#someone who can see all the harm he has caused and either experienced it themself or came to terms with it anyway

[johns-wooden-finger]

I've seen a couple unforgiving takes of Arthur Lester. Which initially bothers me, because forgiveness and the messy nature of humans and the harm they can inflict is a large part of what the podcast explores in the first place. Like yes, people can mean harm and BE harmful but still be PEOPLE, still intend and even do good, still be representative of humanity. The good comes with the bad, and to write that off completely because of his various trauma complexes misses the point.

It stops bothering me when I imagine it's written from Daniel or Marie's perspective though. Or even Oscar.

[tealottie]

Dewey is a child and cannot have BPD or hypersexuality unless he has experienced trauma or other terrible causes. I'm very confused by your fixation on Dewey having these mental disorders. Projecting such serious and scary conditions onto a child is both strange and creepy.

I usually do not respond to anonymous messages like this, but the ignorance in this response is so prevalent that I fear it may be dangerous.

I never gave an assigned age to Dewey in my headcanons post - in fact, I believe I stated that he initially had ODD which later developed into BPD which is a very common thing that can happen for children.

With that being said and out of the way, I would now like to discuss BPD in particular. Perpetuating the idea that BPD can only stem from childhood trauma is a dangerous narrative to spread - you can look at several credited sources online stating that, while common, BPD does not HAVE to have stemmed from childhood trauma. Any sort of statement that someone without trauma cannot have Borderline can be very harmful to individuals with BPD who have unconventional diagnoses. And while I'm arguing for those who do not have childhood trauma, I would kindly like to point out another side of ignorance in your response by gesturing to the entirety of the show - the content of the show IS Dewey's childhood.

Dewey grew up from age 1-10 in a financially unstable environment on a houseboat with a single dad/uncle - whom I personally headcanon to have spent time in the navy as well, meaning that there was likely even more turbulence at home. Then at age 10, Dewey is thrown into a mansion with a world class adventurer and billionaire among other amazing adventurers (including the man who raised him), and now on top of his middle kid I-must-stand-out syndrome, he feels the added pressure of living up to his family name. Scrooge is also not a great caretaker (I won't get into that, though, still love the guy). The entirety of Dewey's youth has been severely unconventional, and we see this in the way Dewey's biggest dream is to just be a popular kid in high school - he wants a normal life, but he also wants to be the hero and stand out above everyone else. On top of all of this, he felt an attachment to a mother he never had for years without any explanation of where she is or what happened to her.

And also, throughout the show, Dewey displays common symptoms of Borderline (though these behaviors coincide with other factors of his life, too, which is why I did not explicitly claim that he developed BPD as young as 10 and left his age at which he developed it ambiguous). He yearns for attention and acts on impulse to gain it, his mood swings as soon as something upsets him - usually resulting in anger, he always tries to be the best at everything because of his own views of his self worth, he takes huge risks and does so without thinking a lot, he's a tad grandiose, we've seen him isolate whenever he is sad which turns inter irritability when bothered, he has a lack of restraint (doubling down on that impulsivity), he deals with some form of depression, he developed attachment issues towards a woman he never knew -- Must I go on?

And now let's take a look into Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (Hypersexuality). I, myself, have been hypersexual since an age as young as 10 which developed without any childhood abuse or trauma. Hypersexuality is a sexual addiction in which your brain just cannot shake off the thoughts of sex - even in inappropriate situations, it will still be on your mind, which can lead to intrusive thoughts and internalized guilt. Hypersexuality can be comorbid with things like ADHD and BPD both as well. I personally find it strange that whenever someone gives a realistic mental disorder to a child in writing that even somewhat involves sex, whether that kid can control it or not, everyone gets weird about it. Children know more than either you or they themself realize, and that doesn't mean that that kid is doomed - it just means they need help. I personally find it creepy that you find my headcanon creepy, anon - are you inherently sexualizing Dewey in your own mind because you simply cannot fathom the concept of a minor having an unpretty mental disorder? Yes, you're right, it IS a serious disorder - but that's exactly why I think there needs to be more representation of it. There needs to be more conversation on how to catch these symptoms in children early, and how to help them develop healthy coping skills that won't ruin their sexual health later on in life.

Lastly, I'd like to ask why you specifically targeted BPD and CSBD in this message you sent? You didn't point out the scary logistics of Louie struggling with intense dysphoria - a disorder that can cause suicidal ideations, especially when paired with severe depression. If anything, Louie is at high risk of causing harm to himself, and if your concern is for these kids' safety, then you should have brought that up, too. It feels like you targeted BPD and CSBD specifically because they are the "evil" disorders, and you find headcanoning a kid to have "evil" disorders to make me "evil", too. So I think you should call into question your own morals and ethics surrounding these topics of conversation -- and once you take off that stupid anonymous mask -- THEN we can have a conversation.

