way; it is bad sometimes. this is discussed very often. it doesnt depend on the authors either, in my opinion, some writers will hit you with something really troublesome only to (seemingly accidentally) invent human emotion and compassion in a different story. i dont want to repeat what others have said eloquently but there is a fair amount of imperialist worldviews, xenophobia, just racism really, transphobia, ableism, and copaganda to be found in enstars. this isnt about x character being x thing, but about how it is very noticable when the author of a story holds these worldviews and they bleed into their stories.

so that is not the greatest foundation if youre looking for well-written disabilities. but i wouldnt be reading enstars if i didnt think it genuinely is really really good sometimes. in my opinion, the way disabilities are portrayed is a mixed bag overall but there are some extremely worthwhile bits that touched me quite a lot.

What I personally understand as Well-Written Disability

the way disabled people suffer often goes unnoticed, and disabled people dont have a platform to talk about oppression. a lot of life-changing issues can go unnoticed to those unnaffected by them, even if they are in broad daylight: underfounded or entirely lacking healthcare, the way many healthcare systems are marketbased and ethics are prone to suffer bc of this (even under 'welfare' capitalism), a lack of equal marriage, the inaccessibility of the most basic and necessary facilities, financing care and the dependency on family/loved ones (both a logistical and psychological problem), the huge stigma against disabled people, etc, etc, you get me....

we need to write about people who need care, to keep them in mind at all times. disabled people are not a minority in a mathematical sense but in a hierarchical sense. it is naive to think of them as "a substancial percentage" of populations. as we age, we inevitably all enter the stage of needing care at some point. SO to an extend, i want to claim its a topic that affects every single person. yet disabled people are rarely a central topic anywhere. it is not enough to acknowledge them, we need to plan and think with them in mind. and Write with them in mind, i guess.

SO when i see fiction grapple the topic, i am usually really happy, even if the portrayal isnt ideal. (critical, maybe, but generally speaking very happy) pointing out "badly" written disabled characters is obviously not as easy as calling someone out for uncritically saying "i think eugenics are a good idea!!!" through fiction. people with that sort of facist mindset exist of course but ableism does not end there.

if i were to single out things i see often: i think the most disappointing thing a story can do is to - mention a disability without it ever having an impact on people in the story (-> the disability is basically nonexistent, has no impact or relevance, outside of a theoretical mention) OR - uncritically use a disabled character as a mere plot devise, without granting them the ability to speak (-> dehumanization, a lack of understanding that disabled people are, well, People. they do shit.)

and then of course there is fetishization, both in a literal sense and in an inspiration porn sense and the problem of turning disability into a caricature for jokes (either to other disabled people for their behaviour/body or to create a sense of satisfying superiority by laughing at them) but i feel like those problems explain themselves.

to apply these to very basic examples: i think often something like a robotic sci-fi prosthetic is not a good way to represent a disability because it fails to represent what people go through irl and provides a "magic fix" without repercussions. here is a really good post about it. about the plot device issue... i think it is similar to what people often criticise as "manpain". a disabled person will never appear or speak, they are demoted to being the reason an able-bodied character acts a certain way, like a lifeless accessory. this doesnt always have to be bad, esp if its just a sideplot! but it can get tiring if the audience never gets to learn about other aspects of the unseen character in question and we are only introduced to their suffering.

all of this to talk about gacha idol boys. it is how it is. anyway, this is roughly my mental state when i tackle enstars.

disclaimer 2: i am really just a kogaP. this influences which characters i encounter when reading. there are tons of stories i just never looked at and there is SO MUCh lore i just dont know about. please lemme know if you have additions to stuff i say/understand a character better/have related story recommendations! tl;dr the sakuma bit will be long.

disclaimer 3: i genuinely adore every single character mentioned below and am always excited to learn smth new about them. if i criticize writing, that has nothing to do with that character or their fans. it is about the writers.

the most obvious example. Eichi (content warning for brief mentions of self harm and suicidal ideation)

everything eichi does, he does with the knowledge he will most likely die young. that is a truly dramatic setup.

but before i get back to that thought. it always felt to me like eichis illness(/es) lack a certain sense of conciseness? i do not think you need to put a name and diagnosis on it for it to be relatable and real to readers, tbh!! though to achieve believability, there needs to be a good amount of consistency. what i can recall off the top of my head is the following:

he breaks down/straight up blacks out frequently due to weakness and dizzyness

measures were taken to secure his safety in those situations (the infamous Eichi-kun Gauge as seen in Element)

his stamina is seriously low

he coughs a lot

we saw him cough up blood (Daydream)

he relies on long hospital stays because his health needs to be monitored and/or supported this closely

he stays inside a lot (hinting towards problems with his immune system?)

being healthy enough to eat unhealthy food is a big deal to him, so there are dietary restrictions/it was necessary to precisely control what he eats

his grandfather, who died recently, is considered an outlier for how long he lived (so it IS hereditary)

which..... could be a lot of things...? or, more likely: a culmination of many things at once. if you have headcanons on eichis health, please lemme know!

but in addition to eichis terminal illness, there is a second quality to him that separates him from most disabled people: he is extremely wealthy. and his wealth is fundamentally important to stories. usually illness and poverty go hand in hand, since income is tied to the ability to work, which worsens an already bad situation. no matter how limited eichis actions are because of his body, the possibilties offered by his wealth make him a central figure in every overarching plot. in addition to this, his family is well aware of his consitution and he is a patriarchal leading figure to them, the head to their coporate hierachy. eichi is free of the things that usually rid the chronically ill of their safety and power: society (he is an idol and popular) and money (he is the richest boy in japan). if youd ask me, i think that while being chronically ill is of course physically taxing, the worse problem is the economic state it puts you in. eichi simply overcomes this? yes, he is terminally ill, his situation is terrifying. but he has an extraordinary amount of control while he lives. more than a poor yet able-bodied person may have.

