#that you tend to not think about because it's reduced to a common saying

[amastelaire]

My favorite french saying probably has to be "avec des si, on mettrais Paris en bouteille", not because it's some wacky translation (still judging that "raining cats and dogs" thing britain) but because what it means I something I tend to forget lol.

It would roughly translate to "with 'what if' we could bottle up Paris" and basically means that if you try to imagine every scenario, you will end up fearing things that are so unlikely to happen, but you convince yourself are real (Paris in a bottle) and invite you to instead stop overcomplicating your problems, no need to go over every "what if" scenario, else you'll end up bottling yourself up.

Anyway that's just another reason why french language best language (I am actively ignoring the nonsense that is french grammar)

[sunderwight]

Headcanon/Theory/Concept/Etc Concerning Dragons in the World of Ice and Fire:

The ancient Valyrian blood magic system for taming dragons does increase the general affinity of those of Valyrian descent for dragons. In this case, the general affinity is non-specific. Because Valyria was a slave empire and most menial tasks were handled by members of the lower classes, a lot of dragon handling and care (feeding, cleaning the pits, assisting in training, etc) like what we see the servants of the Dragon Pits in canon doing, would have still been handled by slaves and servants in Valyria itself. If you don't want to be constantly replacing staff all the time, and losing experienced/skilled personnel to random fits of dragon temper, it's best if all if your people have some affinity for dragon handling regardless of rank. So whatever the Valyrian blood mages did, they did it to the whole populace.

But then, how to ensure that only your upper classes are actually taming and riding dragons? After all, you're a slave owning prick who doesn't want your staff stealing dragon eggs to raise in secret and use as part of some violent uprising against you. You'll want some kind of security measure to make that less feasible.

Enter the weird and (in the future) inscrutable "dragon affinity" system. The blood mages find a way to basically encode certain types of dragons so that they will strongly favor specific bloodlines. This system, in turn, is passed among the dragons themselves via their bloodlines. Which basically binds certain lineages of dragons to certain lineages of Valyrian houses. Like say you have Ancient Targaryens living in their Valyrian holdings, and they have Balerion's grandma in their dragon stables. They want to make sure that none of their slaves can steal any of her eggs and eventually become a dragon rider. There's no 100% foolproof method of doing that, since dragons are still somewhat inscrutable. But, you can drastically decrease the odds of success by making Targaryen blood significantly more appealing to Dragon Meemaw and her offspring. As a bonus, this also makes it less likely for the rival dragon riding houses to claim another house's dragons, too.

But there's a bit of a flaw in this system (which is probably the only solution that can be deployed by use of blood-related magics): noble houses tend to intermarry. Obviously, there are a distinct lack of political advantages to marrying commoners, so the Valyrian dragon riding houses would have preferred to marry among themselves and/or powerful foreign rulers. But this means that after a certain point, everyone is related. The magic doesn't care about surnames or paperwork, it cares about blood. So let's say you're Ancient Dragon Lord Targaryen and you marry one of your younger kids off to a different dragon rider house. Their kids are, genetically, still as Targaryen as your direct heir's kids.

So after a while you're still locking out the slaves and servants from being able to tame dragons, but you're not locking out your rival houses. You're losing that perk. Which may not seem all that important at first, but as we witnessed with the Dance, civil wars between dragon riders can get extremely messy, and a lot of it can often come down to posturing about who has the most and/or strongest dragons. So it probably wouldn't take long before various dragon riding houses were wanting to ensure that their dragons were restricted to their actual house, and that their rivals couldn't sneak in and reduce their dragon numbers by claiming dragons from their stock. (You'd think containing the dragons might solve that, but dragons are a bit hard to contain, really.)

Hence, the rise of inbreeding. You try and make sure your house's main lines especially have a higher percentage of "Targaryen" blood, and that none of your rivals have any of it either. The downsides of incest are perhaps mitigated by the same blood mages who have been influencing things from the beginning, perhaps magically tweaking your genetics to reduce the odds of complications, and researching more ways to refine this blood-based system of locking others out of ever accessing your power.

But I imagine that the system required maintaining. There are still going to be times when it's more advantageous to form alliances than to keep your dragons strictly controlled, after all, not to mention limits to how much inbreeding you can do even with magical intervention before shit's getting very Habsburg on you. Not to mention the dragons themselves can be tricky to control, and are less liable to understand the political motivations for not mixing their bloodlines with the perfectly attractive dragons several caves over, who belong to your rivals. Luckily, with Valyrian blood mages still around, you probably just need to pay through the nose to get someone to swing by every few generations and update the blood-based security codes. So to speak. Renew the magic binding your people to your dragons to account for all the drifting genetic nuances. So you don't necessarily need to be wedding siblings to one another every generation.

Except, after the Doom, all those blood mages are gone.

So on the one hand, the Targaryens no longer need to worry about rival dragon riders. Because they're (mostly) all dead. But on the other hand, there's no way to update the bloodline passwords on your dragons now. With each passing generation, you're going to lose some of your advantages for controlling them, unless you're inbreeding at a level that is going to severely limit your ability to make alliances and is going to, you know, completely fuck with your family dynamics for all foreseeable generations. Plus, since you're not a blood mage and this situation is kind of unprecedented, you probably don't really know how long the magic will be able to hold out against the variables of increased genetic diversity over the years. If you "thin" your bloodline too much, how long before you've got basically zero advantages in taming dragons compared to everyone else? Conversely, if the magic is really strong and remains true even through dozens of generations, does that mean you're granting the same advantages to every house you marry your extraneous kids out to over the years? Does a Baratheon have the exact same capacity to tame a dragon as a Targaryen?

