#so the matthew experience is a term that refers to the both of us

[galacticnova3]

Speaking of bugs, out of all the different new forms Matthew could take… why some kind of arthropod?

So glad you asked! Miracle Matter’s original forms all correspond to the individual/“pure” abilities in Kirby 64. However, that game also introduced mix abilities, and I wanted to reference that while also primarily taking inspiration from abilities that weren’t in 64. With that in mind, I decided to base its new forms off of two abilities each, while simultaneously building on the idea of the old forms changing to be even more representative of the original “elements” as Miracle gained a better understanding of them. Some didn’t change much at all, like the spark one, while others like cutter changed more noticeably; the main reason I went with this second goal was actually because of the bomb form. I knew I wanted to do something with water and bubble, but the bomb form having bubbles both didn’t make much sense to me to begin with and would have overlapped with a water/bubble form. I could have gone with water and poison, but those abilities are simultaneously already too similar(poison is just water ability with lingering effects pretty much) and not similar enough(water and poison as elements are generally considered distinct) to work for this kind of idea.

Anyways, now to actually answer the question: there’s a few reasons! Like me being biased as an entomology major(/hj). In terms of the concept side, the bug form is, if it wasn’t already obvious given the wording on the original post, based on the beetle and spider abilities. Insects famously include a huge number of species that make use of eyespots— this will kind of spoil the eventual design but I was specifically inspired by the very fittingly named eye-spot ladybug— which felt extremely fitting for the Covered In Eyes character. They’re commonly used as symbols of transformation, but also of simplemindedness and lower intelligence; as far as animals go, their intelligence and capacity to experience certain things as seemingly simple as pain are not well understood, to the point that many people assume there is nothing TO be understood. I felt that would be an interesting parallel to Miracle, given that even the fandom doesn’t agree on whether it’s even sentient or not, let alone sapient, something I decided to echo in-universe with how others mistake it for being mindless.

On the spider side of things, Mariel shows us that some Dark Matters already manifested in a spider-ish form, which to me makes it feel like less of a stretch than it initially seems. When many people think of traits that define spiders, they think about the number of eyes they have, often with a perspective of “they have too many”. A lot of people are also frightened of them and immediately assume the worst, regardless of what the spider is actually doing; if you have seen basically any of the stuff I’ve written about post-Zero/02 Dark Matters, this should sound like a familiar predicament. Their webs often look very geometrical(especially when constructed by spiders on LSD, this was learned from an actual experiment) and are made up of many more or less straight lines. There’s also the fact that multiple spiders have evolved specifically to thrive in manmade structures, and, to my knowledge, Miracle Matter is the only Dark Matter fought exclusively indoors; this wasn’t much of a factor but I did think of it. Visually, it doesn’t actually take much from them other than body plan; the beetle side definitely makes up a majority of the inspiration.

This was the form I came up with last, and by that point there weren’t many abilities left that didn’t have too much overlap with existing ones. Plasma and beam(and to a degree ESP) overlapped too much with spark, sword too much with cutter, sand with stone, crash with bomb, spear with needle, tornado and leaf were already used, as were water and bubble, and most other abilities seemed too specific to really make sense. Fighter, cook, hammer, archer/cupid, staff, ninja, bell, circus, yo-yo, cleaning, doctor, and magic(which is def more in line with the performance type rather than arcane arts) would be hard to make work with a character that doesn’t have hands or experience with specific fighting styles/objects.

Mecha and jet are similar and would have been cool to combine, but those are extremely specific and a bit beyond the complexity I could see Miracle replicating in any meaningful capacity. I DID think about trying to do something with metal and mirror, but I couldn’t think of how it would be used in a way that wasn’t just the stone form but reflective, nor a reason for it to have taken that sort of form. Animal doesn’t have an ability that’s particularly similar to it, and even if it did I don’t know how I could make a fucked up D20 mammalian-ish. Wing and hi-jump had a similar issue and also felt pretty redundant for a character that can already float. Copy shouldn’t need explaining.

[beardedmrbean]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — SpaceX and NASA on Sunday successfully launched their joint Crew-8 mission to the International Space Station from the NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Together, NASA and SpaceX launched a crew of four to the ISS in the Dragon spacecraft, marking SpaceX’s eighth crew rotation mission to the ISS within NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. Sunday's launch was the third attempt, after it was scrubbed twice before because of bad weather.

Engineers determined that a small crack on the hatch seal wouldn't present enough of an issue to abort the launch, and the mission achieved liftoff at 10:53 p.m. Mission crew members on the ground cheered when the first-stage booster separated and Dragon proceeded toward space shortly before 11 p.m.

The NASA astronauts are commander Matthew Dominick, pilot Michael Barratt, mission specialist Jeanette Epps and Russian Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Grebenkin, who is also acting as mission specialist. It is the first mission to the ISS for all except Barratt, who is making his third visit.

The Dragon spacecraft was launched by the Falcon 9 rocket, which SpaceX describes as a “reusable, two-stage rocket,” making it the first reusable rocket of its kind. Once it detaches from Dragon, it will land at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

The crew, set to return in the fall, will spend six months at the ISS. Days ago, administrators revealed they had found a small air leak at the space station.

“It’s not an impact to Crew-8, but I didn’t want anybody to be surprised,” ISS Program Manager Joel Montalbano said at a Crew-8 mission briefing. He said that managers don’t believe the leak will affect crew safety but that “teams are watching it.” 

While aboard the ISS, often referred to as a “floating laboratory," the crew will perform more than 200 science experiments as part of the long-term mission to prepare humanity for long-term stays in space. 

Some of the experiments include taking stem cells to space to study their effects on degenerative disease, as well as looking at the cellular impact of microgravity and ultraviolet radiation on plants, with hopes that plants can remain an increasingly important part of nourishment during such lengthy stays.

The crew will also experiment with pressure cuffs on legs to see whether they alleviate health problems, including fluid shifts in astronauts in space experiencing weightlessness. With no gravity on the ISS, fluids in the body tend to shift upward toward the head, which can cause health problems with eye and head pressure — something astronauts are all too familiar with. 

Spirulina, often used in smoothies down on Earth, is also being sent to space on the Crew-8 mission. The astronauts look to see whether microalgae could help to remove CO₂ from the air, providing both food and oxygen for astronauts. 

It has been a busy year for SpaceX, which undertook almost 100 launches within the past year.

Asked about the seemingly routine nature of the increasingly busy launch schedule, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson cautioned against letting guards down. 

“Spaceflight is hard. Spaceflight is risky. ... You never want to get into the frame of mind that it is so routine,” he said. “Every time we launch, it’s white-knuckle time, and especially if humans are on top.”

[wolint]

THE THREE YOU

THE THREE YOU

Genesis 1:27

 

God made us in His own image, which means we are special and reflect Him in important ways. When we talk about the "three you," we mean three parts of who you really are. The three me or you is.

The you that everyone sees and thinks they know. Secondly, the you that you know and the you that God made and knows. Which of you is real?

Spirit, Soul, and Body

The Bible talks about three parts of us: spirit, soul, and body according to 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

The body is what people see—the physical part.

The soul is your mind, will, and feelings.

The spirit is the deepest part, made to connect with God.

The body is the lowest part of man, the physical man, the fleshly or natural man and the aspect of man that everybody sees and thinks they know: “think” because people don’t know people as well as they believe.

But do you know you? Do you know what God thinks about you?

So many still do not accept what Psalm 139:14 declares about us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that’s something our souls should know very well.

We were created with the ability to think, communicate, understand right and wrong, be creative, and experience relationships with God and with one another.

But society will have us believe otherwise, that we are not good enough for some things, can’t go to certain places or do other things even though God says in Psalm 8:6 that He’s given us dominion over all things

The Hebrew word for man Adam, is the generic term for both male and female, though sometimes it refers to a man in distinction from a woman and allows men and women to represent God wherever they are.

God blessed and graced everyone differently, there are things, gifts, talents, and skills unique to just alone and no other person no matter how much they try can emulate as Psalm 139:13, everything there is about you was intentionally done by the Lord.

You know yourself very well (except of course you’re not truthful with yourself) and what others know about you is whatever they see, perceive, assume, and are told.

Occasionally, you’ll contend with the three “yous” you will believe the report of you that other people give which may cause you to operate from below the potential of God for you.

From a spiritual perspective, the “three ‘You’” can be seen as addressing the individual believer’s relationship with God and others: you in relationship with God.

God calls each person to personal faith and obedience. Scriptures emphasize “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37). This “You” is the call to individual devotion and surrender.

The you in relationship with Self: The Bible teaches self-examination and personal responsibility. “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). This “You” is about personal holiness, growth, and integrity.

And you in Relationship with Others: Jesus commands, “You shall love your neighbours as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). This “You” calls for empathy, kindness, and community responsibility.

You’ll contend with the “you” that you know but still doubt the word of God concerning you, which will make you walk less of who you are.

The Real You

Sometimes, people or society might make you feel like you’re not good enough. But God’s Word says you have power and purpose (Psalm 8:6). The word Adam means all people, showing we all represent God.

You might struggle with the "you" others see, the "you" you know, and the "you" God knows. Life can make you doubt God’s promises. But the most important "you" is the one God knows and leads (Romans 8:14).

What really matters is what God thinks about you, not what others say. Let God’s view of you guides your life, and you will live in victory and purpose.

PRAYER: Lord, thank you for making me in your image and likeness, help me to be conscious of these always and express your glory fully in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Shalom

Women of light int’l prayer min.

[thepitofjob]

Job 17: 6-9. "Intelligence and Justice."

When security like that time at the US Capitol on January 6 or on October 7 slips just a little, then the entire paradigm slips with it. The Book of Job says slippage like this this means it is time for an uprising.

We cannot live in a world that provides us with documentation and lip service about our personal freedoms and obligations and then lets a few things escape its notice, especially since we as Jews believe God has cabled them in with all the natural laws.

The prophet says the wicked must perish and the righteous must hold to their ways. The reason is not your or I but "me." Me is the reason the Torah was written, to teach us how ownership of a human body and technologically sophisticated way of life ought to be lived from the creator's point of view. The rest is performed from the perspective of the creation, the man himself. But we are asking persons who are living in fear, who are dodging missiles or bullets, or living in rubble or squallid conditions to find themselves.

These persons and community will likely never wish to identify with the word "me" in their lifetimes. But if we are to achieve Ha Shem, we must do everything possible to ensure they are able to know Ha Shem if even for an hour before the ends of their days:

6 “God has made me a byword to everyone,     a man in whose face people spit. 7 My eyes have grown dim with grief;     my whole frame is but a shadow. 8 The upright are appalled at this;     the innocent are aroused against the ungodly. 9 Nevertheless, the righteous will hold to their ways,     and those with clean hands will grow stronger.

The Values in Gematria are:

v. 6-7: My frame is but a shadow. "Even still we must be happy." The Number is 11633, ג‎יאוג‎ ‎ , geog, "the earth must know pleasure."

v. 8-9: Those with clean hands will grow stronger. There is no such thing as clean work done by dirty hands. The innocent are appalled by this. The Number is 11689, יאוחט‎ ‎, yocht, "We cannot allow our judgement to fail. Intelligence and justice are the same."

"The adjective απλοος (haploos) means one-fold or singular, simple, consistent, straightforward, frank; the opposite of complex, inconsistent, obscure or overly verbose (hence our English prefix haplo- as in haplogroup). From this word's Latin equivalent, namely simplus, comes our English word simple.

