#roles: symptom enjoyer

[headmate-ideas]

🌹 headmate template 👁️

✦ Name(s): Rose, Ocula, Flora ✦ Pronouns: she/her, ze/zir/zirs/zirself, x/xs/xself, weird/weirds/weirdself, odd/odds/oddself, shx/hxr/hxrs/hxrself ✦ Species: object head (rose with an eye in the middle) ✦ Age: adult ✦ Role(s): caretaker, comforter, manager, symptom holder/enjoyer (optional) ✦ Symptoms experienced: unreality, dissociation, psychosis ✦ Labels: gendervoid, luxine, kenochoric, oriented aroace, lesbian, queerplatonic, oddcoric ✦ Xenos: dreams, flowers, liminality ✦ Interests/likes: weirdcore, organization, tea ✦ Dislikes: rigidity in thinking, sour foods, dull colors ✦ Music taste: dream pop, chillwave, psychedelic pop ✦ Aesthetic(s): weirdcore, dreamcore, light academia, acid pixie ✦ Objectum attraction(s): plants, crystals ✦ Kins: angels, moonstone, american white shepherd dogs ✦ Emoji proxy: 🌹👁️ ✦ Details:

Rose is an object head like the kind that appear in weirdcore edits - specifically a rose with an eye in the middle. Ze is very comfortable with that which is seen as strange, surreal, or unsettling. In fact, ze finds such things comforting. X would work well in a system whose members tend to find surreal aesthetics comforting too. However, Rose also takes xs system members' individual comforts into account. X is fond of giving reassurances when the system are worried and seeking out positive distractions for the system, especially art (either creating it or looking at it). However, ze is not just an emotional caretaker but a practical one, and helping the system fulfill their responsibilities is important to x. Ze is fond of organization, especially if ze can make it aesthetic (e.g. through fun containers, planners, etc.) If the system experience dissociation, hallucinations, or other forms of unreality, Rose experiences those symptoms too but finds that shx is much less distressed by them than other members of the system might be. Ze is able to enjoy a certain level of dissociation and finds many hallucinations to be friendly and familiar. Shx encourages the rest of the system to be less afraid of their symptoms, and if they can't be, then shx fronts while the system are experiencing symptoms so they can be experienced by someone who handles them better.

[These can be edited and changed as needed, and headmates will almost definitely not turn out EXACTLY as described.]

[If you do not already experience the symptoms described in this template, you are discouraged from trying to introject THOSE PARTS of this headmate.]

[ix-c-999]

phobia manager

a headmate whose role is to mitigate the symptoms of a phobia for a system. the subjects of phobias other system members have do not bother a phobia manager, and they may even actively enjoy those subjects (such as a system with a phobia of dogs having a member who is interested in dogs). however, all that is required is for them to not have a phobia that the rest of the system does or for a member whose phobia they are managing. this could be considered both a form of symptom neutralizer and/or symptom enjoyer.

simplified flag

this post has no DNI other than not to start discourse on it

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

i think it is very telling that the best documented case of women buying sex from men are white western women going on vacation in west african countries such as gambia to prey on impoverished and usually younger black men. it highlights that prostitution - any prostitution - is an exertion of power from a more privileged group against a less privileged group. that prostitution is a system that profits from and reinforces oppression and inequality. here, the axis of oppression is not sex, but race. its a symptom of neocolonialism, like most sex tourism.

nonetheless i always have to laugh when the articles, documentaries and research desperately try to act like female and male sex buyers are exactly the same - usually the argument hinges on the fact that the motivation is the same, companionship and sexual gratification. but male sex buyers are motivated by so much more: fetish, sadism, violence, domination. this does not tend to be the case with women. also, unwanted penetration is a different level of violence, having something inserted in you. female sex buyers dont request painful acts such as deepthroat or anal. there are no brothels full with men, the men dont have pimps, and usually in the case of female sex tourists, the arrangement is loose: companionship and sex with no fixed payment but pleasantries, gifts and such. additionally, women dont tend to be able to physically overpower men, or get off on enacting violence like hitting and choking. men who prostitute themselves for women are also less stigmatised than those who do so for men, or prostituted women. and more men sell themselves to other men than to women. and: women who buy sex tend to be single, while the relationship status of a man is no indicator of likelihood to buy sex.

female sex buyers highlight that besides sex, economic class and race determine who is prostituted and who buys sex. that prostitution is an issue of intersectional inequality. and that misogyny is still the key motor of prostitution: male sex buyers are any age, any class, any race, because any man can be a misogynist. but women only become sex buyers under specific conditions; for example motivated by racist fetishisation. another key factor here is gender. buying sex is considered masculine, but women buying sex break with gender norms. consider also the orgasm gap: most women are not satisfied by their male sexual partners. hypothetically it would make more sense for women to be the majority of sex buyers to enforce sexual satisfaction they lack in consensual sexual relationships. yet privileged women who lack sexual satisfaction are more likely to prostitute or otherwise objectify themselves than buying sex.

any form of female-on-male prostitution has its male-on-female (and sometimes male-on-male) equivalent that is more violent and more common. meanwhile many forms of prostitution dont have a female-on-male version, for example prostitution in brothels. men prostituting themselves for women are at a lot less risk for physical violence and abuse or being trafficked. there is even a phenomenon of heterosexual men having to prostitute themselves for men because there is just not enough demand from women. and female-on-female prostitition is almost unheard of, if anything this occurs in a male-female-female constellation. there are no gangbang parties with one or two men and groups of women.

people are so obsessed with pretending like women as consumers in the sex industry - whether that be as sex buyers, porn watchers or stripshow enjoyers - are just the same as men when there are clear differences. gender relations are always relevant in a patriarchal system and reversed roles dont produce the same outcomes.

[teaboot]

Your post about art vs content got me thinking about the differences between the two. To me there is no difference besides the mindsets. One is of creator and the enjoyer, the other is content and consumer it removes the personhood, the joy/emotion, from the equation. Like a writer or video creator may not see their work as art so content creator maybe a way to refer to themselves comfortably but it sounds so machine, emotionless and lifeless, like a cookie cutter recipe mass producing something verses people lovingly crafting something...then again Disney uses a cookie cutter recipe for the most part and it brings out bangers cause people lovingly make it their own so maybe I'm thinking too hard on this

Does my long-winded rant make sense?

see, I get what you mean, but I still feel like the willingness to entertain calling art of any kind "content" reduces it to the facet of consumption where in reality, the experience of consuming art is not the sole defining trait of it.

Reducing arts like music, writing, painting, dance, voice acting, theater, etc. to the role of "content"- a thing created to be consumed, measured and valued by how pleasant or easy it is to digest- I feel that it was our biggest red flag to herald the incoming tide of AI "art".

Because if art is "content", if arts are nothing but consumable matter, then obviously the key to success is to produce as much soft, tasty, edible paste as we possibly can at the lowest possible expense.

It's the same issue I have with "meal replacements", diet culture, nutrient slurries, twenty-step skincare routines, 24/7 body padding and shapewear and laxative teas and "grind culture". It's not a cause, but a symptom, of the disease that is late-stage capitalism.

Things must be produced at low cost and remain in high demand forever. Things must be perfect and palatable and the new hit trend forever. People must pay hand over fist to consume without asking anything in return, and if they start dropping like flies at the unending unrewarded thankless demand of it all, then that must be treated as a weakness. We should all take pride in how much we can spend, pay, give, produce, and think as little as possible about what we ask for ourselves.

So, who cares if, of two identical paintings, one was made by a person and one was made by a computer program? It's the same work, so what does it matter? What does it matter?

I am an artist. I make art. I ask a question, make a statement, declare something horrific or challenging or upsetting or wrong or grotesque, and when you respond, we are together experiencing a conversation. We are existing, two people living one life and reaching out and touching across time and space. No matter the work, you're at the barest minimum saying, "I'm alive, and you're alive, and at one time or another we shared this same world, and at the end of the day we aren't too terribly different. My heart is worth sharing, and your heart is worth the struggle of understanding."

An AI-generated piece, a computer-generated voice, a CGI puppet of someone long since dead and gone, they cannot speak. They have no voice. Ay best, they are the most chewable, consumable, landlord-beige common denominator possible that you can sit and listen to like the lone survivor of a shipwreck listening to the same three songs on a broken record, and at worst, they're the uncaring vomit of an empty, unloving, value-addled hack wearing the skin of someone I know over their own.

When you abandon art to say that you make content, that should not be a point of pride. That's an embarrassment. That's not sitting down for an intelligent discussion with an equal, that's kneeling at the feet of the crowd and saying, "what do you want to see me do? I can be anyone you've ever loved. I can be them, I can be anyone, as long as you love me."

I can make content. I can be consumed. What do you want to consume? I'll make myself consumable. I'll make myself just like anything you like. And I'll make so much of it that you'll never have to go anywhere else, because it'll all be right here, and under all the cut-and-paste schlock you've seen before I will sit alone in the dark and the silence and I will know that I am safe, because I am valued, because I am desired, and I need to be desired or else I am worthless like a factory that no longer churns out steel or a hen that no longer lays eggs or a cow that is too old to make milk.

