#or whatever reason honestly people are just very gatekeepy about it

[allamericanbisexual]

every time i think im clear on my sexuality another curveball comes along and honestly I think my sexuality might have legitimately changed across the years

[angelthingy]

hiii so queer discourse post ahead!! im sorry if i say anything wrong please correct me if i do!! also pls read to the end if you would like to comment because its very much a "stream of thought" kinda post so i go through a few opinions before settling on anything-

saw an argument under a poll recently about how detransitioners who hadnt gone through any sort of medical transition shouldnt be allowed to call themselves trans if they had reverted to a gender that matches with their assigned sex and. honestly i feel like this is one of those admittedly rare moments where i dont really know what opinion to take? i mean i do believe that a detransitioners experience is unique so its entirely reasonable for them to identity more with a trans experience but- relating to what the argument was about- should someone born a woman be able to call themselves a trans woman if they had briefly thought they were trans then. changed their mind before having taken any steps to transition? i really really really!!! dont want to gatekeep identities, its just as people pointed out, being TOO accepting can just open up a loophope for ppl with umm. other intentions, such as chasers - which is, not that great? im just bringing this up because admittedly part of me is worried about both of these positions- one seems really gatekeepy but could also be helpful in allowing trans ppl to have a term to describe specifically themselves; while the other kind of means that the uniqueness of a trans experience is taken away if ppl can say they're trans without having ever transitioned or facing any of the experiences of trans people (dont wanna say issues because defining trans ppl by the issues they face isnt that helpful, though yes obviously those as well)

after having written this out i partially think i may have been influenced by conformity tbh (whoaa psychology reference) because like. the VAST!!! majority of the notes in that poll was that they shouldnt call themselves trans but while im here typing this out im finding myself disagreeing with that position more than not- like ultimately i feel like people should be able to use whatever labels they think fits for them as long as its genuine to their feelings at that moment, and in the cases where they're using them harmfully/disingenuously then thats like. the exception and not the rule- right?

anyway i just wanted to talk about this because talking about things helps me articulate my thoughts!! i guess i did actually end up coming to a conclusion with what i believe in the end so it worked, yippee! but if anyone wants to discuss this please feel free because i am interested in other opinions, especially those which come from experience :D

[twistedapple]

OK so I need to get it out of my chest somehow, because I've been a bit displeased ever since I read that post. Not gonna tag or link because I don't want to cause trouble for OP.

But I saw a post regarding the way some people engage with Baldur's Gate 3 content, and how it was frowned upon to have opinions without playing the game. I didn't exactly take that post well in part because I saw a lot of people from the Raphael Corner nodding in agreement with what I consider a short-sighted opinion piece.

I kind of disagree with the base statement that one's opinions aren't valid if one hasn't played the game for the following reasons:

1. It honestly sounds a lot like actual DnD players complaining that new players who got on board thanks to BG3 expect the game's rules to be the same in DnD, and I consider that gatekeepy when one could be eased into the tabletop version in a more welcoming manner;

2. It's very easy to scroll past what one considers a bad take. It's even easier to block people and even tags on Tumblr, if there's a type of content one doesn't wish to see (inb4 tag your shit properly please);

3. It can quickly come off as classist because what if one's only way to enjoy the game is to live it vicariously through other people's content because say, they can't afford it (either too young and their family won't invest in the game and the gear to run it for whatever reason, or simply someone who generally can't afford it? Like idk what's the price of a PS5 in some of y'all's country, but in my country it's almost 800€. That's a lot of money just for a console. Don't get me started on gaming laptops and desktops, the only way to hace something decent is to slowly build it yourself with some clever part hunting for something that won't literally cost you a month-worth salary);

4. Having been in that exact position of having to live videogames vicariously through other people myself, for the longest time, and still having trouble sharing my own stuff now because I don't feel at my place in the gaming community simply because I couldn't afford it for so long, this post hits close to home in an unpleasant manner. Sure, Tiktok isn't a reference (like, generally speaking. Don't go on Tiktok if you really want to learn about stuff and build informed opinions/media literacy), but following streamers on Twitch for example is very helpful in that regard because it's raw footage and one can actually learn from it (on top of having fun in the chat if the community is cool). Checking quality gaming/analysis channels on YT can also help acquire enough knowledge to build a solid opinion.