This very special adjective combines a prefix with a suffix. The prefix is the "collecting" α- (a-), the same prefix that formed the noun αδελφος (adelphos), meaning brother or womb-mate, from the noun δελφυς (delphus), meaning womb.

The suffix is -πλοος (-ploos), which forms adjectives indicating repetition or multiplication: -fold, as in διπλοος (diploos), twofold; τριπλοος (triploos), trifold; τετραπλοος (tetraploos), fourfold, and so on. But note the similarities with maritime terms like αγχιπλοος (agchiploos), near by sea (as opposed to far by land); διαπλοος (diaploos), a sailing through or continuously; ταχυπλοος (tachuploos), quick-sailing, and so on.

Our adjective occurs in Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34 only, both times in reference to the human eye, which in modern times is often hailed for its remarkable complexity. Still, the word used for eye refers to one's sight rather than to one's physical eye, and Jesus statements relate to algorithmic observation rather than simply seeing.

Algorithmic thought — that is "lawful" thought, or thought based on general rules that always work identically for everybody (Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, 1 Timothy 5:21, Hebrews 13:8), rather than "lawless" thought, or thought based one's specific feelings that vary on mood and time of day — is the basis of all justice, intelligence and abstract thought. Abstractions are "things" that are real but can't be seen because they have no physical aspect: things like love, honor or virtue are all very real but can only be considered when one thinks in algorithms rather than experience.

Thinking in general rules make the whole chaotic world an ordered and increasingly simple affair, which is why scientists hope to one day be able to describe the whole of everything in an utterly simply Theory of Everything. God is One, which is why the Divine Nature is clearly observed (Romans 1:20) from the harmonic working-together of all things (Romans 8:28), and can be partaken in by humans who are capable of lawful thought (2 Peter 1:4, Ephesians 4:24, Hebrews 12:10). God, or the Oneness Of All Things, is both the hardest thing to imagine and the simplest abstraction possible: the focal point of all law (Isaiah 45:6-7).

A definition of divinity that fails to incorporate literally all the things that the Creator placed on our earth, and much rather equals the Oneness Of All Things That I Personally Like, leads to fascism and the destruction of all things deemed unworthy.

That deplorable position is both common and utterly detrimental, and must always ultimately result in a complete collapse of All Things Favored. Both salvation and utter destruction always comes in the stone that the builders rejected (Psalm 118:22). This in turn means that salvation comes not from the way one glorifies what one knows, but rather from the respect that one shows to the things unknown, unfavored and unrecognized.

People who confuse Truth with their own personal faith, also confuse themselves with God. People who judge and condemn, even if the object of their judgment is satan, will follow satan into Gehenna. People who are saved, are saved because they don't judge, not even satan (Jude 1:9)."

[the-hem]

What does it mean to Cross the Jordan?

The Torah mentions one cannot enter the Promised Land without Crossing the Jordan. The Promised Land is an urban place where the primary fixations include the vineyard, the olive and pomegranate orchards, the wine press, the bread basket and the preparations for Shabbat.

Before Shabbat, one must first Cross the Jordan which has a Value in Gematria of 2365, ב‎גוה‎, "above, and "go into the body."

The Hebrew word fro above is al, which also means "to develop a reference for the self", and how "staying in the same place is considered a point of failure":

"Moderns tend to assume that the ancients first began to develop their theologies in response to their fears of nature, but that's medieval nonsense. Up until the modern Renaissance, all science, technology and the arts were governed by one unified wisdom tradition.

That means that until the Renaissance, a learned person would know everything about everything, and that is also why art from before the Renaissance so often expresses deep skill in what today are considered unrelated disciplines.

Before the Renaissance, the wisdom tradition was as universal as the laws of nature, and greedily swept across the world in utter disregard for political boundaries.

That is why certain crafts such as agriculture and metallurgy — which are both not simply one activity but a whole spectrum — could arise pretty much simultaneously across wide regions.

Folks like priests, druids and shamans were scientists, engineers, metallurgists, philosophers, doctors and artists combined. They were not merely the ancestors of modern preachers but of the whole spectrum of scientists, artists and entertainers.

The Sumerians were the first at pretty much everything and the Egyptians built buildings that we today could not produce. The armies of these regions may sometimes have been at odds with each other but their men of wisdom thrived within the exchange of knowledge and ideas.

Moderns tend to believe that Israel was an isolated pocket of revelation within a desert of stupidity, but that too is medieval nonsense.

A major theme of the Bible is the constant travelling of people across the entire known world, from Babylon to Egypt and Cush, from Arabia to Europe and perhaps even China (Genesis 12:1, 37:28, Numbers 12:1, 1 Kings 10:1-15, Isaiah 49:12, MATTHEW 2:1, ACTS 2:5-11), whereas staying in the same place is obviously associated to failure (Genesis 11:1-9)."

In order to experience "self, in the body from above" AKA Crossing the Jordan one must be touched by another person of similar persuasion and experience climax.

Prior this one is naive; according to the Torah, there is no long-term place in the world for those who are naive. So, Crossing the Jordan in the proper way is of the essence if one is to attain to all the rest of the sacraments named in the Torah, especially Shabbat.

No one is going to make an attempt to understand the Self contained in each of us but the one we eventually marry; no one. That person will not be thineself, it will not be either of one's parents. The essence of Self is found in the unity between the two halves of the Self found in a marriage. Which is why we greet Shabbat as a bride. We welcome the entrance of the other Self within a space that feels like death when we live in it alone.

But first, the ego must learn it is at the mercy of the experience of orgasm, and the longing this creates during the rest of one's conjugal or married life.

[coolrahulsarin]

'Red, White & Royal Blue': The 6 Biggest Changes From Book To Movie

New Post has been published on https://bestcustomjerseys.com/red-white-royal-blue-the-6-biggest-changes-from-book-to-movie/

'Red, White & Royal Blue': The 6 Biggest Changes From Book To Movie

This post contains spoilers for red, white and royal blue.

“It’s absolutely undeniable that fans love the book for the same reasons that I do, so I consider myself one of them.” red, white and royal blue director and co-writer matthew lopez said vanity fair of how he approached casey mcquiston‘s New York Times best selling novel. His adaptation of the book is now streaming on Prime Video. “You could argue that I am such a rabid and passionate fan that I did the most expensive piece of fanfiction ever. I hope the fans take solace in the fact that one of them made this movie.”

Given Lopez’s reverence for the source material, much of the original enemies-to-lovers story between British Prince Henry (Cinderella‘s Nicolas Galitzine) and first American son Alex Claremont-Diaz (The kissing booth‘s Taylor Zakhar Perez) It remains the same. They still hook up over a royal wedding gone wrong, quote Sense and Sensibility via text message, and consider a polo match as foreplay. But the movie isn’t entirely beholden to the book it’s based on. Here’s a look at the biggest differences between RW and RB book and movie, from lost characters to a completely changed introduction scene.

Alex and Henry’s brothers

With any adaptation, inevitably, the arcs of some characters will be reduced or completely removed from the narrative. The victim in this book-to-film transfer is June Claremont-Diaz, Alex’s unfiltered but supportive sister, who pretends to date Henry when rumors about her brother’s relationship begin to circulate. In the novel, she is Alex’s closest confidante, along with his friend Nora (played by raquel hilson), granddaughter of the Vice President. And it is in the pages of her teen magazine that 12-year-old Alex first sees a photo of Henry. In the movie, she is completely absent.

While Henry’s two brothers, Prince Philip (Thomas Flynn) and Princess Bea (ellie bamber)—remain in the film, their roles greatly reduced. Gone is Bea’s cocaine addiction—in the book, she is referred to by the tabloids as “The Gunpowder Princess”—and most of the scenes involving Prince Philip, who publicly shames Henry for failing to find a suitable wife while he and Alex attend Wimbledon.

The rate of political intrigue

The political machinations surrounding both men, but particularly Alex, run much deeper in the book than they do in the movie. Many of them surround the character of Raphael Luna, a gay US senator and family friend of the Claremont-Diaz clan who surprises everyone when he joins the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Jeffrey Richards, the opponent of Alex’s mother, Ellen. (interpreted by Uma Thurman). We eventually learn that Rafael only jumped ship to expose Richards’ sexual misconduct, but more on that below. Rafael does not appear in the film, apparently replaced by Miguel Ramos (John Brown). Miguel is a journalist for Politico and Alex’s ex-lover who commits a similar betrayal later in the film.

Alex’s romantic story

Alex’s journey to coming to terms with his bisexual identity is cut short to fit into the span of a two-hour movie. In the movie, he has had a bit more experience and is less disturbed by the fact that he kissed a man than by the fact that said man was his sworn enemy. I’m really confused about what I like about Henry,” says Alex. In the novel, his kiss with Henry catapults Alex into a deeper internal struggle over his sexuality, and even a Google search on the President’s views on bisexuality.

The details of Alex’s coming out of the closet

There’s an unabashed acknowledgment of a book-to-film difference in the film. After Alex talks to her mom Ellen, she quips, “I mean, if I’d had more warning, I could have given you a Powerpoint presentation.” That is, in fact, exactly what happens in the book. The President creates a PowerPoint and schedules an official briefing to cover the threats that Alex’s affair with Henry could pose to his re-election. She also removes her son from the electoral campaign. In the movie, Ellen’s reaction to Alex’s revelation is much more positive. She urges him to use protection both real (anyone who’s been longing to hear Uma Thurman say “Truvada,” you’re welcome) and metaphorical. “You have to figure out if you have feelings for him forever if you take this any further,” Thurman warns in a southern drawl. “A relationship like this will define your life.”

How Alex and Henry’s relationship leaks

With Rafael Luna’s character fired, there’s no subplot involving him exposing Ellen’s opponent as a sexual predator or evidence that the Richards campaign leaked our couple’s private correspondence. Instead, it’s that annoying reporter from Politico who takes notice of Alex and Henry and reveals the story of their relationship.

The end (more or less)

The final moments of the book, where the couple return to Alex’s childhood home in Austin with the key he gave Henry, remain intact. But some tweaks have been made when setting up its fairytale ending. First, Enrique’s grandfather, King James III (played by Stephen fry) is her grandmother, Queen Catherine, in the book. Alex and Henry’s connection ended Star Wars has been cut from the movie, which means the mural the audience painted of them as Han and Leia is also gone. and appears anderson-cooper was not available, so instead, it is raquel maddow who declares Ellen’s presidential victory.