Content, the most literal meaning, is something which is contained inside a container. What it is doesn't really matter, and the best it can hope to be is something worthy of being scooped out and used.

Art is an experience that transcends value. Art is something you can eat without paying for. You can make it out of anything and anyone can do it. It can be crude and vulgar and bad, and that's a strength because it means something. It always, always means something, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not. It's not content because it doesn't fill anything. It's a living, breathing thing, and whether you want to birth it or eat it, then you're going to have to be willing to put the fucking work in

[kakanno]

the thing is is that recently the system community, even the parts that dont use plural terminology, still show an alarming trend where newly recognized systems feel expected to label every single part of their system, keep track of every switch, use pluralkit all the time, and tag every post in a way that can be unhealthy and ultimately harmful. this is a disorder that is designed to be covert and unknown even to itself, yet by every single system blog under the sun listing every member with their role and pronouns and by the most popular youtubers making ten million meet my alter videos (for the enjoyment of a predominantly singlet audience as well), weve created a community that isnt actually... covert-friendly at all.

its okay to just like... exist. you dont need to know who is who all the time if its distressing. you dont need to log every switch when this is a set of disorders specifically about memory problems and dissociation. these may be common therapy tactics, and i would know because my own therapist has suggested them to me before, but that doesnt mean they will work for you because the very basis of being a system is that they were formed under the very specific traumas you went through as a child. and you especially dont need to share such private information on the internet. i know many systems (myself included) who have tried these methods and only ended up feeling more heavily dissociated, confused, distressed, and even have worse headaches as a result. we need to stop teaching people that microlabelling and monitoring every single part of your system is the only way to be a healthy system and start teaching people how to deal with their specific detrimental symptoms that interfere with their quality of life

[nightbunnysong]

The Massive Benefits of Morning Aerobic Exercise

A Focus on Hiking

Abstract

Aerobic exercises, such as hiking, provide a multitude of health benefits that contribute to overall well-being. This article explores the physiological, psychological, and social advantages of engaging in morning aerobic activities, with a specific focus on hiking. Through a review of current scientific literature, the benefits are detailed, illustrating how this form of exercise can enhance physical health, mental clarity, and social connections.

Introduction

Aerobic exercises, characterized by sustained and rhythmic physical activity, play a crucial role in maintaining and improving health. Hiking, a popular form of aerobic exercise, combines the benefits of physical activity with the enjoyment of nature. Morning exercise, in particular, has been shown to yield unique benefits due to its alignment with the body's natural rhythms and the environment's characteristics at this time.

Physiological Benefits

1. Cardiovascular Health

Aerobic exercises such as hiking are known to improve cardiovascular health. Regular participation in hiking can lower blood pressure, improve cholesterol levels, and enhance heart function. Studies have shown that consistent aerobic exercise reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke by improving the efficiency of the cardiovascular system.

2. Weight Management

Engaging in aerobic exercise in the morning can kickstart metabolism, aiding in weight management and fat loss. Morning exercise increases the resting metabolic rate, allowing the body to burn calories more efficiently throughout the day. This is particularly beneficial for individuals aiming to maintain or reduce their body weight.

3. Musculoskeletal Health

Hiking strengthens muscles, improves joint health, and increases bone density. The varied terrain encountered during a hike engages different muscle groups, enhancing overall muscular strength and flexibility. Additionally, weight-bearing exercises like hiking are essential for maintaining bone health and preventing osteoporosis.

4. Enhanced Immune Function

Regular aerobic exercise has been linked to a stronger immune system. Morning hiking can boost the body's immune response, making it more effective at warding off illnesses and infections. This effect is partly due to the increase in circulation and the body's ability to mobilize immune cells during physical activity.

Psychological Benefits

1. Mental Clarity and Cognitive Function

Morning exercise has been associated with improved cognitive function and mental clarity. Engaging in aerobic activities like hiking increases blood flow to the brain, promoting the growth of new neural connections and improving memory and concentration. This can lead to enhanced productivity and cognitive performance throughout the day.

2. Stress Reduction and Mood Enhancement

Aerobic exercise stimulates the release of endorphins, known as the body's natural mood lifters. Hiking in the morning, in particular, can reduce stress levels and alleviate symptoms of anxiety and depression. The combination of physical activity and exposure to natural environments has a synergistic effect on improving mood and overall mental health.

Social Benefits

1. Social Interaction and Community Engagement

Hiking can be a social activity that fosters interaction and connection with others. Morning hikes with friends, family, or local hiking groups provide opportunities for socialization, which is essential for mental and emotional well-being. Building a sense of community through shared activities can enhance feelings of belonging and support.

2. Connection with Nature

Hiking offers a unique opportunity to connect with nature, which has been shown to have numerous psychological benefits. Exposure to natural environments reduces stress, improves mood, and enhances overall well-being. Morning hikes allow individuals to experience the tranquility and beauty of nature, setting a positive tone for the rest of the day.

Conclusion

Morning aerobic exercises such as hiking offer a comprehensive range of benefits that contribute to physical, mental, and social health. By incorporating regular morning hikes into one's routine, individuals can experience improved cardiovascular health, weight management, enhanced cognitive function, reduced stress, better sleep quality, and stronger social connections. As research continues to uncover the profound impact of aerobic exercise, it becomes increasingly clear that activities like hiking are essential for a healthy and fulfilling life.

References

1. Lee, I. M., Shiroma, E. J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S. N., & Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2012). Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. *The Lancet*

2. Warburton, D. E., Nicol, C. W., & Bredin, S. S. (2006). Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. *Canadian Medical Association Journal*

3. Biddle, S. J., & Asare, M. (2011). Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: a review of reviews. *British Journal of Sports Medicine*

4. Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R. B. (2006). Positive emotional style predicts resistance to illness after experimental exposure to rhinovirus or influenza A virus. *Psychosomatic Medicine*

[pleasecallmealsip]

without the Jacobinical "excess", there would be no "normal" pluralist democracy.

Žižek frev commentary compilation

title from For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor (1991).

We must start at the beginning, in The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989). Here, apart from closely examining Walter Benjamin's late (in every sense of the word) writing, Theses on the Philosophy of History, Žižek also quoted Robespierre and Saint-Just directly. (all pink emphases mine.)

Rosa Luxemburg ... her argument against Eduard Bernstein, against his revisionist fear of seizing power 'too soon', 'prematurely', before the so-called 'objective conditions' had ripened ... Rosa Luxemburg's answer is that the first seizures of power are necessarily 'premature'... The opposition to the 'premature' seizure of power is thus revealed as opposition to the seizure of power as such, in general : to repeat Robespierre's famous phrase, the revisionists want a 'revolution without revolution'.

"From Symptom to Sinthome", in Chapter 1, "The Symptom", in The Sublime Object of Ideology, Verso, London and New York, 1989

Žižek's perspective still feels refreshing, not simply because he presented the French Revolution in positive terms, but because he avoided the cliché of a Leninist or Stalinist reading of the French Revolution. Instead, Žižek had a Jacobin reading of various 20th-century revolutions.

The transubstantiated body of the classical Master is an effect of the performative mechanism already described by La Boétie, Pascal and Marx: we, the subjects, think that we treat the king as a king because he is in himself a king, but in reality a king is a king because we treat him like one. ... The formula of the totalitarian misrecognition of the performative dimension would then be as follows: the Party thinks that it is the Party because it represents the People's real interests, because it is rooted in the People, expressing their will; but in reality the People are the People because ― or more precisely, in so far as ― they are embodied in the Party. ...Because the People cannot immediately govern themselves, the place of Power must always remain an empty place; any person occupying it can do so only temporarily, as a kind of surrogate, a substitute for the real-impossible sovereign ― 'nobody can rule innocently', as Saint-Just puts it. And in totalitarianism, the Party becomes again the very subject who, being the immediate embodiment of the People, can rule innocently.

"You Only Die Twice", in Chapter 2, "Lack in the Other", in The Sublime Object of Ideology, Verso, London and New York, 1989

In his second book, For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor (1991), Žižek expanded on how the Jacobins were not a Party (keep in mind, Žižek uses the word "Jacobin" as more-or-less synonymous with "Robespierrist") :

Within the post-revolutionary "totalitarian" order, we have witnessed a re-emergence of the sublime political body in the shape of Leader and/or Party. The tragic greatness of the Jacobins consists precisely in the fact that they refused to accomplish this step: they preferred to lose their head physically, rather than to take upon themselves the passage to personal dictatorship . ... The Jacobins lacked the absolute certainty that they were nothing but an instrument fulfilling the Will of the big Other (God, Virtue, Reason, Cause). They were always tormented by the possibility that behind the façade of the executor of the Terror on behalf of revolutionary Virtue, some "pathological" private interest might be hiding. ... As such they were, so to speak, ontologically guilty, and it was only a matter of time before the guillotine would cut off their heads. It is precisely for this reason, however, that their Terror was democratic, not yet "totalitarian", in contrast to post-democratic totalitarianism, in which the revolutionaries fully assume the role of an instrument of the big Other, whereby their very body again redoubles itself and assumes sublime quality.