5. This is literally a game with a fuckton of options for the storyline. No matter how much you'll play it, there will always be someone else, somewhere else, who'll figure out something you've never picked up. It's a very common occurrence on the subreddit. So judging people because they don't play the game kinda misses the mark even in that aspect. Instead of criticising people for getting their informations from Tiktok, I think it'd be more productive to either simply ignore these people, or engage with them in a manner that makes them want to dig further and learn more through other, more interesting/reliable sources.

Now mind you, my own opinion on that matter is very likely colored by the fact I'm a TTRPG player IRL, I've literally had experiences of one DM animating a one-shot with different groups and everybody getting to discuss all of the outcomes afterwards (it's an interesting thing to experience, highly recommend it) - it's very similar to games like BG3 where one has multiple paths depending on one's decisions for the storyline, or more generally games with multiples endings (like my beloved Dishonored and Bloodborne, for example). There's also the fact that I simply avoid what I consider bad takes, I literally don't interact with it, I block if necessary to curate my feed. So maybe I'm just like "ok some people build bad takes from Tiktok instead of getting into the game proper, I'll just steer clear of them" in term of stance, which makes me much more moderate in my opinion of these people - I actively make the choice to ignore them and vibe in my corner.

I'm just sad to see many people I know from the Raphael Corner agree with that initial opinion piece so eagerly.

[anachrosims]

This is probably going to make people unfollow but w/e.

I really want to do a couple stories, especially one about Alice as a queen and Arthur as her twin brother, Duke of Wessex.

Buuuuut...

Part of my hesitance in joining in r*yal s*ms stuff is because I strongly disagree with some members of the community on how to feel about real life royalty--Pr*nce Ph*lip, for example. I already made a statement back after his death, but essentially: While I do feel it is important to be respectful of others, I cannot respect OR excuse people like him (and that includes most of the BRF). I’m glad he’s gone. It means there’s one less racist imperialist in the world and I am FINE with that. I’m not going to make excuses for a racist relative and I certainly won’t do it for one of the leeches siphoning money from our friends across the pond.

The other reason is my stance on historical representation of multiple socio-economic classes and how that relates to “accuracy.” In short: I have a major problem with people who complain about the “accuracy” of other people’s games but choose to ignore less than glamorous aspects of whatever era they’re particularly fond of. I’m not saying someone needs to put sl*very and s*xual *ssault in their game. I’m also not saying someone shouldn’t play/make CC/whatever for their specific interests. 

What I’m saying is, don’t throw stones while living in a glass house. If you’re going to complain about someone’s accuracy or lack thereof, why not help produce more CC that can reflect more about an era than the elite at the top? Because like it or not, that kind of behavior is hypocritical and historical revisionism and gatekeepy as hell to people who are new to historical fashion and culture. I’m just not down with that attitude. 

(EDIT: If you want to jive with that and you don’t think it’s wrong, honestly, you do you. I don’t want to tell anyone what they can/can’t do in-game. But keep it in your game/friends circle. Constant scrutiny and negativity are way more harmful than you might think. We were all brand new to our various interests at some point, and it wouldn’t kill someone to remember how that feels. As for me, I’m just saying I don’t want to put up with/engage with that.)

That’s part of why I’m trying to make an 18th century military campaign set, and why I’d like to make a catch-all 19th century one as well... despite the fact that I’m worried the sets will be flops because they’re not fancy/luxe enough. 

To be honest, I’m only posting about this because I really want to engage with different parts of this community. But I’m afraid to, because I’m really tired of petty bullshit. As an amateur historian, as a gamer and creator, I just want to vibe and make friends. And idk how to engage with the historical and/or royal parts of the community anymore.