#Red #White #Royal #Blue #Biggest #Book #Movie

[mallowstep]

<you aren't obligated to post this anyways but i do request you don't if it sends as an off anon ask Somehow because idk if it would cause Discourse and i don't super. want that>

honestly hard agree w your tags on the queerhollyleaf post. like. i'm not necessarily proship! i'm not necessarily anti! i personally think it's a topic that can't be narrowed down to yes or no and uhhh a lot of the fandom just doesn't seem to understand that. it's like you (the general you) see one word and the part of your brain that controls complex thought goes dark

okay! i tried to write an answer by myself earlier and it wasn't working so now we're both going to do it. everyone say hi mari. mari says hi everyone. for those of u who don't follow us on main: we = matthew-and-mari, i = matthew, and "m: ..." = mari. not that that's TERRIBLY significant, but so you know.

also for context, my tags were:

✨✨✨unless it’s not proship in the sense that I refuse to label ‘being a reasonable person’but that might just be mexd

sorry that copied kinda weird.

okay so anyway.

we're going to only be discussing fannish media because that's the main focus of this blog. other topics can be forwarded to @fencesandfrogs yadda yadda yadda. we're all here for the fic, aren't we?

m: i do not write fanfiction i am here solely for making sure matthew doesn't go off topic again

right. anyway.

we definitely feel that the conversation can fixate so much on this false axis it can even become harmful. we firmly believe many antis are only antis because of social pressure and a lack of understanding of the proship opinion. we also don't feel the proship position is really wrong. "do not harass people, and tag work responsibly," is our position and it is the proship position, as we understand matters.

that said, there's so much misinformation about what it means to be proship that (a) i don't feel super comfortable identifying as proship (influenced by bad actors as well) and (b) saying you're proship activates this hard wall in a lot of people's minds. we saw people's opinions change while they were following us, but as soon as we explicitly said we weren't an anti, those people unfollowed us. they're within their rights to do so, ofc, and we don't follow up with them, because that would be stalking and weird, but the point is, it's like a magic word.

i don't run this blog to change people's minds. ship discourse has ALWAYS been toxic, as long as we've been on the internet. before it was the modern incarnation of pro/anti-ship, it was voltron bullshit (for us --- not being able to partake in fandom because of the toxicity is actually why we stepped away from fandom for several years), and before that, it was something else. nonsense internet discourse isn't new.

but this is a particular flavour of nonsense that we are frustrated by. five-or-so years ago, our opinion was the default, neutral position. people understood that you tagged content appropriately, that you didn't put nsfw of work aimed at children in the main tags, and that was it. you didn't tag nsfw for mlp as mlp, and you put a content warning up, and that was that. yes there's nuance here, we're not going into all of it.

m: matthew's wrists WILL regret it also we said most of this in the post about abusive rare pairs

so we feel like we shouldn't have to label that.

also, not labelling ourselves means people can't assume our positions. for example, when i'm not trying to be problematic to either (a) piss someone off/out of spite/etc or (b) explore themes, i usually choose to write out problematic content. the example i like to use is that if i want to write moth/misty, then in that fic, misty was never moth's mentor. i might not say/explain it, but it's true. because apprentice/mentor makes me really uncomfortable. so they just never have that relationship.

uh. mari is reminding me that antis usually don't support writing shit out and ALSO that's not even an opinion.

right.

what we mean is, people have a lot of Ideas about what it is to be proship. we don't see ourselves as proship to begin with (see: our opinion is the opinion the average person on the street would have, trust us, we've asked), and we don't want people to make assumptions about our opinions based on that.

at the end of the day, we don't like using pro/anti ship as terms. for clarity, we will use them, but we prefer to think of the average fandom member as a reasonable person, and call antis puritans.

because that's what they are.

we want to restate that our opinions on published media are a lot more complicated and nuanced (and we also think that's another thing this discourse often misses: fanworks and published media are not the same), just because it feels disingenuous to NOT make a point of that. we don't really care if someone is writing fanfic smut that glorifies abuse: we do care if a book is published that glorifies abuse.

anyway.

we're going to leave it there, but basically, yeah. pro/anti discourse is a really ugly flavour of internet nonsense discourse that not only do we have no desire to be in, but fundamentally do not understand.

m: no this is true. regularly we will see something and not understand how someone could hold that belief/opinion/etc. like, matthew finds these posts and we look at them and can't make sense of them. neither of us can remember an example, but yeah.

so, yeah. we feel you hard.

<3

[hiswordsarekisses]

I just cannot imagine knowing what the disciples new about taking up one’s cross and choosing that at the point they were at - 100% faith - because Jesus still had not come back to life. They may have seen miracles - but they did not have all the proof that we have now. It gives me even more faith because they did not run away. They willingly died for their belief and that makes me pray for their kind of faith. Because who knows how we would react in the face of it until we actually do face it - but I pray that I will face it as they did and look up like Stephen in the midst of being stoned. Or Joan of Arc worshipping in the middle of flames. I will need that same divine supply to get through it. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

This is from Lynette Hughes:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO TAKE UP YOUR CROSS? by Lynette Hughes:

In Matthew 16:24 Jesus gives us an invitation: “If anyone desires to come after Me, Let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” Most people misunderstand the concept of taking up their “cross.” When Jesus talks about the cross, he's not referring to the trials, disasters, temptations, and diseases or some other burden that is thrust upon us. These things come to the saved and unsaved alike because of the fallen and sinful world we live in. Every person will experience difficulties; no one is exempt from trials and adversities. So, what does it mean to ‘take up our cross and follow Jesus?’ Philippians 2:8 answers that question for us: “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and BECAME OBEDIENT TO THE POINT OF DEATH, EVEN DEATH ON A CROSS.” Jesus came to obey His Father – and that obedience took Him all the way to His death on the cross.

When Jesus called followers, He always instructed them about the cost of following Him right up front. Halfhearted people who were not willing to make the commitment did not respond. Thus, He turned away anyone who was reluctant to pay the price or meet His terms. A follower of Christ is a believer who has signed up for life; a person who has been saved and whose faith expresses itself in a life of submission and obedience. Picking up our cross calls for painful severing of ties with the world, burning bridges to prevent retreating, sealing the emergency exits, and discarding any kind of fallback plan when the cross seems too difficult to carry. The plan of redemption has no contingency plans!

To a person in the first-century, the cross was an instrument of torture that meant only one thing: excruciating suffering and death. Crucifixion was a disgraceful form of capital punishment for convicted criminals that was aimed to inflict optimal physical and emotional pain. This is the reason the Romans forced them to carry their own cross to their place of execution facing brutalization, ridicule and incredible shame along the way to their death. Before being hung on the cross, the person was stripped naked so that his genitals would be publicly exposed. It was designed to cause the deepest shame and humiliation.

The phrase “take up your cross” means remaining faithful to your Savior regardless of the personal consequences. It means enduring public shame, ridicule, and humiliation from sinners, as well as rejection and alienation from friends and family. Jesus experienced persecution from unbelieving family members, self-righteous religious leaders, and those who persisted in their unbelief, and warns us that “A disciple is not greater than His Master.” He was falsely accused, sentenced to death and killed. As disciples of Jesus, we must be prepared to face fierce persecution and suffering, even death. We must be willing to die in pursuit of obedience.

Most likely Jesus’ followers had seen criminals and insurgents against Roman rule hanging on crosses along the roads of Palestine and knew the horrors and shame and excruciating brutality of being crucified. So, Jesus’ call to his disciples to “take up their cross” must have both scandalized and stunned them. Perhaps they wondered whether, at such a cost, they wanted to follow Him after all. All present that day would die physically, some as martyrs. But all would have to die to the desire for self-glory, die to the desire for worldly respect, die to the fear of man, die to the desire for an easy, comfortable life, die to the desire for earthly wealth, and a thousand other deaths. Finally, they would have to die to their desire to save their earthly lives.

There’s a price to pay for being a follower of Christ. Peter and Andrew left their business when they heard the call of the Master, and Matthew, a tax collector, cashed in for the eternal revenue. Paul, who had studied with the finest teachers of the law, considered the followers of Jesus ignorant, self-styled preachers without proper credentials. As a devout Hebrew and religious leader feared and respected by the Pharisees, he devoted his life to fight heresy and eradicate Christian heretics. He had even been present when one of these deluded believers, Stephen, was stoned to death. When he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul’s life was forever changed. This well respected, educated man was violently persecuted, assaulted, threatened, beaten, imprisoned, attacked, stoned, ridiculed, bound with chains, shipwrecked, and finally beheaded. All of this because He became a follower of Jesus Christ.

What price have you had to pay for following Christ? Here in America, thus far, most of us have had to pay very little. So, most of us think of the cross as a metaphorical death; denying ourselves, and that is certainly part of it, but to take up our cross goes further than dying to our naturally self-centered, self-absorbed life. The cross was an instrument of execution meant for one thing only – physical death. To take up your cross is being willing to die for what you believe to be truth. It means you are willing to face intense humiliation, shame, persecution, and even death, if necessary, to remain obedient to the One who died for your sins.

To take up your cross means you must be obedient to the commands of God even if by obeying, it could cost you your life. This is a requirement for being a follower of Christ. Luke 14:27 says, “…whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.” Following Jesus demands full commitment; nothing less will do.

Are you willing to still follow Jesus if it means losing your job?

Are you willing to still follow Jesus if your parents disown you?

Are you willing to still follow Jesus if it means your spouse chooses to leave?

Are you willing to still follow Jesus if it means losing your closest friends or loved ones?

Are you willing to still follow Jesus if it means giving up your plans and ambitions?

Are you willing to still follow Jesus if it means losing your life?

"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25).

[chirhos]

hello! i have a question… i’m not sure if this would be considered “loaded” but i’m gay, and i was wondering where does your affirmation for ppl who are lgbt stem from? is there biblical affirmation even within the modern bible? sorry if this is out of nowhere… i would just love to know :]

Hey! This is definitely a "loaded" question, but I think all questions are good questions, so thank you for asking! Obligatory disclaimer - first, I'm a Protestant, so I have more freedom of interpretation than Catholics or Orthodox Christians, and I'm coming at this from a Protestant viewpoint. And second, I'm not a theology student nor do I have any degrees in this, I'm just someone who enjoys reading scripture and historical commentaries to give context.

There are a lot of so-called "clobber passages" within the Bible that had been used against LGBT people. They've been picked apart time and time again by theologians and scholars on both "sides" of the issue, and it's often hard to know what to believe because both "sides" come at the issue passionately and with an agenda.

There are also some (disputed) references to LGBT people in a positive light in the Bible. Here's a link to a post where I talked about the centurion whose servant Jesus heals - it's possible that "servant" meant the centurion's lover.

As for my personal interpretation of these things, I often find myself coming back to Luke 6:43 - "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit." Telling people that they are intrinsically bad or wrong and that they can never experience the whole of God's love does not foster a more loving world, nor does it help us grow closer with Christ. On the other hand, being openly LGBT-affirming does help people accept and love themselves and God.

Another verse that I looked at when developing my personal understanding of affirming theology is Matthew 22:37-40 - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

It is upon these verses, along with many similar ones, that I began my understanding of how I can live my life as a gay Christian. I might be wrong - there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people who have read it. But when I am interpreting the Bible, I would always rather err on the side of being too loving than not loving enough. I've come to terms with the fact that not everyone agrees with me, and that's fine - I think theology is made richer and stronger by passionate good-faith disagreement.

[jewish-privilege]

(...)

I was a 12 years old when I was attacked by a mob of children and called "Christ killer" — the same age Jesus was, according to the Gospel of Luke, when he lingered in the Temple of Jerusalem and impressed the elders with his intellect — so this issue is undeniably personal. That wasn't the first or last time I was bullied for being Jewish, but it was the only time I nearly died because of it: Those kids held my head underwater, chanting, "Drown the Jew!"

This incident sprang back to mind  this month as Republicans tried to figure out what to do about Greene, a particularly obnoxious Christian right-winger who has suggested that a "space laser" affiliated with Jewish banking families caused the 2018 Camp Fire in California, expressed sympathy for the anti-Semitic QAnon fantasies, promoted a video that claimed Jews are trying to destroy Europe, posed for a picture with a Ku Klux Klan leader and liked a tweet linking Israel to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

(...)