"Much Ado about a Thing", in For They Know Not What They Do, Verso, London and New York, 1991

The pessimism here is twofold. The Jacobin project must take place, and the Jacobins themselves must meet unfair and cruel ends for all the good they have done. This pessimism permeates every book that Žižek has written, but all this is in no way a denial of the revolutionary becoming. For example, the quote before the cut, from Chapter 2 of the Sublime Object, might have made you wonder, "did Žižek say that the People in real-socialist countries are similar to the kings of the ancien régime? " In which case, let's see what Žižek thinks of even the royals whose function was (or is) that of figureheads:

A distinction between king as a symbolic function and its empirical bearer misses a paradox that we could designate by the term "chiasmic exchange of properties" introduced by Andrzej Warminski. ... As soon as a certain person functions as "king", his everyday, ordinary properties undergo a kind of "transubstantiation" and become an object of fascination. ... The more we represent the king as an ordinary man, caught in the same passions, victim of the same pettinesses as we ― that is, the more we accentuate his "pathological" features (in the Kantian meaning of the term) ― the more he remains "king". Because of this paradoxical exchange of properties, we cannot deprive the king of his charisma simply by treating him as our equal. At the very moment of his greatest abasement, he arouses absolute compassion and fascination ― witness the trial of "citizen Louis Capet".

"Much Ado about a Thing", in For They Know Not What They Do, Verso, London and New York, 1991

So much for the tired and depressed and often missing Louis Capet. And therefore:

The paradox of the Hegelian monarch is thus that, in a sense, he is the point of madness of the social fabric; his social position is determined immediately by his lineage, by his biology; he is the only one among individuals who already by his "nature" is what he (socially) is ― all others must "invent" themselves, elaborate the content of their being by their activity. As always, Saint-Just was right when, in his accusation against the king, he demanded his execution not because of any specific deeds but simply because he was king. From a radically republican point of view, the supreme crime consists in the very fact of being the king, not in what one does as a king.

"The Wanton Identity", in For They Know Not What They Do, Verso, London and New York, 1991

This logic extends to the crime of being a hero, and not what one might do that abuses the status as a hero. Danton's crimes of accepting of bribes, association with the embezzling Fabre d'Églantine, encouraging Desmoulins to do journalism of questionable quality, etc, were condemning enough, but the crime of accepting the lauding of the Parisian poor was the last straw. The director Wajda was therefore unintentionally justifying Danton's death by starting the film with the poor and unfed running to stop the carriage that Gérard Depardieu as Danton was sitting in, and vying to shake his hand like he was a 20th century celebrity. Danton seemed unaware that the people who surrounded him had neither time nor economic stability to celebrate in.

Robespierre's argument against Danton does not consist in any positive evidence of his guilt. It is enough to recall the obvious, purely formal fact that Danton is a revolutionary hero and as such elevated above the mass of ordinary citizens ― that is, claiming a special status for himself. In the Jacobinical universe, the hero of the Revolution is separated from its traitor by a thin, often indefinable line. The very form of hero can turn into a traitor one who, as to deeds, is a revolutionary hero; this form raises him over ordinary citizens and so exposes him to the danger and lure of tyranny. Robespierre himself was quite aware of this paradox, and his tragic greatness expresses itself in his stoic acceptance of the prospect of being decapitated in the service of the Revolution.

"Much Ado about a Thing", in For They Know Not What They Do, Verso, London and New York, 1991

Despite not commenting directly on what impacts the French Revolution had on sexuality (legalisation of divorce, decriminalisation of sodomy, advent of the capitalist notion of the love-couple, etc), Žižek shows that he would extra-doubt those whose only progressiveness lie in their attitude towards sexuality:

Casanova is Don Giovanni's exact opposite: a merry swindler and impostor, an epicure who irradiates simple pleasure and leaves behind no bitter taste of revenge, and whose libertinage presents no serious threat to the environs. He is a kind of correlate to the eighteenth-century freethinkers from the bourgeois salon: full of irony and wit, calling into question every established view; yet his trespassing of what is socially acceptable never assumes the shape of a firm position which would pose a serious threat to the existing order. His libertinage lacks the fanatic-methodical note, his spirit is that of permissiveness, not of purges; it is "freedom for all", not yet "no freedom for the enemies of freedom". Casanova remains a parasite feeding on the decaying body of his enemy and as such deeply attached to it: no wonder he condemned the "horrors" of the French Revolution, since it swept away the only universe in which he could prosper.

"Hegelian Llanguage", in For They Know Not What They Do, Verso, London and New York, 1991

We might be aware that praising Robespierre was not (and is not) an exclusively leftist position; Joseph de Maistre, known as the other dad of modern conservatism along with Edmund Burke, and literal enemy of the republic on the frontline, was in awe with how Robespierre made close to no tactic error in matters political, economical, and military alike, notably without having much knowledge in the latter.

What we do know about (non-royalist) conservatives, however, is that they tend to praise Bonaparte as a leader worthy of his position. Žižek's labelling of Bonaparte cannot be more different:

The usual critique of patriarchy fatally neglects the fact that there are two fathers. On the one hand there is the oedipal father: the symbolic-dead father, Name-of-the-Father, the father of Law who does not enjoy, who ignores the dimension of enjoyment; on the other hand there is the 'primordial' father, the obscene, superego anal figure that is real-alive, the 'Master of Enjoyment'. At the political level, this opposition coincides with that between the traditional Master and the modern ('totalitarian') Leader. In all emblematic revolutions, from the French to the Russian, the overthrow of the impotent old regime of the symbolic Master (French King, Tsar) ended in the rule of a far more 'repressive' figure of the 'anal' father-Leader (Napoleon, Stalin). The order of succession described by Freud in Totem and Taboo (the murdered primordial Father-Enjoyment returns in the guise of the symbolic authority of the Name) is thus reversed: the deposed symbolic Master returns as the obscene-real Leader. In short, here Freud was the victim of a kind of perspective illusion: 'primordial father' is a later, eminently modern, post-revolutionary phenomenon, the result of the dissolution of traditional symbolic authority.

"From Patriarchy to Cynicism", in The Metastases of Enjoyment, Verso, London and New York, 1994

Žižek's later famous "coffee without caffeine" "cream without fat" "beer without alcohol" pet phrases seemed to have stemmed from Robespierre's "a revolution without a revolution". One would be mistaken to think of Žižek as solely complaining about food products; the "coffee without caffeine" served as metaphor for liberal-conservative attempts at avoiding the their own disintegration: e.g. multiculturalism that focuses on the exotic veneer of the Other without confronting the immanent contradictions in every way of life, and therefore introduces "the Other without Otherness", while decolonisation necessarily involves the abolishing of the western way of life. Liberal multiculturalism therefore constitutes what Saint-Just would call "revolutions done in halves" -- digging one's own grave.

An Act always involves a radical risk, what Derrida, following Kierkegaard, called the madness of a decision: it is a step into the open, with no guarantee about the final outcome – why? Because an Act retroactively changes the very co-ordinates into which it intervenes. This lack of guarantee is what the critics cannot tolerate: they want an Act without risk – not without empirical risks, but without the much more radical 'transcendental risk' that the Act will not only simply fail, but radically misfire. In short, to paraphrase Robespierre, those who oppose the 'absolute Act' effectively oppose the Act as such, they want an Act without the Act.

"Conclusion: The Smell of Love", in Welcome to the Desert of the Real, Verso, London and New York, 2002

Žižek would always admit that any revolution had innocent victims, and even more keenly aware how these victims can be misrepresented and abused yet again by reactionary forces. Significant was the difference between the violence that was visible, had a clear perpetrator, and easy to be the subject of outcry, and the violence that constitutes our daily interactions, our conforming to irrational standards, our objectification and alienation.

When the US media reproached the public in foreign countries for not displaying enough sympathy for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, one was tempted to answer them in the words Robespierre addressed to those who complained about the innocent victims of revolutionary terror: 'Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains.'

"Introduction: The Tyrant's Bloody Robe", in Violence, Profile Books Ltd, London, 2008

Apropos Benjamin's Divine Violence, the French Revolution provided good positive examples for what it is.

Divine violence is not the repressed illegal origin of the legal order – the Jacobin revolutionary Terror is not the 'dark origin' of the bourgeois order, in the sense of the heroic-criminal state-founding violence celebrated by Heidegger. ... This is why, as was clear to Robespierre, without the 'faith' in (a purely axiomatic pre-supposition of ) the eternal idea of freedom which persists through all defeats, a revolution 'is just a noisy crime that destroys another crime'. ... Or, to paraphrase Kant and Robespierre yet again: love without cruelty is powerless; cruelty without love is blind, a short-lived passion which loses its persistent edge. The underlying paradox is that what makes love angelic, what elevates it over mere unstable and pathetic sentimentality, is its cruelty itself, its link with violence – it is this link which raises it ‘over and beyond the natural limitations of man’ and thus transforms it into an unconditional drive.

"... And, Finally, What It Is!", in Violence, Profile Books Ltd, London, 2008

Hegel, to whom Žižek awards the status of an extra-terrestrial creature, constantly disturbing all other philosophers dead or alive, often thought of by the general public in turn as both incomprehensible and somehow embodying the conservative-essentialist false concept of German essence (which often abhors revolutionary excess), was to Žižek not a counterrevolutionary at all, nor an unconditional singer of the Jacobins' praises, but a pessimistic confirmer of the necessity of the Terror.