[garetthawke]

i REALLY don't like the backwards step we have taken towards self diagnosis, particularly towards things that aren't as difficult to diagnose. i keep seeing increased posts that are like "you can't tell if you have something without a doctor! it's a long and important process you must go through!"

honestly, fuck that, but i have multiple reasoms why that idea can fuck itself.

reason a) do you know how i got diagnosed with my depression and anxiety? i walked into the doctor, said "i think i have depression and i have anxiety attacks," she took me through a checklist, said "yes you have depression," and set me up with a therapist. within a week of seeing my therapist, she told me i had an axiety and panic disorder. i was on meds almost instantly.

they didn't see my attacks. they didn't witness any particular behavior from me. they took my observance of my own behavior and mental state, my opinion of what was going on with myself, and accepted it and moved on to treatment. that's self diagnosis. i just had the luck to have insurance at the time so i could doctor confirmation and treatment.

obviously not all things are that easy, but there are quite a few things that are that easy. and there is no reason to shun self diagnosis when it is an important part of the process, even professionally. it's what brought me to the doctor's office, because god knows just having symptoms with no idea of a cause didn't do shit, nobody noticed or cared and i was accused of being an unmanageable teenager who was acting out, even with visible self harm. i had to read about depression and anxiety, to align my symptoms with illness, before the idea of going to a doctor occured to me.

but that brings me to point b) : not everyone has access to medical care. i certainly don't have any now.

it's frankly a very, very privileged position to have to say "you have to go to a doctor" in our country right now.

the "danger" of self diagnosis is mostly a bunch of gatekeepy, and sometimes elitist/classist nonsense.

having an idea of what is wrong with you is literally the first step towards getting better.

if someone finds the advice for any particular illness/disorder helps them get better, frankly it doesn't matter if their self diagnosis is wrong. and if it doesn't help...well, I'd be surprised if people stuck with it.

self diagnosis is a crucial starting point for a lot of people who have no access to medical care.

the post that really triggered this was an adhd post, which really got under my skin because a) the "danger" of an adhd misdiagnosis would be going on meds you don't need, which you can't without a doctor anyway. which means if someone self diagnosed incorrectly, the worst they would be doing is....looking at advice for structuring their lives. and if that helps them? good, they can self diagnose all they want, it doesn't fucking matter.

i would rather non adhd people who incorrectly self diagnose get help from adhd advice than for people with adhd to never seek it out because they are under the illusion that they can't self diagnose and never look for ways to handle adhd.

because myself? i am self diagnosed. it took YEARS of living with symptoms that i never could explain, that completely upset my life and became ragingly unmanageable, for me to break down and start looking for ways to help myself.

some careful reading later, and i realized a LOT of my symptoms, even including my diagnosed depression and anxiety, fit underneath adhd. i checked off every damn box on adhd checklists.

what did i do? i started reading about ways to adjust my behavior and thinking to better help my symptoms, which all are adhd symptoms. and i got better. i got things in control and started managing my life better than i had since before i was a teenager.

i have 0 access to medical care. i haven't seen a doctor properly in 6 years, and i won't be able to unless something fundamentally changes with our government.

but my life has been made better because i decided i wanted to help myself get better rather than sitting completely helpless, day after day.

and self dianosis was the CRUCIAL starting point to that end, because simply treating random symptoms like my depression and anxiety (which are largely rsd fueled) without understanding the source was NOT helping me.

I'm not as good as i could be on meds. frankly, I'm barely functional; but I'm not falling apart like i was for literal years. I'm not at the place i was when i was forced to drop out of high school because it caused me to have panic attacks because i didn't realize that it was adhd and exec dysfunction that made it so hard to study and remember things, and that i wasn't just stupid and lazy.

i NEEDED to self diagnose to claw myself out of the pit of depression that threw me into. and i need a professional diagnosis too, yes, but we don't all have that fucking luxury.

get off your damn high horses. self dianosis is not something we can afford to be snooty about in this godforsaken, capitalist country.

it's not a flawless, purely harmless thing. there are drawbacks ti self diagnosis, obviously. but its still something I'm going to encourage wholeheartedly, because I've personally experienced the result of rejecting it, which is a lot worse than whatever bad thing can come of it.

stop telling people they HAVE to see a professional. it's necessary when possible, but it's not the only option. self diagnosis MUST remain a normalized, accepted option until the day everyone has equally accessible healthcare, full stop, the end.

insisting that the only way to approach mental illness and disorders is through professional help is a purely, 100% privileged take. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of seeing it on my dash. start checking your posts, and yourselves.

[mr-kamiyama]

Just FYI, pre-algebra is an American level, probably to pad it out. Japanese and Mexican, and anywhere else high schools get up through calculus for all students.