None of this is surprising for anyone who is familiar with the history of American anti-Semitism. Greene is not an aberration, some inexplicable pimple of hatred that blemishes the American right's otherwise Jew-friendly visage. The American right has long had an anti-Semitism problem, and she's just the latest symptom.

This history of hatred "tells us much more about the anti-Semite than it tells us about Jews," Dr. Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, told Salon. After citing an Israeli historian who refers to anti-Semitism as a "cultural code," Sarna explained that beliefs that vilify Jews as malevolent plotters who secretly control the world have a long history in American political life. "These ideas, which I think many on the left frankly had thought were done and over with, we suddenly see them full blown," he said

Before the 19th century, Sarna explained Jews were stereotypically depicted as being cursed: They were "wandering Jews" for their supposed role in killing Jesus Christ. In the modern era, however, the stereotype emerged that Jews secretly controlled the world and were responsible for everything that a given anti-Semite might regard as sinister. During the Civil War, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant blamed the Jews for cotton smuggling and expelled the entire Jewish community from areas he controlled in Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. When the populist movement arose to address agrarian economic concerns in the 1890s, Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds were a frequent target among ideological leaders like William Hope "Coin" Harvey.

(...)

There's a direct line between those conspiratorial fantasies ideas from previous decades and the anti-Semitic attacks of the 21st century. "Conspiratorial thinking, by its nature, argues that everything is connected," Sarna explained. "There are no coincidences and it eschews complexity. It believes there are simple explanations based on sinister individuals who are manipulating the universe. Unsurprisingly, in a Christian setting, those are Jews."

Those ideas can evolve — Sarna pointed out that the QAnon belief in a giant child abuse ring run by Jews is analogous to the "blood libel," the medieval myth that Jews used the blood of Christian children for rituals — but the underlying assumptions have been consistent. It just so happens that, in the modern right-wing incarnation, Donald Trump's cult-like following believes that "all the enemies of Mr. Trump are now child molesters."

(...)

[Jewish comedian Larry Charles] brought up community organizer and political theorist Saul Alinsky, a favorite target of the right. "He is almost like the devil in a way," Charles observed. "He's like this radical leftist Jew, he fits all the categories. He checks all the boxes."

"Shooting some of these movies, we would see reasonable people who have this blind spot," Charles said. "They have this crazy belief, and there were all different applications and manifestations of it, that the Jews control everything. That is like a mantra amongst a certain segment of the population."

(...)

With the election of Trump in 2016, those ingrained belief systems — which for many years had been kept outside the American political mainstream — became more prominent, and their adherents more emboldened. David Weissman, a military veteran and former conservative Republican who stopped being a self-described "Trump troll" after a 2018 conversation with comedian Sarah Silverman, told Salon about his encounters with anti-Semitism on the right.

Back when he still supported Trump, Weissman recalled, he got into a "little spat" with an alt-right commentator who calls himself Baked Alaska, who was recently arrested after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Ultimately they moved past it, Weissman said: "We both realized we were Trump supporters" who believed "Democrats were the bad guys." Once he left MAGA world, however, Weissman said "the anti-Semitism definitely escalated" in interactions with his former allies.

"When I became a Democrat, I was called 'the k-word'" and targeted by "anti-Semitic slurs and tropes," Weissman said. Trump supporters sent "memes of me being Jewish in the oven," and "put my name in parentheses," a common tactic used by the far right to target someone for being Jewish.

(...)

"Anti-Semitism certainly did not start with Marjorie Taylor Greene, nor did it start with Donald Trump, but we have seen an exponential increase in violent anti-Semitic incidents during Donald Trump's presidency," Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, told Salon. "That is no doubt related to the fact that he emboldened and aligned himself with white nationalism." She mentioned Trump equating the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville with the peaceful protesters by "commenting that there were very fine people on both sides," refusing to denounce white nationalism and telling the right-wing Proud Boys during one of the campaign debates to "stand back and stand by."

"White nationalism had existed in our country prior to that, and anti-Semitism as an element of it, but white nationalists had never had an ally in the White House until Donald Trump," Soifer said.

(...)

Donald Trump's supposed pro-Israel policies were closely aligned with those of Benjamin Netanyahu, and did nothing to correct for Trump's history of anti-Semitic words and actions. He accused Jewish Democrats of "great disloyalty" toward Israel (feeding into the stereotype that Jews have dual loyalties), removed any specific reference to Jews from a 2017 State Department statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day and has frequently used anti-Semitic dogwhistle terms by opposing "globalists" and describing himself as a "nationalist." When I interviewed Charlotte Pence, the daughter of former Vice President Mike Pence, she talked about her family's love of Israel but refused to answer a question about whether she believes Jews are going to hell — or discuss the creepy messianic theories underpinning the Christian right's support for Israel.

When I asked Larry Charles whether, based on his experiences, there's an opportunity to build bridges with anti-Semites, he was skeptical. "I have not seen a lot of opportunities for bridge building in the situations that I've been in," Charles explained. "The people that I've met through Sacha [Baron Cohen] were very rigid and dogmatic in their prejudices. There was no crossing that gulf with them. There might be tolerance, temporarily. There might be patience, temporarily. But there's no changing that belief."

I hope that Charles is wrong but suspect he is right, which raises the question of how American Jews should react to the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world. For want of a better alternative, I think the only solution is to be intolerant toward intolerance. House Democrats were right to strip Greene of her committee assignments, but that is not nearly enough. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter need to do more to limit hate speech, even if conservatives cry foul in bad faith (the First Amendment only protects people from government censorship, not consequences from private corporations). Right-wing politicians who attack prominent Jews in ways that can be plausibly construed as anti-Semitic, or by denouncing "globalists," need to lose their funding. People who oppose anti-Semitism must lead boycotts against right-wing media figures who cover for people like Greene, such as Fox News' Sean Hannity.

On a broader level, critics of anti-Semitism must recognize that this form of bigotry is part of America's long history of hate — a history which holds that only white, straight Christian "manly" men have a right to rule — and recognize our responsibility to be allies to African Americans and the Latinx community, Muslims and the LGBT community, women suffering under the patriarchy and the poor struggling to make ends meet. If we limit our empathy merely to other Jews, the implicit message is not that systemic oppression is wrong, but only that we happen to dislike it when our group is targeted. The Jewish tradition at its best instills a moral responsibility to see all the layers of oppression, and align ourselves with its victims.

[Read Matthew Rozsa’s full piece in Salon]

[rachaelswrites]