Shut up, Barère, the truly radical Anacreon of the guillotine was 3 years younger than Saint-Just.

Let us take Hegel’s critique of the Jacobin Revolutionary Terror, understood as an exercise in the abstract negativity of absolute freedom which, unable to stabilize itself in a concrete social order, has to end in a fury of self-destruction. ... In other words, the point of Hegel’s analysis of the Revolutionary Terror is not the rather obvious insight into how the revolutionary project involved the unilateral assertion of abstract Universal Reason and was as such doomed to perish in self-destructive fury, being unable to transpose its revolutionary energy into a stable social order; Hegel’s point is rather to highlight the enigma of why, in spite of the fact that Revolutionary Terror was a historical deadlock, we have to pass through it in order to arrive at the modern rational State.

from "In Praise of Understanding", in Chapter 5, "Parataxis: Figures of the Dialectical Process", in Less than Nothing, Verso, London and New York, 2012

In 2012, the same year as he wrote the preface to Sophie Wahnich's La Liberté ou la mort — Essai sur la Terreur et le terrorisme, Žižek also attacked the "1789 without 1793" formula of liberal reactionaries.

It has been said that the French revolution resulted from philosophy, and it is not without reason that philosophy has been called Weltweisheit [world wisdom]; for it is not only truth in and for itself, as the pure essence of things, but also truth in its living form as exhibited in the affairs of the world. ... one should never forget that Hegel’s critique is immanent, accepting the basic principle of the French Revolution (and its key supplement, the Haitian Revolution). One should be very clear here: Hegel in no way subscribes to the standard liberal critique of the French Revolution which locates the wrong turn in 1792–3, whose ideal is 1789 without 1793, the liberal phase without the Jacobin radicalization―for him 1793–4 is a necessary immanent consequence of 1789; by 1792, there was no possibility of taking a more “moderate” path without undoing the Revolution itself. Only the “abstract” Terror of the French Revolution creates the conditions for post-revolutionary “concrete freedom.” If one wants to put it in terms of choice, then Hegel here follows a paradoxical axiom which concerns logical temporality: the first choice has to be the wrong choice. Only the wrong choice creates the conditions for the right choice. Therein resides the temporality of a dialectical process: there is a choice, but in two stages. The first choice is between the “good old” organic order and the violent rupture with that order ― and here, one should take the risk of opting for “the worse.” This first choice clears the way for the new beginning and creates the condition for its own overcoming, for only after the radical negativity, the “terror,” of abstract universality has done its work can one choose between this abstract universality and concrete universality. There is no way to obliterate the temporal gap and present the choice as threefold, as the choice between the old organic substantial order, its abstract negation, and a new concrete universality.

from "The Differend", in Chapter 5, "Parataxis: Figures of the Dialectical Process", in Less than Nothing, Verso, London and New York, 2012

Another problem with the ideal of shaking off the old regime, then immediately achieving fully-automated luxury gay space communism is that universality can peek into a liberal democracy in many ways, some more sinister than others.

for Hegel, modern bourgeois society could only have arisen through the mediation of Revolutionary Terror (exemplified by Jacobins); furthermore, Hegel is also aware that, in order to prevent its own death by habituation (immersion in the life of particular interests), every bourgeois society needs to be shattered from time to time by war. ... In war, universality reasserts its right over and against the concrete-organic appeasement in prosaic social life. ... This necessity of war should be linked to its opposite: the necessity of a rebellion which shakes the power edifice from its complacency, making it aware of both its dependence on popular support and of its a priori tendency to "alienate" itself from its roots. ... The beauty of the Jacobins is that, in their terror, they brought these two opposed dimensions together: the Terror was simultaneously the terror of the state against individuals and the terror of the people against particular state institutions or functionaries who excessively identified with their institutional positions (the objection to Danton was simply that he wanted to rise above others).

from "Interlude 3: King, Rabble, War … and Sex", in Less than Nothing, Verso, London and New York, 2012

Marat warned of the state spending more on formalities and ceremonies than on meeting the economic needs of the peasants and the urban poor. His advice was not heeded by the National Convention, and his funeral, organised by Jacques-Louis David as a member of the Committee of General Security, was grand and expensive. The Friend of the People was elevated to a status he neither wanted for himself nor posited that anybody deserved. While David was known (and notorious) for taking artistic liberty when it came to his subjects, his subjective view of Marat's "sublime body" was libertied in such a way that betrayed David's own unease between individualism and collectivism:

When the sovereignty of the State shifts from King to People, the problem becomes that of the people’s Body, of how to incarnate the People, and the most radical solution is to treat the Leader as the People incarnated. In between these two extremes, there are many other possibilities―consider the uniqueness of Jacques-Louis David’s The Death of Marat, “the first modernist painting,” according to T. J. Clark. The oddity of the painting’s overall structure is seldom noted: its upper half is almost totally black. (This is not a realistic detail: the room in which Marat actually died had lively wallpaper.) What does this black void stand for? The opaque body of the People, the impossibility of representing the People? It is as if the opaque background of the painting (the People) invades it, occupying its entire upper half. ... Is this not also the logic of the Jacobin Terror―individuals must be annihilated in order to make the People visible; the People’s Will can be made visible only through the terrorist destruction of the individual’s body? Therein resides the uniqueness of The Death of Marat: it concedes that one cannot blur the individual in order to represent the People directly―all one can do to come as close as possible to an image of the People is to show the individual at the point of his disappearance―his tortured, mutilated dead body against the background of the blur that “is” the People. ... It is quite impressive that this uneasy and disturbing painting was adored by the revolutionary crowds in Paris―proof that Jacobinism was not yet “totalitarian,” that it did not yet rely on the fantasmatic logic of a Leader who is the People. Under Stalin, such a painting would have been unimaginable, the upper part would have had to have been filled in―with, say, the dream of the dying Marat, depicting the happy life of a free people dancing and celebrating their freedom. The greatness of the Jacobins lay in their attempt to keep the screen empty, to resist filling it in with ideological projections.

from "Presence", in Chapter 10, "Objects, Objects Everywhere", in Less than Nothing, Verso, London and New York, 2012

The "keeping the screen empty" was tragic also in the verbal sense:

Louis Althusser once came up with a typology of revolutionary leaders worthy of Kierkegaard's classification of humans into officers, housemaids, and chimney sweeps: those who quote proverbs, those who do not quote proverbs, those who invent (new) proverbs. The first are scoundrels (Althusser thought of Stalin); the second are great revolutionaries who are doomed to fail (Robespierre); only the third understand the true nature of a revolution and succeed (Lenin, Mao). ... Radical revolutionaries like Robespierre fail because they just enact a break with the past without succeeding in their effort to enforce a new set of customs (recall the utter failure of Robespierre's idea to replace religion with the new cult of a Supreme Being).

"Venezuela and the Need for New Clichés", in A Left that Dares to Speak Its Name, Polity Press, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, 2020

In a continuation of the refute of "1789 without 1793", Žižek pointed to the proper sequel of the French Revolution as a sequel of 1793, albeit with a twist.

The continuity between the French Revolution and the Commune is at another level. The reception among the enlightened public of the first phase of the French Revolution was enthusiastic, and this enthusiasm turned into horror when the Jacobins took over: 1789 yes, 1793 no. At the level of political dynamic, the Commune was the reappearance of 1793 – but not a precise one. Something happened with the Commune that did not happen in 1793.

"Paris Commune at 150", in Heaven in Disorder, OR Books, New York, 2021.

Despite Robespierre's cult of the Supreme Being being viewed as "utter failure", Robespierre's non-atheist stance was in line with republicanism-as-theology.

Why are so many essays entitled "politico-theological treatise"? The answer is that a theory becomes theology when it is part of a full subjective political engagement. As Kierkegaard pointed out, I do not acquire faith in Christ after comparing different religions and deciding the best reasons speak for Christianity ― there are reasons to choose Christianity but these reasons only appear after I've already chosen it, i.e., to see the reasons for belief one already has to believe. And the same holds for Marxism: it is not that, after objectively analysing history, I became a Marxist ― my decision to be a Marxist (the experience of a proletarian position) makes me see the reasons for it, i.e., Marxism is the paradox of an objective "true" knowledge accessible only through a subjective partial position. This is why Robespierre was right when he distrusted materialism as the philosophy of decadent-hedonist and corrupted nobility, and tried to impose a new religion of the supreme Being of Reason (the main target of his hatred was Joseph Fouche, a radical atheist and an opportunist plotter). The old reproach to Marxism that its commitment to a bright future is a secularization of religious salvation should be proudly assumed.

"Why Politics is Immanently Theological", in Christian Atheism, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024

Interestingly, Terry Eagleton's attitude of "secularization of religious salvation" in Chapter 3 of Why Marx Was Right (2011) was a much more ambiguous one. Eagleton is also firmly Marxist, but what he is not as firm about is whether this salvation, once achieved, could justify all the sufferings that capitalism, prolonged for two hundred years in its own rotting, has already done to each of us.