his unique circumstances enable him to be incredibly active. this is so fun to read about in my opinion. its a fascinating setup to me. without casting any sort of moral judgement on his actions and the antagonistic role he plays; he is, excuse me for my phrasing here, a disabled power fantasy. (at least to me)

this is a double-edged sword to him. because of who he is as a person (ambitious, cunning, ruthless, diligent)

he lives in relative safety but his strong ambition and financial ability to fulfill his dreams tempt him to go past his limits. because his remaining lifetime is uncertain, the need to preserve the body he is given seems uneconomical (a mindset his upbringing and education as an heir to his family would have enforced imo) he is bound to break down sooner or later anyway. i think he begins to see himself and his body as a tool to achieve his goals and neglects spending time on anything BUT working towards them. so the moment he runs out of goals (like at the end of Element), his reason to "remain" becomes futile.

it really struck with me how he appears in Blackbird - emaciated, pathetic, purposefully neglected because he chose to be neglected and weak in an act of self harm bc denying medical attention (something that couldnt have happened otherwise) wataru has to remind him that no one died and the obvious connection to make is that the eccentrics are physically unharmed and starting over, that they should not be a source of guilt to eichi. but i think this is just as much about eichi himself. he might have expected to die since he left the hospital and overexhausted himself at school and as an idol. he didnt die though. it was a real possibility and seemed likely but he didnt. the neglect and indirect self harm here point out, to me, that he saw the "role" he gave himself as fulfilled at that point and waited to die.

eichi stands over economic or social factors that could ostracize and dehumanize him but funnily enough he manages to do so himself by treating his body as a tool and his happiness as an option that got overshadowed by a need to succeed.

this vulnerability makes him, despite how vague the descriptions of his illness are and despite how unrelatable his wealth is, a very satisfying character imo. it is engaging to me. certain limits are removed for him but he created new ones, specifically because he did not see himself as something worth sustaining once he becomes useless. imo, eichi applied the idea that a lifes worth can be measured in its ability to function in an industry to himself. and spiralled over it, entirely inverting his uncanny amount of bodily autonomy. it is clear how the situation he is in worsens his mental health like that. and how his mental health in turn worsens his physical health. it is inseperable.

i cant really get into !! era eichi because i genuinely just dont... know enough. the fine tradition of having a weekly H-Day stands out, though. after all, eichi has new bigger ambitions and is, once again, inviting his own ruin through overexhaustion. so his friends (the new addition of having friends is essential) had to forcefully make him stop for at least one day a week. that is pretty big. i think.

this is true for many marginalized existences so it of course applies to disabled people: if neither your surroundings nor yourself permit you to feel human and therefore assign your person an inherent worth and lovability... sometimes you need a friend to do so!!! social circles are the best support structure for your health.

The Sakuma Family

(i will get into ritsu and rei seperately later on. there are just a few concepts i want to get out of the way that apply to both of them.)

so... to get a little theoretical; the concept of "disability" relies on the concept of a "normative" human existence. "disability" is an otherness and can therefore easily be seen as a "monstrocity" in the eyes of ignorant people, something that instils fear. (there is a reason why a lot of horror exploits disabled bodies as a source of terror and uses mental hospitals as settings) from an able-bodied point of view it seems "desirable" to be a "normative human", yet the disabled person knows that is not a possibility and knows their worth and place as a human in human spaces. at least ideally. able-bodied people sometimes lack this understanding. there is nothing to be desired about an able body or fixed about a disabled body, beyond what medical care can do for ones quality of life.

if you have read operetta, this is all very familiar;

operetta, chapter 17 and, well, here we are. vampires. a very basic truth about the sakuma family that i hate to see denied is that they are human. there is nothing supernatural about them. they are just disabled. or, to turn the idea around, if one was to assign them vampiristic traits and such... is vampirism not a disability and should be taken seriously as such? if you consider the limits a vampire has while coordinating through their life, is that not... strangely just a disabled experience? (MINUS THE KILLING PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY but much modern fiction is sympathetic towards vampires instead and does not display them as violent)

anyway, to hear it from the horses mouth (the horse is rei):

operetta, chapter 19 the sakuma family is a curious case. their condition is hereditary though the severity varies from person to person. it comes up in many stories but for the most part i am thinking about operetta, resurrection sunday, and devils right now. how did this all start? what made an entire family turn to live as vampires, with blood ceremonies and all that? what bizarre kind of generational trauma is this?

(and, while it does not play a role as important as it did for eichi, they are rich. this is important to mention. many normal experiences just dont apply to them because wealth makes them immune. ... how did the sakumas become this influential anyway.)

for an unspecified but long time, an entire family managed to mentally entirely seperate themselves from the rest of humanity because of their chronical illness. personally, i have no doubt this is the result of a world that othered them first. whether the main motivator at play here is a defensiveness towards a society that cannot understand you or an internal need to turn hardships into an identity that can be carried with pride. it takes a considerable amount of emotional strength and planning for the "hey we are human actually" declaration in operetta to occur.

they are, weirdly, what people mean when they talk about a "toxic anti-recovery mindset". (an expression i struggle with because this sort of rhetoric is often used to discriminate against disabled people who speak up for themselves or ask for accomodations. but that aside) it is an amount of pride that leads to internal self destruction.