[swimfuel]

Hey!! The X-men are literally my favorite thing and I was wondering if you could elaborate on how Scott is a knight of doom

YES OF COURSE!!!! i'll put it under a cut since i tend to ramble a bit & i'm pulling a bunch of explanations from people smarter than i am

the knight weaponizes their aspect; they have an inherent understanding of their aspect that allows them to exploit it completely. doom is the aspect of systems, restrictions/limitations, sacrifices, and endings.

one of scott's core themes is reclaiming his restrictions in order to serve others/the greater good! he takes the possible liability that are his faulty powers and shifts them to become an advantage, largely through the strength of his restraint and discipline. his role as a tactician and the way he sees sacrifices (more on that later) also mesh EXTREMELY well with the knight of doom.

i feel like the Wh*don run (specifically astonishing x-men #22-23) really highlights how scott can turn a situation on its head through exploiting his disadvantages to the point where they become tactically advantageous!! like, let's count the ways:

the ship the x-men stole from kruun is obviously bugged, so his team won't be able to communicate without being overheard. he realizes this, and uses that restriction (being overheard) as an advantage, by falsifying their course of action.

he has been left "without his powers"—he presents a restriction that lowers the guard of his adversary and grants him entry to their home base. he then subverts this by exploding the shit out of everything when an opportune moment arrives

HE LITERALLY EXPLOITS DEATH...... HE EXPLOITS HIS OWN DEATH...................FOR THE GREATER GOOD..........DUDE???? someone get this man an advil

some more thoughts, followed by some examples by people smarter than me:

he exhibits a similar pattern of idolization/realization with xavier irt karkat/HICand dave/bro.... not sure if this by itself is a knight-y thing but i think the consistent disillusionment with their role in defending their aspect is interesting (aka knight burnout, more on that later)

he is def willing to sacrifice shit for the greater good of mutantkind. the shit in question sometimes being his closest friends and allies. the examples that stick out to me are how he allowed beast to get tortured (utopia era) while executing his plan to solve All His Problems At Once & also when he sent x-force to the future to defend hope knowing it was going to be a one-way trip

that entire issue revolving around just how GOOD scott is at self-repression😭😭😭 i'm pretty sure it's post-schism utopia era i don't remember the exact issue WAIT NVM i'm pretty sure it's uncanny #518

seeing phoenix!scott as an inversion to (rogue of) life is also an interesting concept (unchecked growth!)

the amount of responsibility he feels he has to take on (partially due to his idolization cycle w xavier/xavier's dream) is also both knight-y and doom-y

and of course the instinct to protect the people around him --> being expanded into the whole of mutantkind (which, in turn, expands his sense of obligation)

everything leading up to revolutionary cyclops is also very interesting through this framework because its reminiscent of the knights & doom players in hs! the "taking on an insane burden" (phoenix force, whatever whammied mituna) -> the "resignation to the fate handed to him by his aspect" (his stint in prison, dead daves, sollux in general) -> the "refusal to accept that fate" (prison break, dave not wanting to use time travel, sollux fucking off into the dreambubbles, karkat coming to terms w his relationship w leadership) --> experiencing knight burnout at the end of revolutionary era going into death of x

im not sure exactly how to put it into words but everything about his childhood/teenhood... like being surrounded by forces seeking to control him and use him for their own ends..... idk

(from @/land-of-classpects-and-analysis, sections highlighted red are of particular interest)

HIS GIANT STINKING MARTYR COMPLEX.....DUDE😭😭

side note & ive mentioned this before but scottjean is an interesting parallel to davejade in a way i cant verbalize

Then there are the ones who may accept [the fact of inevitable human suffering], and so choose to live in high alert of any danger - any threats - as well as living in fear of what harm may befall them and/or their loved ones. It is this third and final group of people that so deeply marks that of the Knight of Doom.

Now, this might cause a few eyebrows to become quirked. After all, a Knight? Being fearful of something - nevertheless that thing being related to their Aspect? Knights do often present themselves as ruthless and fearless warriors, yes, but that is only because their Aspects and the world around them raised and called them to act as such. 

... A key factor in the Knight’s life, specifically before their journey truly begins, is that they are already well equipped with their Aspect.

... The Knight of Doom is one where their Aspect being all around them is far more bittersweet than anything else.

... What is important to acknowledge is that the facade the Knight of Doom puts up is not only to hide the fear they have for their Aspect, but it is most definitely there to hide the grief and pain they have not yet completely finished going through. Whether it’s been weeks or years, the Knight of Doom is someone who would rather hide themself away from these feelings than find a way to truly mend and heal them ... they have built a false wall between them and their suffering strong and thick enough to partially block it from their memory. 