In short, the true aim of Robespierre's last two speeches in the Convention was not to further strengthen the Terror but to diminish it, to slowly bring it to an end. As is well-known, he threatened in his last speech that the Convention should be purged of a group of corrupted traitors, and, when repeatedly called to name them, he refused to do it — as we know now, not to spread fear and guilt among the members (each of them afraid that he is on the list), but because the names he targeted were in large majority from his own group of Montagnards. Robespierre's aim was not to spread fear among the enemies but to constrain the need for enemies which led the Jacobins to Terror — in short, he wanted to restrain Terror in order to focus on the ultimate social antagonism in France at that moment: how to save the people's republic from the threat of a military dictator (a threat clearly predicted by him and Saint-Just, and realized with the rise to power of Napoleon). The complications give us a hint of how Communism will eventually enter the stage: not through a simple parliamentary electoral process but through a state of emergency enforced on us by an apocalyptic threat.

"Why Politics is Immanently Theological", in Christian Atheism, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024

We can try to answer Eagleton's question, try to imagine what to make of the presence when we arrive at Communism. But what makes Eagleton's question compelling, what makes it an unavoidable question to be pondered upon in the first place, is that divine violence, as supposed to founding violence, is more unskippable than an unskippable ad: some people can block or refuse to experience it some of the time, but never can all people block and refuse to experience it all of the time; yet unlike an ad as the command of the big Other, divine violence has no guarantee from either the Supreme Being or the godess of Liberty, neither Virtue nor Reason nor historical inevitability can confirm that divine violence is truly divine. The risk-taking cannot but be done by the revolutionaries themselves.

The Benjaminian ‘divine violence’ should be thus conceived as divine in the precise sense of the old Latin motto vox populi, vox dei: not in the perverse sense of ‘we are doing it as mere instruments of the People’s Will’, but as the heroic assumption of the solitude of a sovereign decision. It is a decision (to kill, to risk or lose one’s own life) made in absolute solitude, not covered by the big Other. If it is extra-moral, it is not ‘immoral’, it does not give the agent the licence to kill mindlessly with some kind of angelic innocence. The motto of divine violence is fiat iustitia, pereat mundus: it is justice, the point of non-distinction between justice and vengeance, in which the ‘people’ (the anonymous part of no-part) imposes its terror and makes other parts pay the price – the Judgement Day for the long history of oppression, exploitation, suffering.

"Introduction", in Maximilien Robespierre, Virtue and Terror, tr. John Howe, Verso, London and New York, 2007

Happy Birthday, Maximilien.

I would like to thank all my mutuals. I am really enjoying my research and translations more because of your emotional labour (of putting up with my monomania), and this is why Die Partei hat immer recht.

[gallierhouse]

I don’t think diagnosing fictional characters is productive. Is it fun? Yes. Is it a valid way to respond to the text? Yes. But criticisms of the DSM and psychiatry as a science aside, I don’t really think it makes sense to diagnose X character with Y condition. They’re all suffering the affliction of “living forever unchanging and unable to grow” so there’s really no meaningful diagnosis that can be made unless controlling for that (which you can’t). On top of that, if you view a character’s actions through the lens of X disorder, everything they do necessarily becomes affirmation or indictment of that diagnosis. Here’s an example.

Lestat’s displays X symptoms -> Lestat must have X condition -> X condition causes X symptoms -> Lestat displays X symptoms -> turtles, etc.

It’s tautological. Is it the symptoms or the disorder? It’s self-reinforcing. It’s particularly unproductive when we consider the genre of the work. It’s gothic romance and horror. Everyone’s going to be crazy and dramatic and murderous. It’s a hallmark of the genre. I suppose you could read Wuthering Heights and spend all your time trying to decide if Cathy’s got BPD and if Heathcliff’s a narcissist, but it’s not really a productive (or enjoyable) way to engage with the text. Like, let the tale seduce you. Is Louis schizophrenic? Maybe. Is that a particularly important or meaningful diagnosis when analyzing his actions, feelings, or even his grief, love and resentment towards Lestat? Not really. Maybe he is schizophrenic, I don’t know, but it’s not the label that’s important — it’s the role it plays in the narrative and the parallel it sets up with Paul.

I’m not saying you can’t diagnose characters or that there isn’t anything wrong with them, I’m just saying I disagree with it as a primary method of approaching the text. I just think it’s boring. Have your fun. I’m not a cop.

[lovesick0cupid]

stereotypes abt systems r so funny to me bcuz.

host [me, hi] is not an anp, but instead a trauma holder of some of our most traumatic memories, with worsened symptoms of bpd and hpd. and i do actually do more than just sit around and front. because i have several roles actually. [sleep + social caretaker]

actually also, we have NO anps, the closest we have is a robot former host who is NOT normal because they STRAIGHT UP cant feel hunger or exhaustion due to us not having time to eat breakfast before going to school when it was hosting.

our main caretakers are not sweet, or soft, or cozy. one doesnt care for people and is actively intimidating to others without trying [and hes not interested in changing that idea], and the other is actively hostile towards people and is only interested in taking care of daily tasks

being social and friendly isnt a requirement but an optional thing, to the point we have social caretakers because so few of us are enjoyable to talk to or enjoy talking to people.

the Hosting situation [1 main host who is always fronting, 3 primary cohosts who are almost always in cofront, and 5 more cohosts who often get pulled to front. and we still have regular host changes every year or more.] instead of having no host, or a """""""""core""""""""" host

we have 10 introjects out of dozens of brainmade alters.

furthermore, we dont split the same fictional guy over and over! instead we have ~30 anger holders and 20+ protectors. b. because? i dont know. man too angry to associate

we DO have an evil alter and among being the only alter who we warn people abt interacting with, he has also eaten a mattress!

[oohbuggypie]

I CANT BE TAME AND REGULAR RIGHT NOW EXCUSE THE CRAZINESS I GENUINELY DONT EVEN KNOW HOW TO WORD THIS BUT !!! YEAH IM BREAKING DOWN THE LYRICS TO THIS SONG AND HOW THEY REFLECT DON AND BULL'S DYNAMIC DEPICTED IN @goferwashere's LATEST PIECE OF WRITING !! GO READ IT IT MAKES ME INSANE SRSLY. SO THESE R THE LYRICS::

**(song above is Shades Of Cool by Lana Del Rey;; the section takes place from 3:49 - 4:31 . please read the disclaimer / warning at the end of this post !!)

OKAY . BREAKING THEM DOWN TIME.

"your hot, hot weather in the summer" - (real quick: i would change the 'your' to 'you're' as it would make more sense in the context of describing their lover as a feeling; if not, it makes less sense. anyway!!) so this lyric makes me think of how, as Don begins using his manipulative ability to alter Bull's state of mind, the feeling the victim succumbs to when hearing his voice is described as bringing a sense of "warmth and comfort." to describe Don's manipulation effects as "hot weather in the summer" makes sm sense to me because, much like the sun's radiance and the general relaxation/freedom that comes with the summer season, Don's manipulation makes Bull feel a (false) sense of safety and enjoyment. further, in closer context to both the song's general tones and siren mythology, the description of Don's manipulation being akin to "hot weather" can also be taken in a more sultry / seductive manner; in the story, Don uses intimate gestures like tracing along Bull's hand, cupping his face, wrapping himself around his arm, drinking directly from the same cup as him, etc. in what id assume is an attempt to be more alluring / welcoming. along with this, Don's handsome appearance and charisma seems to sway Bull's judgement slightly. Bull does have a reaction to these gestures , being flushed in the face and appealing to Don's demands the first few times he's asked. however, this feeling gets its meaning changed fairly quickly.

condensed: the feeling of Don's manipulation is akin to the warm days of summer, a freeing and typically sweet feeling. Don invokes feelings in Bull that can be related to the sentiment of summer's heat.

"high, high, neglectful lover" - in the literal sense of the song, i believe the use of the word "high" implies that the lover is constantly under the influence of drugs; in this context though, i prefer to think of the word "high" as in a power trip. Don is shown to be on his high horse constantly due to the overwhelming abilities he holds over his peers, being able to demand anything from nearly anyone. alternatively, closer to the original context of the song, i suppose the "high" could also correlate to the feeling of Don's manipulation influence. the victim loses their own proper coordination, their thinking is impaired, and in Bull's case his temperature even rises, causing sweating. all of this could reflect the symptoms of somebody under the influence, similar to how Don puts all of his victims under a "trance" of sorts. moving along to the second part of the line; in this writing, i don't believe that Bull and Don are implied to be in a relationship of any form. however, they do almost seem to reflect feelings for each other, seeing that Don touching Bull's hand makes the latter blush, and Don's heart rate picks up when Bull touches his face (this could be due to the fact that Bull was moving beneath command, causing Don nervousness - but my interpretation is the former). so in this scenario, i believe Don would take the role of "neglectful lover" - as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, Don is shown to use sweet and intimate gestures with Bull; however, we know that they're devoid of any true meaning and that he's doing them simply to appear normal to outsiders that can't tell his victim is under his control, or to persuade his victim before manipulating them. however, Don does present himself as caring for Bull, such as constantly adjusting his attire and even cleaning the sweat from his forehead, and an important factor is that Don - for the first time - feels guilt whilst manipulating Bull. this seems to happen only when he's dealing with him in specific, and to me that deepens the idea of Don being the neglectful lover because , despite being aware that what he's doing is wrong, he pushes that guilt aside and continues to manipulate Bull.

condensed: Don holds an overbearing amount of power among his peers. he also induces symptoms / feelings similar to drug use upon his victims when manipulating them. Don plays the role of a "lover" that does not express true care for their partner and ultimately harms them.