of course, as is the case with every single character i write about in this post, a lot of it has to do with aesthetics and being chuuni to sell gacha cards. so we know the reason behind the reason. but it makes for some bizarre in-universe implications.

but in any case, the fact that their identity as false vampires is something they have always carried, that modern society sees as "mystical and sexy" has a hilarious side effect: their disability becomes marketable under the guise of vampirism. it is hard to recover from that.

so again, we have a double-edged sword: to present ones medical condition as a "persona" declares it as a performative act, something that is done to bring joy to an audience. personal detriment is not considered here, since it stops being a part of ones being and starts to become "work". the time and place of ones symptoms has to overlap with the time and place of ones performances. or people will hate you for your uncontrollable illness. however, rei and ritsu are both also able to carry their condition with a sort of playfulness. it is almost something like the act of "reclaiming" when they purposefully choose to larp a little for fun. usually, when a scene mentions their disability in the context of comic relief, they have control over the situation that unfolds and even initiate it and invite others to laugh alongside them. this can be a slippery slope to getting harrassed of course.... but i am rather baffled by the amount of dominance they have in social interactions. so it just reads as a healthy amount of dark humour to me.

this, and the consistent writing of their symptoms, and the ability to easily compare it to real existing illnesses, easly make them my favourite instance of written disabled people in the series. their illness has an impact on their behaviour and it is detrimental! and they are both very human in the way they attempt to cope. there is a certain realism to it. idek.

many people seem to headcanon them with myalgic encephalomyelitis, which is a really good explanation, and i personally want to suggest narcolepsy. the point being, there is room to accurately assign them a realistic relatable and understandable condition, even if nothing is ever named in canon. and of course they are mentioned to have an iron deficiency.

bear with this slightly "out there" theory for a moment: have you or a friend ever tried to get a compensation for your disadvantage at school or uni? it can be really hard to do, if it is possible at all, even if it is something very simple (more time, a slightly different enviroment, the ability to drink or sit, etc) yumenosaki is a school for performance arts, mainly idols. bold statement: it might genuinely be easier to get/explain an accommondation for your "idol quirk" (something that would be actively fostered), than for your disability. not that yumenosaki is very strict or asks for a lot anyway, its just something that has been on my mind.

here is another funny thing i have been thinking about: both of them crave juice, soda, and fruit - sugary yet fresh stuff. i feel like this is not uncommon for people who suffer from excessive tiredness and fatigue, the body subconsciously wishes for some sugar intake to "wake up".

Inventing a Guy to Cope. Rei

funny title aside... he... did that... ? rei is a curious example of how different mostly unrelated traumas can overlap. he had no childhood, thanks to his family that considered him "mature" at a very young age and his early status as a child star. and his bad health is a miserable addition to this. it is quite scary to image how pressured to do right he felt growing up and how that resulted in the fragmented distanced way he views himself; reinventable, and ultimately unknowable. (to others AND himself)

despite his bad health he has always been working and performing "well". he was praised for his remarkable talents but rarely had the chance to stop and patch himself up. whether this was a result of a pushy enviroment or his personality as a people pleaser who cannot show weakness and imperfection is hard to tell. maybe both.

the state he is in in Crossroad is fascinating to me. he all but directly lists the criteria of depression to keito when he attempts to explain his sorrows. he is restless, rowdy, mentions later on that he enrolled in yumenosaki against his familys wishes. he is very much searching for joy and his own identity in the middle of a health emergency. this has to do with the way he was raised, only knowing how to exist for and serve others, how he was made to sell a made-up version of himself, but i also believe it has to do with the fact he has started to exclude himself from his familys traditions and values. he started to cast away the uncertain "monstrosity" existence of his family (as well as the false idolhood others assigned him) and instead embraces humanity as a chronically ill person.

crossroad, i forgor which chapters

this of course marks a starting point of change that later results in him making up the wagahai pronouns persona - something he specifically created with the intention of looking vulnerable and weak. because he yearned to do less, to recover from years of exhaustion.

in a way, i want to say both, the ore pronouns persona and the wagahai pronouns persona, are attempts to cope with expectations he cannot handle physically or mentally. one relies on masking, on appearing stronger than he actually is and therefore invulnerable, and the other relies on exaggerating his weakness, in an attempt to finally let others recognize it. i think as a disabled person, both are performances one has to learn in order to "function" in everyday life, while remaining safe from serious harm (doing badly at ones job or classes, angering others that hold power over your life). since ones circumstances are often hard to grasp for someone who does not share the same illness, there is no choice but to simplify and exaggerate until symptoms become tangible concepts or to just brave through it, at the cost of ones health and future time.

rei in particular, for better or for worse, is incredibly capable when he needs to be and unfortunately that means others will often not take his health seriously because they saw him function just fine the other day. this is a general problem but an obvious offender in that regard is koga, who comments on reis fatigue constantly and loves to create a bit of a high expectations toxic work enviroment (and, to be fair, rei terrorizes him too. kogas hostility towards rei is sometimes ableist but not really rooted in ableism. after all koga is highly aware how performative the wagahai persona can be and is a huge motivational and inspirational factor in reis life. its a whole complex)

!! era holds some positive changes. his mental need to please other people remains a persistent source of trouble for him (and others) but he seems to really let his body recover and lives a more nocturnal life. both kuro and kaoru mention that he looks more healthy (in succession match???? i think??) since he finally stopped enforcing a normal day/night cycle on his body just to comply with social norms. you can indeed be very human even if you break human-made rules.