Nicknames

A/N: I didn’t include all actors/characters but if you want one just send it in and I’ll do it. I’ll start including these in my writing

~~~~~~

Here are some nicknames that each of the reader’s have been given

Sebastian Stan “prinţesă”

-Obviously, its Romanian

-There were a few he tried out with you when you were younger but this one stuck for multiple reasons:

-You were a major daddy’s girl (still are) and you pretty much got anything you wanted. You were almost on the verge of spoiled brat

-It also didn’t help that you had a very huge liking for Disney and it’s princesses

-Those dresses with the matching shoes? You had almost all of them

-He called you that until you grew out of your princess obsession, saving it for certain times

-The first time you ended a long term friendship was the first time he used it in years. He’d either call you by your name or something more generic like “Sweetheart”

-You came home visibly upset and ran right into your dad’s arms

-You’d never been this upset before so he said it, hoping in some way it would calm you down

“It’s alright Prinţesă, I’ve got you”

-When it worked that time, he did it again after your first break up.

-You were more angry than sad this time

-He had to hold you down on the couch so you couldn’t hurt anyone

“Prinţesă, calm down. He’s not worth a criminal record

-He used it on days when you were sick or were feeling down

-Maybe even if you were in trouble

-You and him both thought by the age of sixteen, you would hate the nickname but surprisingly, you liked it even more

Chris Evans “peanut”

-Another case of daddy’s girl

-This one comes from several trips to Red Sox’s games

-Chris wanted to get you into sports when you were young (just to watch, not necessarily to play)

-He took you and Scott to one of the first games of the season and he bought peanuts, in his true American way

-You were seated in between him and Scott

-Both of them were sharing the bag while you had ice cream

-Peanuts were a new food for you and you wanted to try them. You grabbed a handful of them and copied your dad’s movements to crack open the shells

-You ate like twenty in less than a minute

-You loved them so much and that’s how that name happened

-Unlike the others, Chris uses this name pretty regularly 

-You didn’t mind how often he used it until he started using it on front of your friends

“Hey peanut, do you guys need anything?”

“Dad! That’s embarrassing”

-Your face went bright red and for the rest of the day, your friends teased you (in a loving, joking way)

-Chris realized his small mistake and was a little more careful about when he used it

-Scott called you it once and you swear, you never saw your dad move so quickly

“She’s my peanut, not yours. Find your own nickname”

-Anytime he posts a picture of you on Twitter/Instagram, he used that name instead of your own

Matthew Gray Gubler “munchkin”

-Three words

-Wizard. Of. Oz.

-You had a very weird obsession with this movie. It’s almost embarrassing looking back at it now

-By the time you were three, you knew all the words (as best as you could) to all the songs

-Matthew was about to lose his mind because he had the songs in his head as well, twenty-four-seven.

-You would talk and talk about how much you wanted to go to Munchkin land and be a Munchkin

-It also didn’t help that at the time, you were probably close to the same height

-Sadly, as you got older, you and your dad learned you didn’t develop his height

-You were a whopping 5’2 at the age of fifteen

-And the name stuck

-He knew you weren’t super fond of the name but somehow, it always cheered you up

-If you had a tough day at school, he’d sit on the couch and let you vent

“Let it all out Munchkin”

-You secretly did like the name (even though the origins were embarrassing)

-Matthew never let you live down that obsession 

-When you were on set and he called you that, everyone asked why.

“Matthew, why do you call her Munchkin?”

“Dad, don’t do it”

“She was obsessed with The Wizard of Oz”

-He also very rarely referred to you as “Y/n” on social media, opting for Munchkin instead

-Trying to get back at him, you tried to come up with some ridiculous name for him

“I’m going to call you dancer. Cause that’s how you broke your knee”

-That one didn’t last long but Munchkin sure did

Tom Holland “bubs or darling”

-Tom gets two because I can’t pick

-Bubs is because you are the baby out of all of the brothers

-It was also because before you could say any brother’s name, you just called them bubs

-Sam, Harry, and Paddy also called you Bubs. They still call you that sometimes so Tom wanted to try something new

-When you were about five or six, he accidentally called you darling

-It wasn’t a typical brother/sister name but it suited you

-You were such a kind person and your favorite movie to watch with Tom was Peter Pan

-And the last name of Wendy was Darling, so he thought it fitted

-When he called you darling, it was mostly after he came home from filming

“I missed you so much Darling”

-You liked the meaning behind your nickname

-Tom used Bubs if you weren’t feeling like yourself

-Whether it was a bad day or if you were sick

“Take some medicine Bubs” or “Bubs, tell me what’s going on”

-He hated the others calling him Tommy but for you, he’d let you do it anytime you wanted

-Literally, you were the only person he let you call him Tommy

-But he was the only person who could call you Darling

Bucky Barnes “doll”

-Classic

-This one is pretty self explanatory

-It was common during your childhood but once you were in the 21st century, Bucky couldn’t part with it

-It reminded him of the past (in a good way) and he always wanted to relive those memories 

-You were eight when HYDRA took him and then you

-The name reminded him of when you were little, and it reminded you too

-While Bucky was in Wakanda, he’d send you letters once he woke up

“Hey Doll, I miss you so much. Hopefully we can see each other soon”

-You kept them all with you

-And when The Snap happened, you’d read those letters back to yourself everyday

“The sunset was really pretty today Doll, it reminded me of the ones from when you were little”

-After those five years, that was the first thing he said to you

“I’m glad you’re safe Doll”

-It only took one time for Sam to tease you about it before you threatened to hurt him

“You make fun of it one more time and I swear it’ll be the last”

-Sam didn’t really understand why that name meant so much to you

-Bucky had to explain it to him

-It was really one of the only things you had left of your childhood

-And it was the one thing you could hold onto for the rest of your life

Ransom Drysdale “princess”

-Again, I think this one is self explanatory and obvious

-You’re spoiled, no doubt about it

-The name actually came from Meg

-She was a few years older than you and she was so used to being the only girl in the family

-And now she had to deal with you

-The reason she called you that was pretty stupid in the first place but as an eight year old, it didn’t matter to her

-You had spilled your drink on her by accident and onto her new shoes

-She went red in the face and started screaming in your face. You burst into tears

-You were only four and Ransom had never raised his voice at you. It was a new experience for you

-All the adults came into the room and walked into the scene of Meg screaming and you crying

-Ransom scooped you up and told Meg off

-Of course Joni took her daughter’s side but no one else did, making her mad

“She never gets in trouble. She’s such a princess”

-After that incident, your dad only used that name just to piss everyone off

-Like there was no need for him to but he just did it

“Princess, come here”

-In general, Ransom liked to show you off and the nickname Princess was the best way to do that

-As you got older, he felt weird using it. Meg had finally gotten over herself and everyone accepted the fact that your dad was spoiling you rotten

-You didn’t need a name to show that

-But as you got older, the issues in the family and all the problems started to weigh down on you

-There was so much drama that happened at family dinners, you were completely drained and exhausted once you got home

-Ransom could tell something was up so he reached into his bag of good parenting skills (which he definitely had, which shocked everyone) and called you Princess for the first time in ten years

“Princess, please tell me what’s wrong”

-For some reason, that one name made everything better for you

-Ransom noticed the small improvement in your mood so he kept calling you that on the daily

“How was school today Princess?” 

-And in front of the family again

“Princess, it’s time to go”

-This name was literally just used to show the other Thrombey’s that you and your dad were better than them

-Of course though, you didn’t need a nickname to see that

Spencer Reid “squirt”

-Another name based on an obsession

-But this one can be blamed on Garcia

-While Spencer was on a case one time, she was in charge of watching you

-To keep you entertained while at the BAU, she put on Finding Nemo

-That was a mistake

-From that point on, you had a weird fascination with sea turtles, because of Squirt

-Once Spencer got back, you would not shut up about turtles

“Daddy, look what I just read”

-He was glad you found something you were interested in. He sort of hoped you would find something closer to a more “normal” topic but he would never stop you from learning

-Spencer wasn’t sure how the name fell onto you but once it did, he didn’t stop using it

-He generally used it in the apartment with just you and him

“Squirt, can you pick your toys up for me?” or as you were older “Squirt, can you grab those books for me?”

-He used it a lot when you felt stressed and you weren’t telling him

-So whenever he called you that, you knew you might as well tell him

“Tell me what’s going on Squirt”

-It was such a small gesture but it really did help you

-He tried to explain why it probably made you feel better but you weren’t too interested in the science behind it

-The only time he used it in front of the team is when he got back from a case

-You always met him at the BAU (he made sure you were there to greet him)

-You would stand in front of the elevator and wait for the doors to open

-And when they did, you ran into his arms and he wrapped them around your body

“I missed you Squirt”

-The team absolutely adored that nickname but knew to never call you that, unless they wanted an angry Reid on their hands

Emily Prentiss “love”

-To me, Emily just has European vibes and so does this nickname

-Probably because Emily grew up in Europe, she developed this habit of calling you Love

-The parents of her friends growing up used that name

-She sort of just picked up on it, starting when she first held you in the hospital

“Hi Love, I’m your momma”

-It’s such a simple but meaningful name to her

-You were truly the one person she loved the most (even her mom and even Sergio)

-Speaking of, once she brought Sergio home you started calling him that as well

-You were only four and didn’t understand the concept but Emily didn’t stop you

“Hi Wove”

-Emily never used this in front of people unless something was wrong

-As you got older, it was used more as a reassurance for you

-Her “death” was really hard on you and every case, she would check in 

-Lots of the time, the phone calls were short and around the other members of the team

“Hi Love, I miss you. The team says hi”

“I miss you too momma”

-Very rarely would she use it in normal, everyday conversation

-If you were visiting the office, sometimes it would slip out

“Hey Love, are you doing your homework?”

-In front of the team, she used names like “baby” or “honey”

-Love was strictly reserved for just you and her

Jennifer Jareau “bug”

-First thing to know

-If anyone besides JJ called you Bug, even Will, she would literally rip their heads off

-This name was super personal to her and she didn’t want the meaning to be ruined

-You had taken after her love and fascination with butterflies

-Except you hadn’t learned the word butterfly so you just called them bugs, hence the nickname

-JJ only called you two things “Y/n” and “Bug”

-Nothing else

-At one point, Will was convinced that she might’ve forgotten your first name because she called you Bug so much

“JJ, she has a first name you know”

“I know, I think Bug fits her better”

-She did attempt to get your name changed, but to be fair, she was drunk when that happened

-She didn’t care that as you got older, the name was a little embarrassing, especially around your friends

“I’ll pick you up at seven Bug”

“Mom! Really? In front of my friends?”

-Your brothers for awhile thought your name was Bug, because she really only called you that at home

“Do you need help with your homework Bug?” or “Bug, can you set the table?”

-You didn’t realize the meaning behind the nickname until she explained it to you

-And once you did, the name meant so much more to you

-Will helped you pick out a matching necklace set of two butterflies

-You gave it to her after a case and she cried, knowing exactly what it’s meaning was

“Thank you Bug, I love it”

-She never took that necklace off, ever

Taglist

@ssebstann @peachyprincessss @emmy-writes-sometimes @dudele @kerrswriting @laura-naruto-fan1998 @multifamdomfan12 @aquariuslavenderhoney @rafehogwarts

[bellarosestudyblr]

How do you feel about a neurotypical person playing the role of Spencer Reid though? Personally I do like Matthew Gray Gubler in that role but I think he was hired for his appearance rather than for something else. I would have liked to see a real autistic person in that role.

Spencer Reid isn’t canonically autistic, though. The character was pitched as a 40-something male, intelligent, a ‘walking dictionary’ akin to Data from Star Trek (referenced by the original SAGAFTRA casting call, and Gubler himself). The character may have been altered or defined to better suit the actor selected, to create a more dynamic ensemble, to fulfil CBS’ terms as the pilot moved to series, or as a natural progression as the character grew over 15 years. But it is clear no autistic role was ever in development. Even when we consider what ‘Spencer Reid’ the character would become as the series progressed, the casting call that was released did not specify he was/could have ASD. For that reason the actor who auditioned is not at fault here. Furthermore, Intelligence and social awkwardness are not always an indicator of ASD, and I would argue they are not in Spencer Reid. Here’s why.

Disclaimer: the essay that follows contains my own views and opinions on Spencer Reid, in reference to a possible ASD diagnosis. This is what anon asked for — my thoughts, as someone with ASD. Opinions are supported by examples from the source material. Some members of the fandom may see things a different way, or disagree with what I am arguing, but I am no longer replying to messages or comments related to this. Accept we have a different viewpoint and move on, thank you.

Many of Spencer Reid’s perceived ‘stereotypical’ autistic traits — intelligence, inability to regulate emotions, awkwardness, isolation/pariahdom — could be a result of his childhood and past experiences. The small glimpses we have seen into Spencer’s life prior to 2005 may provide some insight.