"hot, hot weather in the summer" - oh my goodness this is one of my favorite parts of the song when reading it along with the writing. in the story, as Bull begins regaining his consciousness back, we learn that he can hear Don's voice almost as an outer force. as i covered in the first paragraph, the "hot weather" starts as a pleasant and seductive feeling for Bull. it's swaying, comfortable, and warming. however, as the breakdown in the song intensifies and the guitar whines over the drawling vocals, the pronunciation of the phrase begins to lean towards sounding pained;; bringing a bit of personal description into this, summer where i come from can become so intense that it starts to feel painful on the skin and is no longer enjoyable. this is exactly the feeling i think Bull experiences; that "hot weather" Don induced no longer feels like freedom, it's becoming a dreadful burning. a detail that i adored and stuck out to me in the writing is that Don's voice is so intensified in this state that Bull shields his ears, wincing at the height of the volume. this contributes more to my point that Bull's slow awakening and the summer weather reflect one another; much like how the beating sun becomes overstimulating and unbearable against the skin, Don's influence that was once sweet starts to slowly morph into a more agonizing experience, both mentally and physically for Bull.

condensed: the sense of comfort and warmth that Bull initially felt when being manipulated by Don slowly transforms into a painful feeling as Bull begins to escape the manipulation's trance.

"high, neglectful lover" - when Bull fully escapes the maze and is no longer under Don's control, it can be viewed as one coming down from their high. this is where the roles become reversed to me; he awakens to Don grasping his hand and gently holding his face with the opposite. in that moment, Don seems to be truly concerned for Bull as he twitches and acts irregularly. Don momentarily sheds the image of a neglecting, careless lover and now appears to be the sweet partner; and as Bull quickly resorts to violence upon understanding what Don had just put him through, that "neglectful lover" image is projected onto him instead. he cares not to hear Don's reasoning or explanation, but for how he will reflect the same suffering he was caused onto him. this part is so so detrimental to me because it almost makes you feel for Don. Bull appears for a short moment to be the monstrous one before we're reminded yet again who truly is the neglectful, abusive one.

condensed: Don appears to care for Bull, and he is no longer the neglecting partner; Bull takes on the latter role instead, but for a short moment only.

"you're crumbling, sadly" - to me, this line reflects the final moments of the writing, in which Bull begins choking Don against the bathroom wall as vengeance for his manipulation. on the surface, reading this from Bull's point of view, you can view the "crumbling" as Don's reaction to his punishment. he seems to almost lose his grasp on consciousness, his breathing is inconsistent, and he can't disguise the terror that Bull has inflicted upon him; the largest part of the "crumbling" is that Don's usual sauve front was dropped out of pure fear under Bull's rage . however, as we see just a moment later, Don manages to remain snarky despite his terrified state just seconds before .. so, to me, i think that this line fits just as perfectly when being read from Don's point of view;; he views Bull's immediate resort to violence / switch in demeanor as proof of weakness, and that his manipulation was powerful enough to make Bull "crumble" beneath the pressure of his trance. this also plays strongly into the afore mentioned power trip that Don is constantly on.

condensed: Bull choking Don is the former's idea of the latter "crumbling". however, Don also believes that Bull's violence towards him is an example of his victim crumbling as well.

"you're sadly, crumbling" - the very last moments of the writing show the aftermath of Bull nearly strangling Don, as the latter begs him to come back. and i think one of the most key factors of the entire story - if not Don's entire character in this AU - happens here. as Don attempts to use his manipulative power one last time to lure Bull into retrieving him, that power sputters out just as Don says "i'm sorry." i think the entire sentiment of Don's weak figure facing the consequence of his wrongdoing , asking not only for help, but for forgiveness from his victim is a turnaround moment for him. it strikes a chord that has never been heard of; Don realizes that there was no reason behind his actions, that the abuse of his power and his manipulative behavior simply cannot be justified. i think that crushing, unheard of feeling of remorse for his actions is what ultimately differentiates who truly "crumbled" in the end; Don is the one left unforgiven, regretful of his own actions and battered on the floor with nobody to sympathize with.

condensed: Don is ultimately the one harmed most by his manipulation.

OH MY GOD ITS DONE. this actually took the entire day im so srs,, like i know it's not even that much and it's written not very well but the effort that is articulating my thoughts enough so that other ppl don't just hear "LOOK HERE THIS LOOKS LIKE THAT DO U GET IT" is grueling . anyway gofer i hope u enjoy this absolutely monstrous amount of writing cuz it was all inspired by u 🩷 i reccomend reading all this and then rereading ur own story with the song in the background it will change u i Think . and i recommend doing the exact same thing 2 anybody else who can stand to read this entire post ✝️ it's literally 1 in the morning as i post this and a majority of this was written at midnight so sorry for all the janky wording nd generally bad writing but i had to get this out today or i wouldn't come back 2 it 😭 hope u can try n understand where im coming from hehe

**(i do not agree with many of LDR's statements and actions, and prefer not to directly stream her music as to avoid supporting her. if u would like to hear the excerpt from the song, i reccomend doing what i did and YouTube-to-MP3'ing it so u can download, easily hear, then delete it without having to stream her music 🩷 thank u 4 ur understanding !)

[smoft-demons]

This is Auva

Her personality:

Auva is a self insert. She’s the exact same flavour of aroace and neurodivergent as I am. (AuDHD, has NVLD too. Probably also has discalculia. Alexithymia, time blindness, memory issues, and no sense of direction are all major symptoms tied to these that are super obvious.)

She has two modes: one is the unflinchingly practical, observant, mature problem-solver. Responsible and efficient and cautious and self-sufficient. Quiet. Logical to the point of seeming cold sometimes. Hyper-competent in a crisis. Then the second mode is… soft, sensitive baby who wants attention and love and reassurance—wants someone else to take over being the protector for once. Easily distracted and confused, open and clingy and reliant. Will not hide her emotions unless there’s a real urgent reason to. Obviously young.

The line between the two modes varies in blurriness. Sometimes the switch is jarring to an outside observer, sometimes the two aspects of her blend together smoothly. This is standard human complexity, everyone is multifaceted, but the contrast in her is particularly notable to her demons.

She’s like… take Belphie’s sleepy, cuddly nature, his love of stars and performance arts and storytelling, his enjoyment of sushi (and preference for no wasabi), his head full of trivia and success at tests but not projects, and his attachment to Beel.

Combine that with Beel’s blunt, earnest disposition, his guard dog complex, his open, bleeding heart, his honesty, softness, and loyalty, and his enthusiasm for food.

Add Mammon’s inability to lie about his feelings and his obvious ADHD, Satan’s curiosity, voracious reading, and soft spot for cats, and Levi’s obsessive fandom and love of video games and being in the water.

Remove all the violence and replace it with introspectiveness, anxious attachment, a shocking amount of emotional intelligence, the ability to stay scarily chill in a crisis, and a constant craving for hugs because of a backstory full of touch deprivation. Mix well.

That’s Auva!

_______

Auva’s role:

No one can tell what her relationship to her seven pacted demons is. It doesn’t fit neatly into any human relationship box.

To them, she is… some nebulous combination of their: friend, roommate, therapist, confidante, queer platonic partner, emotional support animal, babysitter, unspecified relative, school underclassman they adopted, etc etc.

Bottom line is just that they love her and she loves them. Found family, big QPR kind of vibe.

If someone asks what they are to her, she’d have to be like “they’re… mine.” When that’s met with confusion and prodding, like “your what? Friends, family, partners, mentors? What?” She’s just like, shrug “Just… mine.”

That’s as accurate a label as there can be.

[seasidewanderers]

intro post time!

times someone at work called us by another name that's neither our chosen name, nor our anagraphical name today [21/08/2024] : back to 1 😔

we've had this blog for... around 3 years now I believe, and never made an intro post, so here it is!

we're the Seaside Wanderers, a polyfragmented/complex DID system. please call us alters or headmates! we go by Aaron, Ae/Ea, or Martin (pick a name, get one free!)

infamous Maternity Blackwood asker

we work in electric power&gas trading! ask us about it! weird ass job that your grandma won't believe it's a real actual job people do

(alter intros are under the cut along with other personal information)

no DNI, feel free to interact. if you'd have to break yours to interact with us, however, isn't the DNI kinda pointless anyway?

the meaning of our system name is nothing special; we all love playing LOTRO (the Lord Of The Rings Online, a MMORPG based on LOTR. highly recommended!) and one of the titles you can get for your character is "Seaside Wanderer". it stuck with us as we love the sea, love walking on the beach, and love how it sounds.

our alter tags are as follow for now, we'll update if someone else wants to participate in this blog:

#of rage and black tidings

#and no other choices

#tinker's curse

#vulpine era

#waterfront

we believe in endogenic plurality. we acknowledge it's a different thing from DID though, and also endogenic DID is NOT the same as endogenic plurality with DID.