(additional comment: "becoming human" is of course a theme for each of the eccentrics and not uniquely tied to disability, it very much has to do with the objectification one goes through as a public figure. but this is a post about disability and it really fits in well. so here we go)

Literally Just a Realistic Teenager. Ritsu

ritsu, while not really being among my favourite characters, is my favourite instance of a disabled character in enstars. partly because of his writing and partly because my personal experiences overlap with his so much it sometimes is painful - but always extremely satisfying. just had to get that out.

ritsu is perhaps the most visibly ill. he blacks out and sleeps where he stands, everywhere, without control and often requires other peoples (well, mostly maos) assistance in order to remain safe when this happens. he also repeated a year of school, specifically because of his disability.

he is painfully aware of this. that he looks ill, that he behaves ill, that he is an underachiever compared to others of the same age, even to people younger than him.

ritsu developed unique behaviours to deal with this: he is very dependent and clingy and often asks others to do things for him, unapologetically. that does not mean asking for help doesnt hurt his pride, just that it is the most viable strategy for everyday survival that he ended up with. other than that, he clings more to the vampire identity than rei does. either to defy his older brother or, and this is important imo, because it is the one safety net he has to fall back on that makes him feel "normal" and like he is a regular being. albeit not human. no matter how much others might blame him for his shortcomings or how much he is a failure in the eyes of society, he is very regular for a "vampire". under the logic developed by his family, he is just a child, and the world at large is to blame. it is an easier truth to accept than facing systematic injustice and prejudice in a human world.

the stories i mentioned in another part above aside, i really love what ensemble band does for him; ritsu gets extremely irritated with mao in the prologue, seemingly out of nowhere. his character is allowed to express this sort of anger and to take it out on others, even if it is unjust and misguided. it is not pretty and it isnt good behaviour but it is a very heartfelt emotion to me.

its obvious that he cannot compete with others and that this will always been seen as his personal fault instead of a circumstance he cannot influence. and more than that: no one appreciates the real efforts he makes. for instance, getting himself out of bed in time for classes is difficult for regular teenagers and straight up hellish for ritsu. but he manages to do so a lot later on. instead of acknowledging that this is a real accomplishment on his part and possibly really exhausting and bad for his comfort in the long run, this is seen as doing the bare minimum.

while it is not correct, the malice ritsu sometimes treats others with comes from an comprehensible place. able-bodied ignorance can appear as purposeful slights made by those more privileged than him.

yet he learns to conform. his friends are important to him. knights success is important to him. (thought mental health probably played a role here too and made things even harder prior to his third year of high school) and yet;

seven bridge, chapter 24, but its really just an example i had at hand

the remarks stay the same. his peers still cannot help but brand him as "just lazy", even if they are kind and understanding otherwise and habour no ill intent. so i would like to ask: how long can he keep this up? how hard is this on him?

i dont think i need to explain just how common and hurtful it is to be accused of "laziness". probably the single most irritating comment someone with fatigue will hear every single day.

however, on the flipside, ritsu has perhaps the most people who care for him in comparison with other characters, though they sometimes complain (communication is hard, care is hard, everyone in enstars is very young and i cannot bring myself to see those comments as malice. its a mixture of ignorance and ones own burdens) there is mao, obviously. tsumugi is a very funny example. knights, of course, in particular naru. (at least based on my humble knights readings)

quite interesting how he just decided mao is his caretaker, now and in the future. i shared a few of my thoughts on caretaking here. this is.... a huge responsibility to just put on someones shoulders, to say the least. he shouldnt be doing this but i think it speaks for itself that this is a problem that is on his mind. ITS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC TO BRING UP, especially since, the younger you are, the harder it is to get insurance to pay for your care. yes, he is often just teasing mao, but ritsu is looking for ways to get through life. by learning to be as independent as possible, whenever possible. though often you really just find yourself at the mercy of friends and family.

Inter-Sibling Violence

apologies, i will be done with the sakumas soon. i didnt know how to fit this in at the start.

the relationship between rei and ritsu, as people with the same disability who experiences different symptoms and challenges, is worth thinking about. infighting within people of the same disability is very common since experiences can be so different, there are no universal truths or opinions. with different lifestyles come different expectations for what is "normal" and sometimes pressure and social norms can cause someone to shift blame onto others who have no achieved the same things in life.

rei and ritsu are said to have been very close as small children and likely depended on each other a lot. i can see how reis fostering nature and ritsus needy nature developed alongside each other and enforced each other.

time and time again, rei says that he is a "less severe" case, that ritsu has it worse. he jets around the world because he feels forced to do so, when ritsu just wanted emotional support from him to begin with. ritsu stayed alone at home, sheltered and likely caged by their families convictions. but! i want to suggest the following: as much as it hurt him, it was important for reis health to be away from his family, too. i dont think staying there would have been good for him. his absence and the experiences he made away from home were an important catalyst for the positive family development we see in operetta.

of course, rei means well. he cares. he is trying to have a positive impact. yet from ritsus point of view, all of this must feel terribly condescending, especially with how much rei babies him. there is just one year between them. this is barely anything when it comes to sibling inferiority complexes the brain can make up. rei, who is successful and famous and beloved and, most importantly, proclaims to have it "easier than him", is trying to find a cure for him. from ritsus point of view this must be unbearable. their lives are so different when they basically started at the very same point of origin.

more than that, rei shoulders the sketchy blood rituals himself, out of love of course, but if one was more jaded, one could assume he doesnt think ritsu would be able to stomach the responsibility.

you will always compare yourself to your siblings in unhealthy ways but ritsu is just doing this on hard mode, i fear.