Canonically, Spencer had no suitable parental figure from age 10. After his father left, he was alone with a mentally ill mother. In 12x11, we see Diana physically assault Spencer when she becomes enrages. When he lies and tells her the marks are a result of him bumping into something, her comments about him being such a clumsy child she called him ‘crash’ may indicate the abuse was longstanding and repeatedly covered up by Spencer in the same manner. Perhaps in fear he would lose a second parent. Although Diana’s abuse may not have always been physical, from 2x16 we understand her illness made it hard for her to get our of bed, and remember what day of the week it was. We can therefore infer she was incapable of ensuring Spencer was well taken care of. Cooking, cleaning, caring for him when he was sick, or dealing with his school bullies would have been out of the question.

By 3x16, it is clear Spencer’s young life was defined by abuse. Whether that be wilful neglect from his father, as a result of his mother’s illness, or at the hand of his peer group. The incident involving the goal post Spencer speaks about in this episode, and the similar experience from 8x12, are both examples of sexual abuse. There is no acceptable argument against this. We can infer that if the teenagers that assaulted Spencer did this without apparent consequence, the rest of Spencer’s high school life must have been a nightmare. The trauma and isolation Spencer experienced during this period could most definitely have resulted in an inability to connect with others. Friendships and romantic relationships are based on trust and vulnerability, Spencer has learned not to give anyone that power over him. As Spencer himself said in 1x10 “I confided in you. This is exactly what happens when I trust someone, it gets thrown back in my face.”

Another trait Spencer is said to exhibits that many use as confirmation of his ASD, is his apparent inability to pick up on social and behavioural cues. I would argue this is false. Spencer is a profiler. He has been seen outwitting and outsmarting many unsubs by picking up on things like vocal changes, eye contact and mannerisms, anticipating a reaction and using it to his advantage. He was able to detect JJ was pregnant far before anyone else, and that Emily picked her nails when stressed. Not knowing what Twilight is, or about the K-I-S-S-I-N-G song, is not representative of missing social cues. Spencer is known to not read “much in English”, to not have email, to have no friends outside of work to talk about pop-culture with, and to be a technophobe. It may also be argued that Spencer’s ability to connect with the unsub or how well he profiles their behaviour, varies depending on who is writing the episode and what story they want to tell that week. Similarly, in 6x20, Spencer reveals during childhood therapy sessions, he was able to read the situation and respond accordingly in away that satisfied the adult professional. This is not typical for an autistic child. Again, this is based on a stereotype, but so is the fandoms understanding of Spencer and his apparent ASD to begin with.

TLDR: So, in conclusion I wouldn’t say the casting is problematic at all. The character has never been canonically autistic and any perceived ‘autistic traits’ the fandom sees, have been indicated long after the series had commenced. As someone with ASD, I would be wary to label Spencer Reid ‘autistic’ based on how well he fits the ‘Sheldon Cooper’ stereotype, when his behaviour and personality can be seen as a result of his environment and experiences. I think giving the ‘autistic’ label can be dangerous in these instances (ignoring the fact Spencer is a fictional character), as it offers an ‘explanation’ for behaviour and an excuse for those around the person to be idle. I mean this, in the sense that someone like Spencer who has experienced neglect and sexual abuse as a child, and who has difficulty connecting with and trusting those around him because of those experiences, needs help to deal with those feelings. Rather than to be less ‘autistic’.

As a final note, I would also like to say I would never speculate on a real persons status as ‘neurotypical’ or otherwise. Unless explicitly stated themselves. Things like OCD, ADHD and Dyspraxia are harder to detect in adults, especially ones we know from a few interviews. I think in this instance a non-autistic actor plays Spencer Reid, but it’s not my place to offer anything else.

[nglenvs3000]

Fractal Frenzy (wk. 9)

When I glanced at this week’s prompt, I felt a little pressure to be honest. You all want to know the most amazing thing I know about nature?! I didn’t know where to begin, and I wanted to provide something that would surely wow you all. The first thing that came to mind was how wondrous of a feeling nature can provide for you, it’s truly therapeutic and it goes unmatched. This is one of the most amazing things about nature in my opinion, but I can’t sum it up in a blog post for you – you must experience it for yourself. What I can do is provide you with some incredible science/math that will hopefully deepen your connection to nature and the universe around you. The science that I’m referring to is called fractals, and it’s also referenced as sacred geometry.

Enchanted Forest: Photography by Inge Johnsson. Can be retrieved from: https://pixels.com/featured/enchanted-forest-inge-johnsson.html

Have you ever heard of these terms? Fractals are self-similar patterns that repeat themselves at different levels of magnification – every small part resembles the whole.

A “simple” fractal (self-repeating pattern). Retrieved from Tumblr. 

As you can see in this gif, the pattern appears to be on an infinite loop, demonstrating a pattern inside a pattern inside a pattern, so on and so forth.

I’m sure you’re wondering how fractals play into nature. In one of my courses this semester, we discussed how nature organizes itself into fractals to “problem solve” (McCann, 2021). Fractals are ultimately formed by nature to fill empty space, which in turn can effectively add a dimension (McCann, 2021). Yes, you heard that right, fractal filling can drive additional dimensions. I thought this fact was wild when I learned it! You’ve probably heard your local hippie say at one point or another that we’re “multidimensional beings”; that we have access to dimensions higher than that of 3D (including 4D, 5D, 6D, all the way to 12D+). In my opinion, this logic is supported to a degree because us humans have fractals all throughout our bodies that are ever repeating. A perfect demonstration of this is our circulatory system – we have 60,000 miles of branching blood vessels and capillaries inside each of us (Elsevier, 2019).

Artwork by Matthew James Taylor that represents a branching network of blood vessels. Retrieved from: https://matthewjamestaylor.com/fractal-art

This amazes me not only because of the dimensional aspect, but because these fractals are found throughout all of nature. This implies that both humans and nature have the ability to produce internal dimensions through fractals. To me, it is proof that we are not separate from nature, but simply a part of it. Our bodies carry some of the exact same patterns and mathematical ratios that nature does.

A very well-known pattern that is found across humans and nature is the Fibonacci sequence. This pattern exists at all levels of creation: human body proportions, plants, crystal structure, the orbit of the planets, etc. It’s so amazing to me because as previously mentioned, it demonstrates that we are not separate from nature. Our bodies form the same patterns that plants and animals do, down to a mathematical level. Some people believe this proves that humans along with nature are all derived from the same source.

A closer look at the Fibonacci sequence. Retrieved from: https://mocomi.com/fibonacci-sequence/

This is a complex topic and I have merely touched the tip of the iceberg, so here are some additional sources if you’d like to dive deeper:

(1)  Fractals: a world in a grain of sand | Ben Weiss | TEDxVeniceBeach - YouTube

(2)  Fractals In Nature: Develop Your Pattern Recognition Skills In The Forest (diygenius.com)

(3)  (1) Fractals - Hunting the Hidden Dimension - YouTube

The next time you’re out in nature, look at all the beautiful fractals and patterns that surround you. Understand that you are a part of nature, and that nature is a part of you as well.

References

Beck, L. T., Cable, T. M., & Knudson, D. U. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage: For a better world. Sagamore-Venture Publishing.

Fahy, E. (2019). Blood Vessels: The 60,000 Mile Network Inside Us. Elsevier. Retrieved from: https://3d4medical.com/blog/blood-vessels-the-60000-mile-network-inside-us-anatomy-snippets

McCann, K. (2021). BIOL 3060: Communities, Populations and Ecosystems, lecture 3 notes [Fractals].

[atendersun-archived]

𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬

FULL NAME. Mason Uri Thompson

NICKNAME. Muu 

GENDER. Male.

HEIGHT. 5′9″

AGE. 25

ZODIAC. Pisces

SPOKEN LANGUAGES. English is his primary language. Japan is secondary and verse dependent.

𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬

HAIR COLOR. Blond

EYE COLOR.  Brown-Green hazel

SKIN TONE. Fair, but with a pink, rosy undertone.

BODY TYPE. Mesomorph. His legs, back, and chest are the most muscular, while his arms trail behind as the leanest parts of his body.

VOICE. Is of average deepness at his normal speaking level, but raises when he’s nervous, or sad. His defense mechanism in stressful situations is to make himself appear smaller for safety purposes, but he’s working on being more aware of it.

DOMINANT HAND. Left

POSTURE. Somewhat arched. Having spent a lengthy amount of his time hunched over in an effort to take up less space as a person has had some life term effects on his posture. He does wear a bright blue brace for about thirty minutes a couple times a week to train his back to stay more upright, but he still finds himself slouching in the presence of people that unknowingly intimated him.

SCARS. He has a round shaped scar on his left arm from an incident with a colleague nearly from about five years earlier, so it has a lot time to heal to the point of being far less noticeable than it was when he first acquired it. There are also some very, very faded scars along his lower back from being unintentionally attacked by a dog as a child. He’d startled it when trying to retrieve a toy from a neighbor’s yard, and instigated a chase when he ran away. It was a small poodle.

TATTOOS. On the inside of his right arm is a tattoo is of very cartoony version of the character Oh from the movie Home. When he was very lonely, and down on himself, it became it his comfort film. He related a lot to the alien character of the film. When on a whim, he decided to get a tattoo, he knew he wanted it to be of something with a lot of meaning to him, but also something that would strike a sense of familiarity to those who also felt like they were an Oh in the world too.

BIRTHMARKS. On the side of his upper left leg, quite close to his butt in fact, is a small, circular mark with tiny, darker colored dots within it. If looked at the right angle, it almost appears to a smiley face. As kind of odd as it is, he really likes his birthmark, and the location it resides on. For a very long time, he held a lot hatred for his lower body for things that took a lot of counseling to come to terms with. Nowadays, he’s far too comfortable pulling down the back of pants just enough to flash his birthmark to people.

MOST NOTICEABLE FEATURE(S). In the sunny, warm seasons of the year, he tends to get freckles that scatter primarily across his nose and his arms. They cease to be noticeable come late fall only to reappear after the rainy parts of spring.

𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝

PLACE OF BIRTH. From what he’d been told by his grandparents, he had been born while his father and mother still resided on a military base somewhere within the outskirts of Phoenix, Arizona. After circumstances leading to the questioning of his mother’s parenting abilities, both him and his brother were relocated states away to live with their paternal grandparents once their father released custody to them in order for him to join the Navy.

HOMETOWN. Verse Dependent

SIBLINGS. An older brother named Matthew who is about two years older than himself.

PARENTS. His mother is entirely absent from his life after a string of broken promises that she’d gotten her life together enough to be a good mom to him, while his father and him are just distant from having very little in common with another. They can hold civil conversations with one another when they interact for brief moments at family get togethers, but he still is far closer to his grandmother than he is with any other parental figure in his life.

𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞

OCCUPATION. Preschool teacher at a daycare center for children between the ages of 6 weeks old to 6 years old. He never imagined himself as ever working with children, because quite frankly they kind of scared him at one point, but he loves his job more than he would have ever expected.

CURRENT RESIDENCE. He lives alone in a very spacious home that was actually leased to him when the man knew the younger was seeking out a place to live after an end to a relationship. His favorite thing in all of his home is the very large bath tub. It is far more comparable to a pool than a tub, but he has not yet had anything occur where he questioned downsizing it.

CLOSE FRIENDS. All of ‘em. Every last one of them. He has been especially grateful for the opportunities to reconnect with Hisao @angstiism, Hannah @kannojo, Alex @dis--parity, Pchan @nvrcmplt​, and Yukio @silvxcs. Someday, when he grows the guts to meet with and check up on some old, familiar faces, such as Archer at @sonderrow, and Nicole @gamenu, he’d like to just listen intently in regards to where life has led them. He also is blossoming in the new friendships he is forming with new people.

RELATIONSHIP STATUS. Verse Dependent.

FINANCIAL STATUS. He falls somewhere on the back end of middle class, yet he doesn’t really mind. It is familiar for him enough that he has learned how to make do without having a lot of money left over. It is for the best, really, because he still remembers very much so the ridiculous amount of money he’d spent only on pudding and snacks many years ago.

DRIVER’S LICENSE. No. He’s terrified to learn how to drive, so he just makes do with either walking, riding the bus, and sometimes even riding his bike if he has the energy to do so.

CRIMINAL RECORD. Clean. He’d like to say he’s done some wild things that have gone untraced, but the most adventurous he’s ever gotten was the time he stole a Winnie the Pooh stuffed animal from a store in the mall. He later went back to pay for it out of guilt, so even that one doesn’t particularly count.

VICES. The constant need to be busy doing something to give his brain far less of a chance to dwell on things he is not satisfied with dwelling on. Maintaining an active and creative lifestyle are very important to him. Otherwise, in the event he does sink to an unexpected low, he tends to build himself back up by indulging in activities that brought him peace as a child. Doodling, watching cartoons, buying random things online from things he watched a kid to boost serotonin. His latest thing is to actually read poetry. He finds it really enjoyable to see something on a page that artistically expresses thoughts he can relate to, and has since started to collect an abundance of poetry books.