CDDs [Complex Dissociative Disorders, a term that encapsulate all traumagenic and dissociative disorders such as DID, OSDD-1, P-DID, and those cases of UDD that cause systemhood] are trauma-based

we believe you can be plural without trauma, and you can be plural without a CDD, and that plurality isn't in itself a symptom of any mental disorder

we support informed and researched self-diagnosis

we support ALL plurals and ALL headmates! traumagenic, endogenic, mixed, median, empty systems, disordered, non-disordered, created, spontaneous, adaptive... I can't list all but I love and support YOU 🫵🏻 and I hope you're safe and having a good day, week, month, year and always! YOU deserve to feel good! yes, you! yes, you, person who might not agree with me, and who I might not agree with

personal, non-syscourse info here:

warning: flashing lights for a blinkie under the cut!

adult (turned 24!)

we work full time. we have a job in electric power&gas trading. we may talk shit about stock prices now and then

we're collectively gendervoid, trans/non binary neumasc-leaning, use they/them, it/its, and ae/aer pronouns, and are omni gay and queer

we are also physically disabled and neurodivergent, DID aside. we have chronic pain and chronic migraines, schizotypal personality disorder, and psychotic depression, so you might see us posting about it now and then

individual introductions for us alters (divided by layer)

this won't be all of us, just those more likely to participate in this blog. due to our system's nature as polyfragmented we wouldn't know all alters, either. updating this a few at a time so we don't get overwhelmed

Jackdaws

James, 18ish, he/him; fictive. annoys Edward for a living. very opinionated. caretaker 🤎

Edward, 23+, he/him; fictive. likes blabbering about his source and sing. pirate enjoyer, annoyed with the fact we don't own a sword yet. role anarchist/does whatever he feels like 🩶

Waterfront

Oscar, 300+, he/they + ae/aer; OCtive (homebrew Pathfinder 1e campaign), half-elf, sylph alchemist, vivisectionist/wasteland blighter archetype. I may talk about it sometimes and I like answering questions about it. I like my source a lot. married to Celain. trauma-related role, protector/persecutor 🩵

Celain (pronounced as Colin), immortal, he/they; OCtive (homebrew Pathfinder 1e campaign, same as Oscar), elf angel (planetar agathion to be specific), cleric angelfire apostle archetype. I follow Pathfinder's fictional pantheon, but I'm making it work with our religions and spiritualities. married to Oscar. trauma-related role, protector/caretaker 🧡

Finnegan/Tristan, 19, he/they/it; OCtive (homebrew Pathfinder 1e campaign teehee), kitsune, bard fey prankster archetype. I love talking about Pathfinder please ask me about Pathfinder like right now thank youuu. token extrovert. my role is to stay silly in these trying times 💖

[ix-c-999]

symptom enjoyer

a symptom enjoyer is a system member who enjoys experiencing symptoms of conditions that the system have. one example of a symptom enjoyer would be a system member with psychosis who enjoys delusions or hallucinations that other members of the system do not enjoy having. another example would be a system member that actively enjoys stimming but whose other system mates do not have strong feelings about stimming. the symptom is probably usually one that is considered unpleasant by the other members of the system, but all that is required to be a symptom enjoyer is for the system member to actively enjoy experiencing the symptom in a way that is notable enough that they feel it constitutes a system role. this is not inherently a form of symptom holder, but many symptom enjoyers may be symptom holders as well.

simplified flag

this post has no DNI other than not to start discourse on it

[system-of-a-feather]

Continuing some from this post, but for our functional multiplicity / resolution, we do have some amnesia for things in the past and our present day memory isn't perfect and between parts we still do loose bits - but that is not experienced in any distressing, intrusive, or distressing manner as it is an inherent part of our state and form of functional multiplicity and I've seen that confuse some people as a lot of talk around functional multiplicity operates on the "complete remission of DID related symptoms" which it CAN be - but it really isn't that nor needed to be to that extent for our system.

Our system is stable and we have very limited to no notable conflict - our system morphs and operates very fluently with one another and switches relatively easy - usually there is at least 3 parts co-con at once - often going upwards to 6-8 at a time depending on if they're so much as interested in doing so. Internal communication is pretty solid and easy beyond actually "summoning" the part to be near and actually tune in so that we can talk. Parts being near the front and "tuned in" is more so a choice to either involve that part or not by both the unseen collective and the individuals as a parts of a collective.

In our functional multiplicity, the individuality of parts - specifically key parts - is a large comfort and aid to the current stage of our trauma healing and the parts in our system serve exclusively a healing function in dynamic with one another and we all work for the betterment of one another and the whole. We haven't had a real issue beyond occasional (and much less frequent) PTSD flashback and triggers and even when those get tense, it isn't a conflict of parts but a stress and worry about one another than against one another.

Additionally, the only roles we use that are formally used are "host" "gatekeeper" and "trauma holder" as they explain key dynamics that are relevant to supporting and recovering forward as all the other roles are either the resting state of all parts (caretaker and soothers and what not are just all of us by nature of peer support) or not needed (we don't need protectors as most of us can handle ourselves individually and we are no longer needing to "just survive").

We've cultured a strong sense of radical acceptance and unconditional care and love among the parts and those that can help do help and those that need help are given it - and while holding that radical acceptance - we also hold respect to the brain's decision to keep us in different parts and the inherent level of denial and dissociation between events that each part has as it gives a unique and strong perspective that gives us a bigger and better insight when we discuss the topics.

We simultaneously fully accept and respect the reality of the other part while fully accepting and respecting the reality of our own and living in our own space and we largely acknowledge that our life - and life in general - is full of subjectivity and our individual realities of the events we've been through are all simultaneously true even when they conflict. Those subjective differences form the foundation of our individual extreme strengths that we can then use to build one another up.

At some point we do likely intend to fuse down in numbers - a number of parts are working on it as their key traumas and burdens get resolved and they themselves feel as if their separated conscious no longer holds anything new to bring up or add to our situation - but as it is, we handle trauma and caring for one another better as separated parts of a whole.

Divide, specialize, and conquer of sorts - and Ray does a great job in managing us. It's honestly a really peaceful and enjoyable existence operating as such a smooth and oiled system. We all have our place that is not so heavily and formally defined but a sense of belonging and purpose in the system. We all do what we do and live where we live. No one is responsible for anything or anyone but also everyone is still there. It's not a job, or a role, or a duty, but simply just how things are. We're a family and a community and we care for one another solely on the principle of putting out our strengths as an offering to the whole team, knowing that the others would pay it back. If one of us is unhappy, we all are. If all of us are happy, each of us are.

We have a lot of trauma to work through still, like A LOT of it, and these days a lot of the system changes and dynamics are in preparation to best refine our team work and individual strengths as parts to better ready us to accommodate the higher needs parts.

I work on not only maintaining but polishing and increasing my self regulation, patience and mindfulness as well as my general coping and insight to what I care for and what helps me and those around me.

XIV takes on a lot of responsibility for understanding what we need and as he keeps expanding his understanding of the collective needs of the system, what matters to us and what can be improved - he is our best advocate and he then focuses on building his ability to understand and assist parts in getting what they need, but also to regulate his own anger that comes with being the part most aware of what we deserve.

Ray, Lucille, and Aderis - the core elders - have worked and slaved hard for the system during the crisis era and they inherently have great skill to be able to help and care for one another, their work then comes in learning to live for themselves and to let us and the other parts that they used to care heavily over make our own mistakes and develop independently into self sustaining parts of our own while still maintaining their presence and expertise for when things get dicey.

Lin is working on a fusion with another part that would better equipt him to travel and manage the heavier trauma holding parts between our side system and eventually fall into a role as the "gentle ambassador" between known long-dormant trauma holding parts that we have long since - both by the parts themselves and our talking active ones - decided to let sleep until we have a life that we know is better for them, worthy for them, and completely the secure life that they deserve.

There are a a lot more parts I could further explain into their individual projects to improving our system dynamic into that of a perfect healing environment for the trauma holders that we know sleep in the back - but that would take more time than I'm willing to put into this point.

As it is though, our system is functionally set less to survive and cope (the main fronting parts all have that individually on their own, having a system for that purpose does little than encourage a sense of learned helplessness at this point), but more so to build a home and a beautiful safe space so that when the time comes that our deeper more hurt trauma holders come up, that there is a beautiful world for them to join us in.

Compared to a few years ago when it was trying to learn the system, understand it, parse conflicts, butting heads over ways to survive and live with one another without killing one another, etc.... its honestly really fun. Like genuinely, its fun to be trying to improve and set a perfect home for the hurt kids that will eventually join us up here. It's a fun group project and we are all deeply engaged, invested, and dedicated to.

It's a very whole experience and healing experience and I really do love that I am able to live my life operating in my individual self with a number of really skilled, amazing, and insightful different versions of me to build this beautiful thing of life.

I dunno, I think the rhetoric around complete remission of symptoms, while totally valid and understandable, is a very black and white situation stemmed from the pain that early stages of healing comes from. Yes amnesia, not always being in the front, and what not, that isn't "normal" functioning, but my brain has never been normal functioning between autism, very early childhood trauma, OCD and C-PTSD and what not. Just cause its not "normal" doesn't mean its not distressing.