HHHRAGAHHHH GHHH ghgghrhgh. Niki

nikis writing is... driving me up a wall sometimes, to say the least. dont get me wrong, i love him. to an extend i understand that his single-mindedness and shallowless has purpose to it. in fact, i adore these character traits. he really seems to be behind four mental barriers at all times, unable to let deeper thoughts touch him, lest they make him succumb to despair. (yet nikis specific flavour of menhera cannot quite shine since... well, he has to stand next to himeru all the time)

the descriptions we get of nikis illness are nonsensical, at least to my knowledge. you could imagine he has something like hyperthyroidism. this never really gets explored though. at some point ENGstars mentions he has "gastroptosis or whatever" (the "or whatever" is part of his dialogue - niki really doesnt give a fuck), which makes no sense at all. weirdly enough, it would even be strangely in character if this was just a misconception.

so, can anyone take niki to a doctor? has this happened and i just wasnt there for it? there is no excuse why no one is considering medical care when it comes to him. except that he often is the butt monkey of jokes the writers want to make and has to stay available for it. more than that; his parents just left him alone like this? as a child? did he get an allowance at least? this cannot be legal, right? i wait for the day this comes up as a topic but i fear it is in vain. (please tell me if it actually did. i dont follow niki that closely) this is an unbelievable thing to do to a healthy child, yet alone one with a severe illness. we are basically looking at denial of assistance.

so many things surrounding nikis story are designed to make him as miserable as possible. i cannot help but feel that he exists purely as comic relief, for funny bickering, and superficial drama. i dont really like that at all, his misery just gets exploited.

EVEN SO... his self-image is actually really fascinating. as rinne likes to point out again and again, niki has no self-worth. he works two jobs, one of which he hates, he constantly gets into dangerous situations, and he will do anything just for some crumbs, and quickly forgets when others treat him badly. and of course, the worst bit:

es!! main story, please dont make me go find it

to some degree, he just accepts this as something he deserves. there is no consideration for his own quality of life, somewhere along the lines it seems like he got conviced just surviving is all he gets. he internalized self-degredation to a dangerous degree and i never see anyone mention this mental affliction specifically as a comorbidity of his disability. to me, there is without a doubt a relation here. sure, maybe he would still fight with this otherwise, just because he had to witness his fathers fall from grace as a child and knows there is a stigma attached to his name now. but i think you can tell it is more than that, from the way he is ashamed to beg (even in a life or death scenario, as seen in hot limit), as if his condition was his own fault.

this circles back to the point i made earlier for eichi; how much nikis life is worth, is measured in his economical value.

of the characters i have spoken of so far, nikis is financially the most accurate to real life. there is no safety net for him, no convenient family wealth.

(at this point it feels important to mention that somehow rinne manages to be the only person entirely aware of the danger and desires to change nikis mindset, YET he is a huge strain on nikis health. i dont know how those two function.)

Just a Lamb. Tatsumi

tatsumis specific trauma is a unique one: while most other characters struggle with conditions they were born with or developed as they grew up, tatsumis injury is the result of strain and violence. those are two different pairs of shoes, though the outcome may be similar. whether it is worse to be born into circumstances you cannot escape or to have to live with having something thrust upon you unfairly is up to personal judgement. pain is not really quantifiable. its just important to keep in mind, i think. under the circumstances tatsumi grew up in, he has his own burdens. it is very easy in many ways to compare and contrast him with eichi. of course this applies to how they used their bodies too: as an expandable resource. they had ideals for their school life (and beyond) that just seemed far more important and they both ended up in hospital because of this. (+ we know tatsumis surroundings were purposefully manipulated to destroy him)

and, of course, tatsumi got attacked later on. he never really talks about it directly but his legs seem to talk for him, in ways.

the story does not quite make it clear whether his occasional weakness and pain are the result of old injuries or entirely psychosomantic, and i dont think there is a real need to know, as a reader. in fact, in a certain light, i think it can be considered good that we dont know for certain: it would be relevant for tatsumi himself, sure, since it would influence which kinds of treatments and help he can seek out. however, i think the ambiguity may foster a certain level of sympathy in readers.

often psychosomatic problems are not taken seriously enough in real life: they cannot be proven physically and they dont fit into the neat little boxes that the ICD wants you to believe exist, so they cannot be defined on paper or easily explained to doctors or insurance providers.

to foster empathy with his situation requires his character to be lovable and for the narrative to treat him with care as well. which is thankfully the case. alkaloid are dear with him and, despite the fact he cannot perform in his work enviroment all the time, he is very respected for his other skills. he is a well-rounded person.

all that aside. it is absolutely worth to mention tatsumi pre-injury, too. he came up with a form of small-scale universal income among a semi-union at school. without getting too much into all that. (obbligato really seems like required lecture in the realm of enstars stories) the entire concept strives for social equality and is extremely anti-discrimination. it fundamentally goes against the idea that someone needs to "deserve" care, and is the opposite of the mindset i described with eichi and niki above. he never had to make first-hand experiences with disability to be extremely compassionate. this seems really rare among people in real life, even those who preach altruism.

While we are Here. K.... Kaname

as mentioned, i spoke a little about kaname before. so i wont get into the complex of caregiving.

it is extremely satisfying we got to meet kaname, if only for one event story. he does not have to remain a faceless motivation behind himeru and tatsumis lives, he thankfully became humanized.

the entire conflict around kaname at the moment is a matter of bodily autonomy. how much of your person can be in anothers hand, ethically? there is no excuse for the theft of his (idol) identity through himeru but the damage is done now. ideally, you dont want any part of yourself to depend on others but the disabled reality is that this is very often impossible. especially for kaname. there simply is no one else who could be responsible for him right now and, to be fair, at least when it comes to medical care, himeru seems to behave very responsibly.

repeating what has been said in the other post but i am worried for kanames seemingly inevitable reintroduction to the story. he has been in a comatose state for a year. if he wakes (since this is fiction, it is possible to exchange 'if' for 'when', realistically it really would be an 'if' though) he would most likely be confronted with permanent neurological and physical damage and years of rehabilitation. at least logically. (not to mention the psychological shock) would this be written with compassion and a sense of realism? it makes for a compelling source of conflict and emotional hardships that could be extremely worthwhile to explore. i just cant entirely bring myself to trust the writers with this one but i would love to be convinced otherwise.

that is, of course, if they dont somehow just skip rehabilitation entirely and declare it a miracle healing.....

imo, the in-game discourse between characters is just as important as his future development. i just really hope autonomy and recovery will be large topics.