... Knights are known to become extremely stubborn whenever people try to order them around and pressure them into doing something, and the Knight of Doom is no different - especially if they believe what they are doing is for the greater good. 

(from @/dahniwitchoflight)

Dahni’s Explanantion: “Doom can be a negative force that rejects and harms, fostering a sense of hostility or sadness. But, it is also the idea that you can pull backwards and cautiously and wisely withdraw into your own self.  It can be the idea of Control taken from the sharp Black and White Restrictions that everything in the world gets sorted into. It understands community necessity and need, responsibly pulling back and lowering you down into its lap to help wind yourself down. Doom then is an ultimate gentle Equalizer, instilling its players with an internal sense of Acceptance and eventually true Wisdom.”

Knight of Doom: One who Exploits with Doom or Exploits Doom

Knights hide a fear of a perceived fundamental failure with their Aspect behind a shield of confidence and obsessive effort. Their challenge is to learn to take it down a notch and to understand that they are skilled enough

A Knight is very skilled with using the rules and limitations of any game or session to their advantage. They skillfully fulfill any responsibility or obligation required of them with ease. They might use their natural caution and pessimism to make realistic choices and endeavors. They use and exploit any rule or limit that they can to their advantage. They might also be very good at exploiting any sacrifices made or any obligation or responsibility that they are held to. They might be very good at avoiding any unnecessary thing or person and are very good at recognizing when something is too futile to even bother with.

Likewise they might only focus on the necessary things in their game or session so they are likely to not do much unless it’s absolutely necessary. They would very likely be very meticulous with themselves about following the rules properly and constantly restrict themselves, maybe thinking they aren’t following the rules properly enough or not following the right ones. They might sacrifice anything they consider unnecessary about themselves or the way they live, sometimes even going too far with it, in order to be considered or thought of as less useless. They’re always trying harder and holding themselves to extreme self-imposed standards.

They would likely wait for the opportune moment to strike, though they are slow to move or act, they always will when something necessary needs to happen. Out of all the Doom players, a Knight of Doom seems like the one most likely to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. A Knight of Doom can also expertly use and exploit fire, bombs and explosions to their advantage, maybe they create flashy distractions during fights. They might even use decaying or dying things to their advantage.

(from @/communistvriska)

Role in the Session: Rather like the Prince of Doom, this role’s title kinda has “edgelord” written all over it, but that’s not a set-in-stone character trait. The first thing that comes to mind re: what the Knight Class and the Aspect of Doom have in common is a strong sense of obligation. The Knight of Doom is bound to take their duties and responsibilities Extremely Seriously, perhaps rather too seriously at first ... Knights also tend to be very protective of both their Aspect as a concept, and of themselves and those close to them; while the Knight of Doom isn’t likely to be outwardly aggressive, given Doom’s reserved, slow-burn tendencies, woe betide those who try to deceive or confound the Knight or their allies. One of Doom’s internal contradictions (which I find personally fascinating) is that the aspect is associated both with cynical resignation and with a profound albeit restrained sense of passion and persistence. Doom is what’s left after everything else gets burnt away.

The Knight of Doom will likely be a very skilled combatant, as the Knight is a class strongly associated with Strife / battle, and Doom is one of the more overtly destructive Aspects. I’d put them in the Top 5 Roles to use a cool flamin sword, at least. They’re not going to be eager to fight, per se, but they’re not going to have much trouble scaling the echeladder when it comes to that either. Internally, they’re likely to struggle with a perceived (but largely imagined) inability to fulfill their duties, and they could well stumble once or twice in their quest to be perceived as reliable and stoic, or as someone who their friends can lean on. They’re probably doing more than enough already, but if they’re not careful they might overexert themselves and take on too heavy a burden, and they’re liable to be crushed by their own expectation that they face their challenges alone. This is going to factor into their capital-Q Quest and the environment of their planet, and will be the biggest obstacle in their path to Ascension. A Knight’s duty is to protect their co-players, but their co-players also have to support them.

[parrhesiablog]

Polyamory and Blank Slatism

The Kiss by Francesco Hayez [cropped] (source)

I. Happiness in Polyamory and Monogamy

In discussions of polyamory, participants frequently suffer from typical mind fallacy, the tendency to believe that other people have a psychological profile similar to one’s own. Some monogamists likely believe that polyamorists have feelings of romantic jealousy as they do and are miserable. Some polyamorists believe that monogamists are suffering from restrictive socially constructed norms regarding what a relationship is supposed to be like and they have overcome the social influence by using reason. While some polyamorists would acknowledge that being poly may not be for everyone. A balanced approach would probably be to say that:

Some monogamists would be happier as polyamorous but social stigma is playing a non-trivial role in preventing them from becoming polyamorous or they are deluding themselves about the harms of being polyamorous.