𝐬𝐞𝐱 & 𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

SEXUAL ORIENTATION. He identifies under the queer label. He doesn’t really know for certain where he falls in terms of sexual attraction, since frankly he went years without even getting close to it, but he does know that he has deep feelings for all kinds of people underneath other categories of attraction. A more descriptive way of describing himself would be to say demisexual panromantic, but he prefers to use queer.

PREFERRED EMOTIONAL ROLE. Honestly, he really just thrives on fulfilling whatever role his partners request. He loves to care for people to immeasurable bounds, while shifting to a relaxed, or sometimes needier side of himself when the roles are reversed.

PREFERRED SEXUAL ROLE. He’ll tell you he’s a switch with a preference for topping, but in reality he is a switch with a preference for literally doing whatever the person he feels comfort and admiration for enough to get to that level with them in the first place. He does get a tad bitter when people make suggestions that he doesn’t have the assertiveness to be the dominant partner in those types of relations, and is therefore trying to education himself as much as he can on the overall process before he can even consider taking the reigns like that in real time.

LIBIDO. For the most part, very low. In his main timelines, he has gone seven years without going completely all the way with another person out of a fear of what could follow after that level of intimacy. He doesn’t necessarily have those same fears, but he does feel completely out of the loop in comparison to peers of his who have far more experience than he does. He is at least putting a lot of effort and thoughtfulness into being a more sex positive person, so in time he believes he will reach a point where he will have an average adult male libido.

TURN ON’S. Words of encouragement and affirmation, undivided attention, and playfulness are the primarily ones. Even if it doesn’t always sound exciting in its application, Mason actually finds it really helpful when a partner either verbally describes why and where they are touching him, or how they want him to touch them instead, because it gives a complete sense of clarity and consent. He’s admittedly very inexperienced and clueless, so being shown AND told are clearer in his mind than just being left to try and plan out his next move with limited reference.

TURN OFF’S. Dirty talk. Being called things like whore, slut, or other demeaning names while having sex not only turns him off, but it also really hurts his feelings even when it is jokingly implied that he is being labeled something bad. He also does not really like being referred to things such as little boy, bitch, baby boy. He doesn’t mind being called Baby when it is used to be an affectionate pet name, and he is so much of a sucker for being complimented on, that he’d probably not even bat an eye if someone playfully called him Princess. Just not around other people, because he takes his pride in being a top-man very seriously.

IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP TENDENCIES. His main two love languages are words of affirmation and physical touch, while the others typically fall not too far behind. He also really just loves the ability to spend time with another person where both people are doing their own thing together. Those moments when he can just glance over to see the twitch of his partner’s lips, or the squinting of their eyes when they get seriously invested in their passion are very meaningful to him. He is also aware that he comes with things that are not always the easiest to love, such as heavy subjects spoken only about in serious conversations, and in the days that are harder to get out of bed than others, so he tries to actively make up for it in the ways he knows how. He’ll often take over the bulk of the work around the house and yard. As a man with a little bit of knowledge about a lot of topics, and a lot of love to give around to make up the difference, he seeks to love and be loved unconditionally by putting in all of his effort to doing whatever he knows will bring the people he is dating complete happiness. 

𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬

CHARACTER’S THEME SONG.  Here I am Alive, by Yellowcard and Way Less Sad, by AJR.

HOBBIES TO PASS TIME. Learning how to play the ukulele, drawing, listening to music, playing videogames from time to time, and texting his friends.

LEFT OR RIGHT BRAINED. Right.

PHOBIAS. He really doesn’t have any of the same intense, yet irrational fears as he did as a young man, so it is a lot more difficult for him to pinpoint whether or not he has any remaining phobias. In some ways, the fears of rejection and abandonment still linger at the back of his mind from time to time. Otherwise, he would likely only become of just how terrifyingly ingrained something was to him at the exact moment he was face to face with it. Additionally, he does not hold any trust towards demons, and would scream profusely if he was locked in a room with one, but he refuses to admit that he finds them scary out of spite.

SELF CONFIDENCE LEVEL. For the most part, it is pretty comparable to the self confidence level he had as an innocent, wildly curious teenager, and is a thousand percent better than when he was experiencing the complete lack of self esteem that came with the depression of his very early twenties. He still wrangles with moments of issues of self worth and blaming himself for things that he is slowly becoming to terms with being the result of other people’s problems instead of his own, but they are at least only on very few occasions. Saying he necessarily loves himself would really likely come down to who he is present with at the time, because in some circumstances he believes saying such a thing would lead to him being punished for reasons he might not be able to explain.

VULNERABILITIES. Expressing his feelings to people. He spends a lot of energy dreading the possibilities that can occur by him being anything but kind and happy around the people in his life. He takes no pride in thinking that he’d some way be passing on his troubles onto another person, thus making them take on part of his low as they go about their own day. Logically, he knows that the likelihood of someone physically striking him for expressing his emotions are low, but internally he knows why that sense of fear is there in the first place. He’d rather be a person who is openly loved and feels internally than be someone who feels openly and is not loved at all. It is very telling of his complete trust in another person when he cries around them.

[vincent-g-writer]

The Silver Screen Savant, pt 2- the Meh, the Bad and The yikes.

Hello Writers!

Last time here on Starry Starry Write, I talked a little about Autism in the media and my personal experiences therein. Today, I’d like to go a little broader, and tackle the topic from a macro perspective.

In recent times, you’ve probably heard “Representation Matters” oft repeated. Especially in prominent talking spaces like social media. But what does that mean, exactly?

Why “Representation Matters,” and how.

The short answer:

Diverse representation in media tells us that everyone has a place in the world. That everyone’s story matters.

The long answer:

It’s no secret that we begin engaging with media at a young age. When I was growing up in the 90’s and 00’s, TV and video games were often the babysitters of my peers. I was one of the few kids in my neighborhood whose parents weren’t divorced. The kids I knew? Not so much. Most of them were raised by single parents, grandparents and of course-the boob tube. I personally prefered books, when my mom wasn’t yelling “it’s too nice out to be holed up in that dark bedroom!”

Now, don’t mistake my preference for some kind of intellectual superiority. I watched plenty of TV too. Besides, books aren’t magically out of the equation. Printed material is our oldest form of media. And- often just as problematic. Though I will say- I saw a much broader range of people on covers adoring library shelves than I ever did titles on a TV roster. But, I digress. The point is: for many of us, consuming media begins at an early time of our life. And that’s where the problem starts. Even in my childhood, where The Magic School Bus, Hey Arnold, and Sesame Street showed people of all kinds, I can point to many that did not. Especially not people like me. Which did me a grave disservice. I didn’t know I was on the spectrum for a long time, and when I finally found out, I was horrified, thanks to what I had seen on TV.

Because media is not only a wonderful way to learn about people that don’t look, act or sound like us. It also informs our ideas of who we are, and what we can be. Whether we like it or not: it shapes how we understand the world. And it doesn’t stop with Childhood.

Time Changes Much, but not all.

Things are better now. Well, a little bit, anyway.

As an adult, I see more people like me on the screen nowadays. Which is nice.

Ish.

Why “ish?” Well…

Frequently, these “noticeably different” characters (read: Autistically coded) are branded “NOT AUTISTIC!” You heard it here first, folks! That one character (insert your favorite) is Totally Not Autistic. Despite being written in a way that gives every indication otherwise.

*Facepalm*

Now for some examples, which we’ll call the “Meh,” “The Bad” and the “Yikes.” For “fun,” we’ll also go into the off-air perceptions of the characters.

The “Meh.”

First on the list is Dr. Spencer Reid, from CBS’s “Criminal Minds.”

Dr. Reid is the youngest member of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, having joined at the age of 22. He holds three B.A degrees in Sociology, Psychology and Philosophy, as well as three Ph.D’s in Engineering, Chemistry, and Mathematics.

He also has the social skills of a limp dishrag. Wait, what’s that? High Intelligence + Low Social Awareness? Hmmm…Then there’s his restrictive behavioral patterns, obsessive interests, and general “quirkiness!” that we could talk about. But let’s hear a quote from the actor who plays him, Matthew Gray Gubler:

“..an eccentric genius, with hints of schizophrenia and minor autism, Asperger’s Syndrome. Reid is 24, 25 years old with three PH.D.s and one can’t usually achieve that without some form of autism.”

Hoooo-boy. I could go into all the things wrong with this, including why the term “Asperger’s” is both horrific (TW: Eugenics,Ableism, N*zis) and harmful. However, today we’ll simply leave it with the fact that this term is no longer applicable, having been reclassified in 2013 as part of Autism Spectrum disorder.

The “Bad.”

Next up, we have Will Graham, from NBC’s Hannibal.

Like our first example, Will works for the FBI. He’s a gifted criminal profiler with “special” abilities, namely hyper empathy, which allows him to reconstruct the actions and fantasies of the killers he hunts. He’s intellectually gifted, hates eye contact, socializing, and prefers to spend…most of his time…alone.

Oh dear. Haven’t we been here before? But, I mean, he doesn’t have Autism! The show runner says so!

For Will Graham, there’s a line in the pilot about him being on the spectrum of autism or Asperger’s, and he’s neither of those things. He actually has an empathy disorder where he feels way too much and that’s relatable in some way. There’s something about people who connect more to animals than they do to other people because it’s too intense for whatever reason.

You can’t see me right now, but I’m cringing. A lot. This is just…ugh. I mean, for starters, I know a handful of autistic people who struggle with hyper empathy, which can make social situations overwhelming and hard to navigate. In fact, I happen to be one of them. Plus, there’s a cool little thing about how, frequently, people on the spectrum more readily identify with animals. But, y’know. Who am I to say? I’m just someone, one of many, who’s dealt with this my whole life.

Now, onto the “Yikes.”

*sigh*

And finally, we have BBC’s Sherlock, a modern adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s renowned “consulting” detective, and probably the most famous fictional character of all time.

Now, I’ll start by saying that the BBC incarnation is not the first to be Spectrum labeled. In fact, Sherlock was my childhood hero, and the first “person” I saw referred to this way. My aunt, an avid reader herself, casually remarked to a friend “I’ve always wondered if Holmes is Autistic,” after I came yammering on about how fantastic the books were. Had I not been champing at the bit to get back to my reading, I might have asked her what that meant.

I also believe this fandom driven speculation is why many detective type characters (see above) are often coded as Autistic, intentionally or otherwise.

In this New York Times article, Lisa Sanders, M.D. describes Holmes traits:

He appears oblivious to the rhythms and courtesies of normal social intercourse — he doesn’t converse so much as lecture. His interests and knowledge are deep but narrow. He is strangely “coldblooded,” and perhaps as a consequence, he is also alone in the world.

Now, before we go any father, let me take a moment to defend his creator. During the time Sir Arthur Conan Doyle first created his most famous work, Autism was not known. That isn’t to say it didn’t exist. We’ve always existed. In fact, it’s now believed that the Changeling Myth, a common European folk story, was a way to explain Autism. In one telling (there are a few) children displaying “intelligence beyond their years” and “uncanny knowledge” were imposters, traded out by Fae creatures for offspring of their own. Children believed to be “Changlings,” regretfully, often came to a bad end. A chilling reminder that the stories we tell impact our real lives.

So while Autism was at least somewhat recognized, it did not become its own official diagnosis until 1943.

Meanwhile, Sherlock Holmes was first published in 1892. Now, as a writer who often draws from my personal reality, I imagine Doyle probably “wrote what he knew,” which is to say, acquainted with one or more Autistic people, he used them as inspiration.

On the other hand…

BBC’s Sherlock first aired in 2010. And while one might argue that the writers simply capitalized on the Autistic fan-theory, or took already available traits and exaggerated them for their version… they left a lot to be desired. Autism aside, this new Sherlock is…well…an asshole. Narcissistic, abusive and egocentric (to name a few) he sweeps his caustic behavior under the rug of “high functioning sociopath,” and blytly ignores the consequences.

Which is a major problem. Because while doing this, he’s still “obviously” (at least in the Hollywood sense) Autistic. In my previous post, where I said some characters are “too smart™, and logical© to ever have feelings, friends or empathy,” this is what I meant.