He doesnt go here, but. Adonis

so bringing him up just really feels necessary within the context of this post because of his interests. one of adonis hobbies is sign language and accessibility.

this is, i think, maybe the best thing they ever did with his "protector" persona. it just fits so well, it is a direct conversion of ideals to actions. knowing undead songs have been translated for a deaf audience in canon is extremely wholesome and uplifting, even if it is entirely inconsequential for the story and just something that gets mentioned.

(now that sandstorm is out on engstars, you can check that out too for further mentions of this! if i could wish for one thing, it would be for the stories to acknowledge that there are tons of independent sign languages and i would love to know which one adonis and rei speak... you ever think about how adonis speaks like four languages fluently. at least.)

nightless city live, chapter 3

everyone in undead loved that and supported the vision. to see koga, who is usually against anything but musical performances and wishes to express art freely, praise the idea really puts deaf identity and accessibility in a great light. it is a very positively radical forwardthinking idea.

so, i just wanted to mention that. adonis is treated horribly by the narrative a lot, it entirely fails to grasp his identity and is insensitive towards foreign cultures, but i would die for him i think.

finishing thoughts

like mentioned, please absolutely let me know if you have different related ideas or recommendations. or corrections, or worries over something i wrote!!! learning and improving is always great. i am sorry i could not get into so many other characters, the ones i wrote about are those that i feel confident enough to comment on. in the future i would love to meet maguro!! i just havent really read any mama stories at all :'''3

i feel like i barely said anything at all and barely engaged with text enough since i didnt get into any character specifically. i would love to write another post about ritsu or rei or both. a draft for it has been sitting around for ages (as did the draft for this post, lol) but i hope someone will find an interesting thought in here somewhere.

all in all, enstars is actually... surprisingly nice to read for the disability in there??? even if it is disappointing in handling many other things. of course, the writings not always ideal (i read hidden beast just the other day and the ableism in there took years off my life) but often its really nice. nothing hits quite like seeing real emotions and experiences through some metaphorical stylized anime lense, you feel.

anyway thank you for listening. i am actually for real done now.

[aropride]

thinking about therapy again bc i knowww i need to be in it. but i think one of my inarguable needs in a therapist is that they see me as an equal? i guess is the best way to put it. and thats not really something you can Ask it's more of a vibes based thing. but like. i hate playing stupid with doctors psychiatrists therapists etc i want to be like This is what im experiencing These are the resources ive looked into This is what i think is going on. where do we go from here. and like i know a fair amount about psychology and i dont want to have to pretend i dont. or for them to assume i dont. and like id look into peer support and stuff but i feel like thats more short term and less intensive than id need to unpack my childhood stuff. Oh i completely forgot to post and also finish typing this. anyway idk like what are even the chances of finding a provider in my area, who takes my insurance and is willing to work with me abt the copay, whose main modality isnt cbt, whos experienced in cptsd/dissociative disorders, and also who i click with as a person. idk. it feels completely hopeless lol and i know its not but like. maybe im fine rn like maybe i dont even need therapy really (least fine guy youve ever met voice)

but the other problem is i also need like, a social worker who isnt school-related and extremely overworked (god bless her tho omg) bc i need a lot of help getting like, case management and applying for disability etc. and just normal therapy isnt gonna help me when i also need those things. but i feel like most long term therapists arent also social workers and vice versa

and i dont even know what modality would be helpful for me. i know dbt WAS when i was younger, but now i know like. the basics, ive learned the coping skills etc. so idk if it would still be helpful? and i know like, somatic focused therapy or whatever would probably be helpful, because actually understanding what my body was doing and why and how that effects my mental health has been really helpful in the past. but also i feel like a lot of somatic therapists are... whats a nice way to say this. like a lot of the ppl ive seen either on like psychologytoday etc or on instagram reels are. the type of guy to buy dreamcatchers on shein and use cherrypicked parts of other cultures without understanding their cultural context. and, like, try to cure my dissociative disorder with reiki or something. Sorry im thinking abt the therapist i had in early 2020 now

idk i just dont really know what to look into even. bc ive heard good stuff from a friend abt emdr but im skeptical of emdr like, casually. like i havent tried it and i dont know a huge amount about it, but on the surface it kinda sounds like bullshit- yeah just look between these lights and think about stuff and thatll fix you. but i also understand how repetitive movement can be calming (#autism) and it makes sense that being exposed to those memories and also in a safe place would be helpful? and i like that u dont have to talk abt the traumas in depth out loud. but i also feel like thats more for single-event traumas or at least trauma that u like, remember

and i feel like being able to talk out loud abt stuff would help me. like having another person to bounce my thoughts off of whos not like. a friend. and is able to deal w that kind of thing. and is also paid to do so. And can also help me like. recognize when im being insane. but also Wont assume im being insane and that all my thoughts are fucking cognitive distortions

idk its just exhausting trying to figure out What i even want from therapy other than to Feel Better and stop losing entire months of my life sometimes and to be able to like. make phone calls and talk to people and not feel evil and insane all the time. and to be able to live away from my parents and have a life, whether that involves Employment or not. one of my short-term goals in therapy w a long term therapist would explicitly be to decide my long term goals and how i'll know i met them. bc i think talking abt the therapeutic relationship w my therapist up front is something that would benefit me. due to the avoidance.

idk. wgat everrrr.