I'm not even saying this in a "we are allowed to be not miserable about our disorder", I genuinely mean that not only do I not find the DID aspect of my disorder distressing, but in reference to the PTSD - I find the DID aspect of my disorder incredibly healing and comforting.

I enjoy my life with DID at this stage in healing. It gives me a different perspective and deep insight into myself. There is no "but secretly I hate this aspect" because really, no, I don't think there is anything about the parts in my life and brain that I secretly hate. Yeah some of them do stupid shit, some of them are annoying, some of them are headaches, but I love that about them regardless and its those differences that make them amazing and interesting to engage with.

Anyhow, thats just a bit of a ramble on the topic that I wanted to go on.

[the-lark-ascending69]

your nancy wheeler whump is incredible, ty for the food

— sincerely, a nancy wheeler fan who is also a whump enjoyer

About this post, I think.

Omg anon hiii i'm so happy you liked it!! 🥰🥰 Nancy is such a whumpeable character, maybe because shes so broken inside already 💕 she's just a scared wet cat who needs to be wrapped up in a warm blanket.

A few headcanons for youuuu 💕💕

Robin's parents will be out of town for a few months (they're visiting family far away), so she has the house all to herself, and since the Wheelers are gone and Nancy has nowhere to go, that's where they take her.

Steve and Robin spend a long time looking for the Wheelers. They make a hundred phone calls a day but they keep hitting dead ends. The Wheelers left Hawkins shortly after Nancy was "confirmed" dead, and Mike quickly lost contact with his friends. Finding them has become impossibly difficult, and Steve and Robin worry that they'll never get to tell them Nancy is alive. Nancy misses them like crazy.

The party gets involved super quickly - Lucas, Dustin and Will, as well as the two new kids, Max and El. The boys all cry when they see Nancy, and to Nancy it feels like having siblings again, three new little brothers to try to fill in the space left by Mike and Holly. Max and El just want to help - they're excited to finally meet Nancy Wheeler, Mike's famous sister - he never shut up about her. He always talked about how smart and brave she was and how nothing has been the same since she died. Nancy was a bit surprised to know Mike said that about her, and it only makes her cry. She misses her brother so much.

Max in particular spends a lot of time with Nancy. She helps take care of her when Steve and Robin can't.

Will makes a lot of drawings for Nancy, and she keeps them all by her bedside. She particularly loves the one portraying her family - Mom, Mike, Holly, yes, even her dad.

Nancy experiences a lot of ugly withdrawal symptoms after having been on drugs so heavily for so long. Lots of vomiting and headaches.

Hopper gets involved in her case. She tells him everything, and he begins his investigation. He visits every now and then - it's in his nature. Up until two years ago, he was a father without daughter, and Nancy is a daughter without parents and a sister without siblings. It's only natural when El shows up at Robin's house to spend more and more time with Nancy, happy to have an older sister figure, even if she takes care of Nancy more than Nancy takes care of her. And it's only natural for Hopper to visit a few times a week to ask how she's doing and make sure all her needs are met.

Joyce is overjoyed to hear she's alive, and soon joins Steve and Robin in their search for the Wheeler's new number. She brings food whenever she can and instantly takes on a motherly role in Nancy's life. She agrees that it's best for Nancy to stay at Robin's for the time being, since Joyce and Jonathan spend a great deal of time at work and she'd be all alone for most of the time, but she plans on taking her to live with them when Richard and Melissa Buckley come back.

Jonathan awkwardly tries to help as well - he's often busy with work, but he stops by whenever possible to see if she needs anything. Nancy appreciates that.

Nancy hates appearing weak, but she's set off by the smallest thing - the party's boys hi-fiving each other reminds her of the way soldiers raised their hands to hit her. Steve's loud laughter reminds her of the way the general used to laugh when she cried. Out of the house, she's terrified of needles and hates getting blood tests or vaccines, and going to the dentist is paralyzing - the clattering of the instruments on the metal tray, the shapes of them so similar to the ones they used to rip her nails out, the horrible feeling of foreign objects in her mouth... she has two reactions to these things: she either freezes or she breaks. Freezing includes being almost completely non-verbal, trembling slightly but obeying every order. Breaking includes a lot of crying and panicking.

Her sleep schedule is all messed up - sometimes she can't sleep for more than three hours. Sometimes she blacks out for 18 hours straight. She can never seem to go to sleep and wake up at the same time every day, and she often suffers from nightmares.

She likes cuddling with either Steve or Robin, or even better, both of them. Sandwiched between the two of them, she almost feels like a little kid sleeping between her parents.

Robin really really really didn't like bathing Nancy, or helping her dress up. It feels like she's taking advantage of her. She feels the same when she shares a bed with her. Steve is the one to largely take care of Nancy when it comes to those things. They're still dating, technically, though at this point Nancy can't say she feels love for him. She clings to him because he's familiar, and he loves her, and he makes her feel safe. She appreciates him and cares deeply about him, but if she's honest with herself... she can't love him. She can't bring herself to say that to Steve, of course - after everything he's done for her, she just... tries so hard to convince herself she loves him in the way she's supposed to.

She actually quite enjoys Robin's company, and in part, she'd prefer it if it was her doing all of this for her. Robin can't bring herself to refuse when Nancy asks. They've slept together many times, Nancy cuddled into her chest. It makes Robin's heart ache, but she pushes those feelings down - creep, she thinks to herself. Freak. Pervert. Last thing Nancy needed was a person she trusted secretly lusting after her like a... like the dyke she was.

Nancy realizes she's not having a nice dream at the end of her first day after being rescued. She's drinking a cup of tea with Robin, talking about mindless things - Robin just wanted to make her feel comfortable and she supposed keeping it simple would be best, so she tells her about band and the time she passed out during a school play audition from the nerves. And Nancy looks down at her cup, feels its heat in her hands and the sweet taste in her mouth, and the soft texture of Robin's clean clothes on her skin. She hears the crickets outside, the creaking of the wooden floorboards when Robin paces, and it dawns to her that she is free. She suddenly breaks into tears, and Robin freaks out - calls Steve - and they both try her best to comfort her. Nancy hugs herself - she wants her mother and brother and little sister, it breaks her heart to know they left, that they thought her dead. But somehow, in Robin and Steve's arms, she feels warm. Safe, for the first time in years.

[distort-opia]

We constantly talk about how joker wants batman to understand their roles in the universe and kinda break the 4th wall like he did

But if that happens, what then? Would that change something in their relationship? Would that bring any sort of satisfaction from joker? How would it change things?

Oh, this is a very interesting question. Though I don't know if Joker truly wants Batman to break the fourth wall in the same way he does, since that's simply not who Batman is. In my understanding, Joker wants Batman to recognize how much he needs Joker as a counterpart, to admit the fact they're inescapably connected; he doesn't want Batman to usurp his own role as cosmic trickster. As usual, Joker wants and doesn't want to win. He needs Batman as he is and victory would mean Bruce ceasing to be exactly that.

But what would happen if Bruce got some awareness of the fictional nature of their world? God, that'd be so difficult for him. Even though he's had encounters with Fifth Dimension imps like Bat-Mite and Mr. Mxyzptlk, who tried to warp reality and treat him (and Clark, most often) as fictional characters in a story, manipulated for their own enjoyment, there were still ways to defeat these entities and regain free will. Hell, Bruce has faced plenty of gods and has even been one at some point, has confronted the idea of fate and of incomprehensible amounts of power multiple times, but it was always something within his own reachable world. If Bruce realized he's trapped within a narrative with absolutely no way of controlling his own fate, and that the death of his parents, his suffering, other people's deaths and pain, all of it is for the entertainment of an unreachable audience... that'd certainly be a very difficult pill to swallow.

While Batman's foundational belief is already that yes, maybe things don't have an inherent point, but that we create our own meaning, that's when one has that capacity to begin with. If the meaning you create is one dictated by someone else, what then? Joker's reaction is to embrace the absurdity as part of his madness and keep on living, but I don't think Bruce would be able to resolve it like that. It could go different ways... him trying again and again to enter our reality and failing, rightfully assuming he's being written that way. Him assuming he's going crazy and that perceiving us as the audience is a symptom of it, or that someone is attacking his mind. Him trying to live with it and this being something that brings him and Joker much closer, since they'd be the only ones to perceive this truth about their reality. Him having this knowledge erased so he can keep going without breaking down, him ending his own life over it.

Either way, it might not even bring Joker any satisfaction at all; it might terrify him if Batman validated this fleeting perception of unreality, that he most often buries. When Joker's fourth wall awareness is brought up, it's more often framed as him wanting to see it as a part of his insanity (there's a bigger meta I wrote on this here). Joker himself doesn't want to think there's absolutely no meaning in his world; he prefers to frame it as madness, and fixates on Batman as his life's point because otherwise there'd be nothing to stay alive for. So if Batman showed up and was like "Did you know we're both fictional characters??" Joker would probably be like "SHUT UP NO WE'RE NOT. That was supposed to be just me being crazy, you're not meant to see it too!!"

In the end this is a very interesting question, Anon. It would make for a fascinating story premise (which would be all kinds of philosophical and meta). Thank you for the ask!