The '90s inner-city high school I went to taught Continental Drift from falling-apart textbooks, which had been disproven in the '60s and superceded by plate tetonics, which I'd learned about in Japan, but my classmates sure didn't.

The G.E.D., something you can take in the U.S. to get your high school diploma if you had to drop out as a teen to raise a kid/sibling or had to pay rent, would be passable, sans language barrier, by a Japanese seventh grader for maths, and fifth grader for all else. The science and history parts are actually just more reading comprehension, but instead you read about the water cycle and white nationalist revisionist history, respectively.

People are, since 2008, graduating high school, recieving their diploma, not having passed even that made up pre-algebra, let alone anything higher.

They also are taught to write fifth-grade level essays because of national standardised testing that if all students don't pass, basically the school closes down. I've hung out with college English professors, and they are so depressed about this.

A high school diploma in Japan, Mexico, any other nation with mandatory schooling, to attain that level, an American must get a Bachelor's in General Education. Possibly with extra maths(?)

Americans also start second language education too late. It's best to begin before, not after, age 12. It is also ridiculous to make an ESL student or someone who already speaks multiple languages take Acceptable Western European Language 101 (even the Spanish is taught Spain Spanish, despite the whole of Latin America. Because the Colonial way is the Right Way (tm) ) to tick off some box.

The reason college has become so necessary is not because one needs more education, but because K-12 has been slowly chipped away at. I have an educated guess that the people at the top started this when they were no longer able to keep good schools away from POC.

Honestly, I do think it's preposterous that we've raised the drinking age, we're raising the smoking age, we're considering adding more years of school, all while some are discussing lowering the voting age. I don't think ages have anything to do with anything. 18 is a bit arbitrary as opposed to 20 (Japan's), but all the same, I think we need to fix the existing K-12 system so that people don't have to waste 13 years before actually learning more than addition and phonics.

There's no point in "you're old enough to pick our next leader and choose to go die and kill to fatten someone's pocket, but you're too immature to know if a beer or cigar is a decision you can make."

(I mean, this is a country that considers driving--very dangerous-- a rite of passage at 16!! I watched that kill someone I loosely knew through someone injured and traumatised in the backseat of that car. Japan actually staggers that alone to 21, as well as offering wonderful national public transit alternative)

I'm not really fond of staggering age of whatever. As mentioned, Japan staggers, too.

But I don't think raising any ages is a solution. I think it's a feel-good law for parents. I mean, yeah, it's disconcerting seeing your kid suddenly legally able to do all these potentially dangerous things.

But that's why you should *raíse* them. I mean, who never snuck out to a party/a cigarette or a drink/etc behind a parent's back? (I'm sure those who didn't actually exist, and aren't lying to argue in bad faith, but they're rare and probably had some kind of extenuating circumstances that stayed them) Probably because whatever was banned at home. Like how laws even ban 16 year olds from working much now, even if they really need to, like I did.

Laws don't actually...stop everyone. That's why things like crime exist. Laws don't eradicate the behaviour.

And even if they did, on what planet does "you're old enough to go kill people for the Bushes to get more oil, but you're not old enough to have a cold one" even make *sense*!?

Shoot, if you have to stagger anything, stagger the military and driving ages last. Those are the most likely to quickly kill multiple people.

But really, we just need better education (including *encouragement* of critical thinking), better parenting (and I'm actually thinking about this from the kid's POV, remembering my own high school days).

All raising age does is make more "forbidden fruit" and keep youth from maturing longer, which the latter may sound nice to anxious parents, but isn't healthy.

Although, I do agree with doing something about tuition cost. In England, Oxford and your local four-year coat the same. In the 70s, a young man (man because wage gap. Assumed cis or fully cis-passing) could put himself through college with a job. Textbooks cost little more than a hardcover novel. The current structure seeks to keep the real education to the wealthy (and mostly white, who gets the good jobs? sans international students, who get extra punishment fees) Maybe a recreation of the whole thing I said in my hypothesis?

At any rate, I just don't see how raising ages on this or that solves anything. I think talking to your kids, raising them to be adults, and improving existing structure is what we really need to do. And stop being gatekeepy.

Sorry if this is a bit loopy. I got home from work at one A.M., it's now five-thirty, still wired, and my phone keeps pressing its own buttons. This is gonna be my final vent tonight.