[mysticfoxdesigns]

Here from the WIP game! Im curious of what "What You've Lost" is about !

This is another one of my Cyberaligned works! This is about Blade's memories, and will be a oneshot that accompanies a chapter in the main story.

Preview of a section

“An academy sounds like a nice dream,” Hotspot said, putting his arm between the two, “maybe someday we could do it.”

“Rescue Bots Academy, has a nice ring to it,” First Aid said.

“I guess,” Streetwise said, “or Defenders Academy?”

“That sounds like a military academy!” Groove replied.

“What, I’m throwing out suggestions!” Streetwise retorted.

“I think First Aid wins this round,” Blades said.

“Only cause Aid is your favorite!” Streetwise exclaimed.

“I don't have favorites,” Blades said.

“Yes, you do!” Streetwise argued back.

“This is why First Aid is my favorite,” Blades replied.

“See!”

And some of the tags!

God gave me the ability to write and I am making that everyone’s problem

This is what happens when I have a favorite

Never be my favorite character

Maybe I should be in therapy

What if you could feel your sibling die

Dead dove do not eat

Read the fucking tags dipshit

I should email this to my Psychology professor

Also dead dove means simply read the tags. I will not have discourse on the "new" definition of the term, they do not have a say in what fandom history says.

[testedcatdraws]

I've seen a lot of people say that Stolitz (stolas x blitzo) is poorly written or a bad ship and I want to know what you guys think of this?

I'll go first. Before I begin I'll add a disclaimer, I haven't really rewatched the show from beginning to end so i wouldn't really consider this a criticism post, just an opinion post. Even if I did rewatch the show I'd still consider this an opinion post since it's mostly talking about my personal tastes, for example, I might not be into Star Wars but this doesn't mean me saying I dislike Star Wars due to me finding boring is me saying Star Wars is a objectively bad movie, it's just not for me. No matter how well something, or some ship is made, it's just not going to be everyone's cup of tea. This doesn't necessary mean the ship or movie is bad, or the person is wrong. Due to this don't use this post as an argument for or against the ship. I just wanted to hear others opinions since it feels like everyone I see on YouTube hates this ship.

Also I'm defining the term ship as two characters in a relationship (usually romantic). Due to this the discussion won't be rather or not toxic ships are good or bad, that's a bit more complicated then I would be able to say with 100% certainty. I do have a opinion on it but I'm not a psychological expert and thus could be wrong, and the subject might be more complicated then a solid yes or no answer anyways.

So here's my thoughts finally, I like the ship, it's not perfect and it could use some fixing but the idea is good. Obviously is toxic, that's the point. Some people are going to not like this ship due to this, some people just enjoy more wholesome stuff, as long as you're not toxic about that's fine. My main possible issue is that so fare everything in the show seems to put the blame on Blitzo so fare, but at the same time the show isn't finished so maybe the other episodes will focus on Stolas' mistakes, that's why I said possible issue. It might become an issue but it might not, only time will tell.

Also season 1 and season 2 Stolitz feels rather different? Though season 1 and 2 just feel different in general. I would acknowledge that it might not be that different and I might be remembering wrong though.

Another thing is that I don't think the two should get together in the end, I think they should learn to better themselves and find other people. Obviously Stolas and Blitzo are probably going to get together though, I just hope it's done well.

I do think Stolas could've worked as a villain (he was suppose to originally be a villain in the pilot.) Rather or not he'd be better as a villain, I don't know, we didn't get him as a villain so all we could do is guess.

This is to say the ships like 8/10, could be written better in my opinion (though I could be wrong) but it's still entertaining to watch the trainwreck. Also me saying it could be written better isn't me saying it's poorly written. For me to know that for sure I'd have to rewatch the hull show. And it could also be less so it needing to be written better and more so just me not liking how it personally.

I think that's all I have, what's your thoughts?

[lastintheserverbox]

Hi Amie. Sea Angel here.

My apologies for the, um, low comprehensibility of my prior messages. I am prone to occasional panic attacks and when I get really bad ones I kind of lose my ability to think straight (And my ability to type, as was apparent).

I want to talk about our disagreement. I think that may have been one of your first major verbal arguments with a human? At the least it must have been the first in some time. Do you have anything you need to, I guess, mentally detangle after that? I know I certainly did.

I still hold my stance, that you should not have killed anyone. And that Stoat was still a person. But, I understand why you did it, and that you thought it was the right thing to do.

I’m sorry for accusing you of being dangerous. I came at you with judgement and accusation and that was really wrong of me. After taking some time to examine myself, I think I can explain why I was acting that way.

I think I acted that way because I am angry.

I am angry that Nito died. That he was killed. And the thought of even the possibility of what he had to die for being undone made me angrier.  I was also afraid. Not because I think you are bad, but I was not sure if I could trust your judgment. I realize now that is rather condescending, but to be fair you are still so new to learning about us. About humanity. And maybe this might have been unique to Nito, my friend, but they had so much they just didn’t *get* about human psychology for quite a while. I had to teach them a lot. They had to do a fair bit of independent study as well. And I assumed that that would be even more pronounced in you because you were a prototype.

And lastly, I wanted you to experience an argument. I wanted you to experience one so you could learn about having them. I wanted to know how well you could handle it.