This is bad. We’re looping right back to Representation Matters. Bad representation, and the navigating of such, is just as important for writers to think about as good representation. Maybe even moreso. Because bad representation paints real people into cardboard, stereotyped people-shaped things. It otherizes. And it’s harmful. You would not believe the people I’ve met assume I’m not Autistic because I’m not an egotistical jerk. Why? Because they watched, you guessed it, BBC Sherlock.

Confession time:

Now here’s my little secret:

I love all of these characters. They are some of my favorite on tv. Why? Because for good or ill, I recognize myself in them. Finally, I can turn on the TV, and see myself. Or, somewhat, anyway.

My favorite character out of this list? Loath though I am to admit it… Is Sherlock. See, what those well meaning folks didn’t know (the ones who say I’m I’m “too nice,” to be Autistic) is… well, if we’re being honest, I wasn’t always nice. A few years ago, I was that guy. I was a jerk because I thought I was the smartest person in the room. Which is really not a good look. In fact, sitting down and watching the first season of sherlock, (around three or four years after it came out) made me realize how much of a jerk I actually was.

There are other things there too. Things that tie me to all these characters, that I didn’t list. But that’s for another today.

For now, I’d like to add a caveat or two:

1) I’ve watched all the shows listed above, and adore them. As I mentioned, Sherlock is my favorite. He’s also the one I’ve watched the most (Repeatedly, in fact. Whoops.) and I recognize it’s not all bad. In the end, he learned to treat people better (somewhat) and certainly became more human over time. And, there are other deeply problematic elements of the show I’d like to tackle, eventually.

*cough* Queerbating! *cough*

2) I’m well aware that the above cases are all thin, white, able bodied, “straight” males. But I chose these characters for a couple of reasons. One, they’re the most prominent type on TV. Again, we loop back around to representation, and why we need more positive, diverse examples of it.

And finally-

3) In my last post, I mentioned I’d give some “good” instances of Hollywood Autism trope. But I didn’t exactly do that. Partially, because half way through, I thought…perhaps…I’m not the best to judge what might be a good Autistic character. I mean, I’m sure someone will read this and think my current aforementioned characters are fine. Heck! They might even argue my perception here, and say the characters are just fine. I accept that. In my life, both on and off the page, I recognize that I cannot, should not (and don’t want to) speak for an entire community.

Because of this, I cannot tell you how to write a “good” Autistic character, or what media is “acceptable.” I can’t even really tell you what a bad character is. Sure, I have a lot of opinions about it. But- if you’re on the spectrum and like and identify with the above? That’s fine. I mean, even with all the problems I noted (and some I didn’t) I certainly do.

On the other hand, if you’re a writer, and you want to write a character from this (or any, for that matter) community you aren’t part of, I caution you.

Do your research. Preferably from multiple credible sources.

Talk to people on the spectrum about what it’s really like. (Though try to steer clear of asking for emotional labor.You could, say, hop on reddit and ask the community there, for instance, which is a no pressure way to obtain potentially decent info.)

Finally, whatever you do, remember this-

Autistic people can look like anyone. We can act, and think and be different, like anyone. We are real, living, breathing people. Not robots, not sob stories, not tropes. People. So if you write about us, write us like people. And your work will be all the better for it.

-Your Loving Vincent

[coldalbion]

Good morning. I was wondering how much wisdom Odin produces on his own? A while ago you said he transforms himself according to the new information, like cutting his eye out at the well. I was thinking of American Gods, Wednesday’s last conversation with Vulcan has similarities to Nancy’s conversation with Ibis. Odin is a bastard, this is well known. I wonder if he’s the original cultural appropriation guy. I imagine he validates the new info like the borg, whereas those that cosplay don’t.

Depends what you mean by “produce” I suppose. In my experience, I wouldn’t say he’s a cultural appropriator within the context of taking-from-a-group- and-claiming-as-own/being better than originators. If anything, lore suggest he engages with things and practices on their own terms - he becomes a woman with the witches. He gains the runes through pain and privation. In  Grímnismál  he allows himself to be put between the two fires and is essentially tortured. He’s a god. He doesn’t have to put up with that, but he does. In a sense, it is less that he takes, and more that he adds-to-himself. That’s to say, Odin is rune magician and seidh-master. These are, at first glance two separate praxes. They require different things, different ways. What unites them in this context is Odin. He is the one who performs them. In this sense, he’s not the Borg because the Borg add to the Collective and in doing so, change themselves but also erase difference.  My experience is that the Old Man glories in, and enhances difference.  A key point to consider is where the phenomenon of bricolage  comes in (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage): “Anthropology In anthropology, the term has been used in several ways. Most notably, Claude Lévi-Strauss invoked the concept of bricolage to refer to the process that leads to the creation of mythical thought, which "expresses itself by means of a heterogeneous repertoire which, even if extensive, is nevertheless limited. It has to use this repertoire, however, whatever the task in hand because it has nothing else at its disposal" [7]. Later, Hervé Varenne and Jill Koyama used the term when explaining the processual aspect of culture, i.e., education Literature In literature, bricolage is affected by intertextuality, the shaping of a text's meanings by reference to other texts. Cultural studies In cultural studies bricolage is used to mean the processes by which people acquire objects from across social divisions to create new cultural identities. In particular, it is a feature of subcultures such as the punk movement. Here, objects that possess one meaning (or no meaning) in the dominant culture are acquired and given a new, often subversive meaning. For example, the safety pin became a form of decoration in punk culture. Social psychology The term "psychological bricolage" is used to explain the mental processes through which an individual develops novel solutions to problems by making use of previously unrelated knowledge or ideas they already possess. The term, introduced by Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, Matthew J. Karlesky and Fiona Lee[10]The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship of the University of Michigan, draws from two separate disciplines. The first, “social bricolage,” was introduced by cultural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss in 1962. Lévi-Strauss was interested in how societies create novel solutions by using resources that already exist in the collective social consciousness. The second, "creative cognition,” is an intra-psychic approach to studying how individuals retrieve and recombine knowledge in new ways. Psychological bricolage, therefore, refers to the cognitive processes that enable individuals to retrieve and recombine previously unrelated knowledge they already possess.[11][12] Psychological bricolage is an intra-individual process akin to Karl E. Weick’s notion of bricolage in organizations, which is akin to Lévi-Strauss' notion of bricolage in societies.[ Philosophy In his book The Savage Mind (1962, English translation 1966), French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss used "bricolage" to describe the characteristic patterns of mythological thought. In his description it is opposed to the engineers' creative thinking, which proceeds from goals to means. Mythical thought, according to Lévi-Strauss, attempts to re-use available materials in order to solve new problems.[14][15][16]Jacques Derrida extends this notion to any discourse. "If one calls bricolage the necessity of borrowing one's concept from the text of a heritage which is more or less coherent or ruined, it must be said that every discourse is bricoleur."[17]Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, in their 1972 book Anti-Oedipus, identify bricolage as the characteristic mode of production of the schizophrenic producer.[18]” So given the above, particularly in reference to the re-use of available materials, we find ourselves presented with a very Odinic situation. It’s my contention that bricolage can be used as a justification for cultural appropriation - but it’s a bad one, because for me the essence of magic is the poiesis; the bringing-forth from something that no-one else can bring-forth from. Ordinary people can do things in ordinary ways but the magician is by definition outside of the ordinary - literally extra-ordinary. Not only that, but because of this position, they are able to re-order the ordinary, and thus, everything they contact can be rendered extra-ordinary. In this sense, one could argue that this ability to take restrained or limited context and proper/achieve one’s goals is literally the “spinning straw into gold” of Rumpelstiltskin, the lead into gold of the alchemists, etc. In another, this places magicians - of which Odin is an exemplar- at root as uncanny, almost Lovecraftian monstrosities. This, in one way, renders the occult in its original context of being hidden. That is, it is imperceptible to those who have not been initiated or reconfigured in order to perceive it. It’s important to note that the etymology of perceive is actually rooted in grasping: perceive (v.)c. 1300, perceiven, "become aware of, gain knowledge of," especially "to come to know by direct experience," via Anglo-French parceif, Old North French *perceivre (Old French perçoivre) "perceive, notice, see; recognize, understand," from Latin percipere "obtain, gather, seize entirely, take possession of," also, figuratively, "to grasp with the mind, learn, comprehend," literally "to take entirely," from per "thoroughly" (see per) + capere "to grasp, take," from PIE root *kap- "to grasp."

seize (v.)mid-13c., from Old French seisir "to take possession of, take by force; put in possession of, bestow upon" (Modern French saisir), from Late Latin sacire, which is generally held to be from a Germanic source, but the exact origin is uncertain. Perhaps from Frankish *sakjan "lay claim to" (compare Gothic sokjan, Old English secan "to seek;" see seek). Or perhaps from Proto-Germanic *satjan "to place" (see set (v.)).

Combine this with the common sense of possession in a spiritual context, and we arrive at something Jung wrote in his essay on Wotan in the 1930′s: Perhaps we may sum up this general phenomenon as Ergriffenheit — a state of being seized or possessed. The term postulates not only an Ergriffener (one who is seized) but, also, an Ergreifer (one who seizes). Wotan is an Ergreifer of men, and, unless one wishes to deify Hitler– which has indeed actually happened — he is really the only explanation. It is true that Wotan shares this quality with his cousin Dionysus, but Dionysus seems to have exercised his influence mainly on women. The maenads were a species of female storm-troopers, and, according to mythical reports, were dangerous enough. Wotan confined himself to the berserkers, who found their vocation as the Blackshirts of mythical kings. Leaving aside whether National Socialism was a kind of madness that seized the world (spoiler: the time period was a perfect storm for horrors) and blaming it on Wotan, Jung’s language is important here - particular because it signals a polarity between seizer and seized. Consider Odin’s role as world-creator in Norse myth. He (and his brothers) seize the giant Ymir, kill him, and in supreme butchery, render his corpse into the worlds we know. Taking one thing, they use it to make another - and it is important to note that, according to mythological genealogy, Ymir is Odin’s maternal ancestor - he is not separate from the jotnar.  Rather, he re-orders their potencies to make the world, and since those potencies are inside him, re-orders his own ancestral potencies into that which humans might call god as distinct from jotun. In this sense, we all do this - our lives, bodies and minds are recapitulations and reconfigurations of our ancestors in new forms. When we suggest that “We are our deeds” or whatever, it is a mistake to ignore that the faculties to perform those deeds come from faculties bestowed on us by environment and heredity. How we experience things depends on how we are configured - though such configuration is constantly shifting due to constant inputs. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the magician deliberately seeks out that  reconfigurative reflex. seek (v.)Old English secan "inquire, search for; pursue; long for, wish for, desire; look for, expect from," influenced by Old Norse soekja, both from Proto-Germanic *sakanan (source also of Old Saxon sokian, Old Frisian seka, Middle Dutch soekan, Old High German suohhan, German suchen, Gothic sokjan), from PIE *sag-yo-, from root *sag- "to track down, seek out" (source also of Latin sagire "to perceive quickly or keenly," sagus "presaging, predicting," Old Irish saigim "seek"). The natural modern form of the Anglo-Saxon word as uninfluenced by Norse is in beseech. This desire, this hunt, can be clearly seen in an Odinic/Dionysiac furor complex - combined with *wen:   *wen- (1)Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to desire, strive for."It forms all or part of: vanadium; Vanir; venerate; veneration; venerable; venereal; venery (n.1) "pursuit of sexual pleasure;" venery (n.2) "hunting, the sports of the chase;" venial; venison; venom; Venus; wean; ween; Wend "Slavic people of eastern Germany;" win; winsome; wish; wont; wynn.It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit veti "follows after," vanas- "desire," vanati "desires, loves, wins;" Avestan vanaiti "he wishes, is victorious;" Latin venerari "to worship," venus "love, sexual desire; loveliness, beauty;" Old English wynn "joy," wunian "to dwell," wenian "to accustom, train, wean," wyscan "to wish." Note the reference to Vanir and Vanadis (by way of vanadium) as well as Venus. That there is a polarity betwixt hunter and hunted is obvious, as with sexual partners (regardless of gender or sex it is two -or more - parties conjoined by desire) and also in the notion of veneration, and winning/victory.

So, perhaps more properly, we might argue that the magician goes-into the world in a more intense fashion - not with the principle of union-with, or reduction to Oneness. Rather, towards profusion  of difference, of options and room-to-move. A peculiar notion of freedom via absolute restraint ; enhanced negative-capability. In such a context, to culturally appropriate is to defang the numinous, make it more palatable, more ordinary. To commodity it. I do not think Yggr, the Terrible One, would do so for mere “safety’s-sake”. Maybe that’s just me though.