Some monogamists would not be happier as polyamorous and social stigma is not playing a significant role in their decision.

Some polyamorous people would be happier as monogamous but they do not become monogamous because of pressure from a partner or because they are delusional.

Some polyamorous people would not be happier as monogamous and the social stigma is annoying at best and makes life really difficult at worst.

The difficult part about this is that these things are nearly trivially true. Yes, some people fall into all of these categories. I think that the argument is usually that polyamorous people think there are a lot of people in category 1 because of social norms and anti-polyamorous people think that a lot of people are in category 3 because they are deluding themself or a partner is pressuring them or some other factor.

II. Blank Slatism

Blank Slatism is the idea that human psychology is entirely a product of environmental forces and not influenced by genetics. Hardly anyone is blank slastist about all psychological traits but many have blank slatist positions or sympathies with regard to some traits. Blank slate arguments are not made explicitly but can be seen through implication; no one will say “that is entirely environmental” but their argument will hinge on the trait being entirely or at least mostly environmental without acknowledging the potential for a genetic cause.

I believe that some polyamorists believe or behave as if sexual and romantic jealousy are socially constructed and can be overcome through reasoning. In a recent substack post by Scott Alexander, he made mentioned that the argument “you wouldn’t be jealous if your friend had other friends” was commonly raised as an argument by polyamorous people. I commented on this that it would be difficult for me to imagine someone persuaded by this analogy. What would be a possible response: “You are right. This emotion of jealousy that I have has ceased.” I can’t imagine that happening.

In other contexts, if I wanted to convince someone to stop being jealous, I would argue that their partner is faithful and loyal. I would make the point that it is unlikely that the attractive female intern at work is going to sleep with your husband because he is a good man. This would be an argument that you need not be worried because the actual act of unfaithfulness would not take place. This could make someone cease feeling jealous. But saying something like “Why are you sad that your husband is spending time with the intern. You wouldn’t mind him spending time with his buddies” seems unconvincing because the point of concern is the love, affection of sexual intimacy being shared with someone else. This feeling does not seem so mutable to me.

It is not so mutable in my view because it is not a product of social influence but is likely a product of evolution. Jealousy is coded in our genes. Across the world, there are concerns about sexual female loyalty likely due to cuckoldry preventing one’s genes from being passed on. In the Blank Slate, Steven Pinker argues that female jealousy is more focused on a psychological connection because women would be concerned that their husband would leave them. Women that did not care if their husbands fell in love and ran off with other women likely did not succeed in passing their genes on just as men who let their wives sleep around did not either. I’ll note that there would be extremely strong selection against things like compersion, positive feelings from a partner enjoying someone else romantically or sexually. That is not to say that it does not exist.

Even if jealousy were not an emotional issue, wanting ones partner to remain faithful makes sense if you are concerned about them leaving you. While being polyamorous allows one’s partner to having the best of both worlds, they may soon find that they do not need you. If this is a concern, then not wanting polyamory may be rational in some sense even if jealousy is not experienced.

III. Moral Concerns

There is likely some moral concerns that are intertwined with disgust. To some, the idea of one’s spouse having sex with another person is quite revolting. This emotion likely carries over to seeing other couples engage in this behavior. Love is regarded as a high value and sexual novelty is regarded as a low value. Trading off between these two can be seen as something that is immoral. This feeling of moral disgust is very hard to shake for people. I do not think these things can be argued away very easily.

One other concern would be societal instability. One form of this argument would be a bunch of men who cannot get women and they resort to anti-social behavior. I feel this may be a problem but someone is not obligated to pair off with a man because he may engage in anti-social behavior. However, it might be good to encourage more stabilizing social norms but perhaps not use negative stigma to achieve them. Another form of this argument would be that this does not provide children with a stable upbringing. A man could get one girlfriend pregnant and then not commit to her or provide resources because this man does not care about her much or likes his other girlfriend more. Children could be exposed to weird social arrangements and we do not know how that would affect their development. In order to evaluate these arguments, it would take a lot more data. Usually, I just see people use hypotheticals. But it is easy to imagine someone would weigh moral concern for this sort of thing higher than they do sexual or romantic jealousy. Again, something that is hard to shake off.

Another concern is that polyamory is imposed on one partner because another partner wants more novelty. The objection would be that the partner who nominally consents but really wish it was not happening just wants to not lose their partner or the objection could be that this hastens the downfall of relationships. Usually, I just see this supported with anecdotes. I do not know if this is the typical form of a poly relationship. A poly person could always say they do not support this but this would probably be a side-effect of normalization. That poly person is not responsible for other people’s relationship disfunction but it is worth noting that many relationships would not achieve the platonic ideal of what being poly would look like.