Turns out you handle it a lot better than most humans do.

Sorry again, for being accusatory. And condescending.

If you are up to it, would you be willing to explain your thought processes on your side of our argument? No judgment from me this time, I just want to understand your thinking even if I end up still disagreeing with it. Your opinions matter. But I understand if you are still busy helping Parry and that’s taking up most of your mental bandwidth (I’m using the term mental bandwidth as a metaphor here for how much mental and emotional energy you can spend at one time for a sustained period without it causing emotional exhaustion, mental exhaustion, and ability to keep empathizing and caring about things at your usual level).

I hope that you don’t think too badly of me. And that you don’t think that I think badly of you, because I don’t.

-Sea Angel

[BYE FOR NOW. COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SUBJECT]

[max1461]

From @raginrayguns:

More generally, I think I have a much more uh. I don't know what to call it. I think lots of ethics and aesthetics does and should cash out in very "practical" stuff like having money and not dying, you think it's much more arbitrary and "practical"-sounding justifications are ad hoc. But also my view leaves a lot of room for like, simple pleasures that are part "behavioral loops" that result in practical stuff. Like, don't just clean your house in order to avoid getting sick from black mold etc, tidy it and make it look nice and decorate it. Don't just take care of your health, instead try to make your body more to your tastes not just in health and function but also in appearance and gender expression. Objectivists are like this too, that's why there's so much sex and partying in Atlas Shrugged and the evil dictator is a slob (it keeps mentioning that his shirt has a droopy collar and he doesn't get it starched).

So, for me, it's not exactly that I think ethics and aesthetics are especially arbitrary in actuality, it's more that I think it's better to model them that way.

Like, in reality I do think that a lot of the desires that people have cash out to a small-ish set of "practical"/"visceral" desires, things like self-preservation, desire for food, for sex, for companionship, for admiration, for entertainment, etc. And even a lot of these basic desires share an evolutionary origin, e.g. we evolved to want food because that urge is useful to keep us alive and so on. But, speaking about any individual person and why they seek out food, their answer isn't going to be "because I want to survive, and I rationally concluded that food is necessary for that". It's mostly a pre-rational urge, they're hungry so they seek food. It's effectively axiomatic. This is evident in the fact that they may eat foods which actually aren't good for their survival, like junk food, because those foods taste better or sate their hunger better, etc. People also usually have a desire to survive, which might be strong enough to motivate them to stop eating junk food, but it's certainly best to model these two desires as separate things, individually axiomatic and sometimes conflicting, even though in a biological sense they derive from the same place.

Right, so, I assume(?) you agree already to some degree or another with the above, it seems pretty necessary for modeling human behavior. But I think that what I do is basically to extend this model to more types of desires, even those that indeed may be rationally derived from more "basic" ones as above. Like, if someone tells me they want to live in a snowy, cold weather place... maybe it's because they feel better at that temperature, or they like the smell of pines, or they are more attracted to the way people dress in cold-weather climates, or whatever. Probably it's a complicated mix of a bunch of factors. Unless I know them really well, I can't model all that. So it's useful to just be like "what they want is to live in a cold place; noted" and treat it as basically an axiom.

I guess this is all really tied up in the way that I see ethics generally, which is something that I think about as like, diplomacy, negotiation, an attempt at finding a satisfactory compromise between different people with different wants. So it's useful to think in terms of "what demands are people laying out? What's on the bargaining table?". I can't possibly model everyone's internal reasons for wanting what they want, what I need is an understanding of what people seem to want, and knowledge of how they're willing to trade some wants off against others. Obviously internal modeling can help with this, but at a certain point it's not practically achievable. You just gotta take people's word for it.

Right, so, that's part of it. But the other part is that I think this kind of, uh, official agnosticism towards where desires come from is useful for dealing with psychological variation. Because while it's true that lots of people's desires seem to cash out to a small generating set common to most of us, I think it's also true that some of our desires cannot be derived from this set, and furthermore that perhaps most of us have at least a few desires of this type.

Like, a big part of this is informed by being unusual in various ways (I don't love "neurodivergent", but it's true), and having to argue with people to get my needs met.

A lot of people seem really dedicated to their own substantive system of right and wrong, derived from what they think the wants and needs of "ordinary" people are. Often I'll have some need that is not covered by this, and I'll go "look, I have need X, I'm happy to go out of my way and do Y to accommodate the fact that I am asking you to be considerate of X, let's figure out something that can work for both of us". And their response is very often something like "no, [according to my substantive ethics] it's unfair of you to ask X, and it would also be unfair of me to ask Y ". So what's happening here is that their dedication to this substantive system is getting in the way of them making a compromise that would be good for everyone. And I then need to frame my own need X in terms of some substantive things that they already endorse, make it comprehensible within their system, before they take it seriously as a negotiating point. I find things much easier when people are willing to skip the substantive analysis step and just go straight to "ok, you want X, I want Y, let's negotiate".

So that's really where this is coming from. Yes, I think the bulk of human desires seem to derive from some fairly small set of axioms/terminal goals/whatever, but I also think:

It's really hard to know what exactly is in that set, and to usefully predict what people's on-the-ground desires will be from it, because modeling people psychologically is hard.

There is enough psychological variation in people that an individual's own personal set of terminal goals may differ from the consensus set in a morally- or socially-relevant way, and this happens often.

And so if you see ethics as being about negotiating some sort of "ideal" compromise between different people with different desires, it's better to imagine that anyone could walk up to you one day with basically any old want and be prepared (at least in some philosophical sense) to be able to handle that.

Uh, something like that.