So your choices are basically to let it go, to try and retain control over the dragons via culture and influence and knowledge instead of blood purity and incest, or, double down and prioritize power and control above all else and retain whatever you can from the old blood magics by committing to an unhinged level of inbreeding. And then just tell everyone else that it's totally normal for Valyrians and you're an exception to all the usual rules against marrying your siblings, it's a cultural thing, and totally sell that because 1) it's kind of true and 2) anybody with the authority to call you out on exaggerating has just met a mysterious-yet-fiery end via the Doom.

Basically, you consign your descendants to generations of dysfunction and insularity that is guaranteed to alienate them from any of the nearby cultures they might assimilate into, in exchange for increased (but not total!) control over all hypothetical future dragons. Then you destroy a lot of information about dragons so that it can never be stolen, so that no one else can ever learn that taming dragons without your blood is still entirely possible, just harder and more dangerous. (Then you spend the Century of Blood embroiled in a civil war where you kill off most of your dragons, but uh that part wasn't planned, probably.)

Anyway that's why I think the Targaryens are Like That, and why the dragons of the Dance get tamed in the way that they do. Seasmoke likes Addam because he's kin to Laenor, even without the Targaryen blood, there's enough Velaryon blood in the current Targaryens to make him familiar regardless. Sheepstealer and Nettles (should that happen at all like it did in Fire and Blood) just bonded the normal way, without the blood magic advantage. Generations later, Targaryen blood still yields an edge in interacting with Dany's dragons, but it's just that -- an advantage, not a requirement.

[windvexer]

Hello!

I've seen you talk a few times about the dangers of over-warding, which I can certainly see the sense in; at the same time, wards can also certainly be useful things. I'd like to ask you: in your opinion, what is the most sensible amount of wards to have? Does it make sense to ward (oneself, one's home, whatever) at all if you don't have a reason to expect attacks or infringements?

Good morning!

We're at least in reference to this post.

The silly answer is, but I promise to explain it so that it's useful, the most sensible amount of wards to have is however many cover your needs.

I think the topic of warding is often framed in relation to attacks and retaliation, which it certainly relates to. But I think that also gives it a bit of a crusty patina, if you will: "I don't have main character syndrome; I'm not one of those witches who's so paranoid that everyone is going to attack them, and I don't mess around with spirits, so warding isn't for people like me."

Which is all well and good, but the idea of warding in and of itself is that it's just a barrier that stops things from coming through.

Wards can hypothetically block out anything: malifica and spirits, sure, but also unwanted guests, solicitors, debts, poverty, stress, illness, spam phone calls, and spiders.

"Attacks" may not be common, but tangles of unhelpful energy, the Evil Eye, and blustery storms of ill-effect aren't all that rare. Just because someone didn't aim at you and pull the trigger doesn't mean that your life will remain void of deleterious energies.

Spirits living their lives will infringe on you, not because you're the main character or because they're malicious, but because the two of you live in the same reality and sometimes your lives intersect in unwanted ways.

And you can accidentally infringe, and then spirits can be offended and decided to make it your problem.

So in a certain sense, not having wards because you don't expect attacks or infringements is like not having house rules because you don't expect your room mates to ever do anything upsetting:

On the one hand, it's perfectly fine to wait until something is happening before you deal with it.

On the other hand, some people prefer to say, "welcome to the house! Please don't invite your friends to stay the night without checking with us first."

Another confounding factor is whether or not you tend to draw spirits to you, as some people do; and whether or not you live in an area with very high spiritual activity. If you live in a paranormal activity desert, baseline wards might not be useful at all, whereas someone who has sensitive psychic perception and lives in an old converted mortuary might need lots of baseline protection just to feel comfortable.

But perhaps the most important deciding factor is whether or not you want to deal with it.

Early on in my education I heard a witch of great experience say, "the more experienced you get, the less wards you need. You get to a point where you can just deal with things as they arise instead of needing to stay walled in all the time."

Which is technically true. However they may manifest on the astral plane, the functional effect of a ward is like a bug screen: it's likely to stop or mitigate whatever it's meant to hold out.

The real question then becomes, what things would you prefer to never deal with, and what things are you comfortable dealing with as they arise?

Wards should be for that - the things that you would just like to not ever have to deal with, even if you don't particularly expect them to darken your doorstep.

Wards can be useful because they are proactive and preventative. A ward to stop bad energies and stress from your workplace following you home can help reduce the need for more regular spiritual hygiene. A ward against uninvited spirits can help stop you from getting distracted from the magical work you actually want to be doing.

So a ward is like a wall. Does it make sense to build a wall around your farm, even if you never expect a raid from the neighbors?

I don't expect raids from my neighbors. I still build walls.

[drdemonprince]

I've noticed a pattern in anticapitalist books I read (specifically I'm talking abt Mark Fisher here, in Capitalist Realism). They do this great anticapitalist analysis etc and then go on to critique their students? and sometimes it's a bit ableist? it's like all the critical thought goes out of the window and they cannot understand the situation because for once suddenly they are in the authoritative position. It always gives me this "I don't understand these kids, back in my day-" vibe, and I see this with lecturers at university too. like Mark Fisher maybe we can think outside the box about your student who "needs" headphones to focus in class "even though no music is playing". and maybe it's not to do with the "Matrix"(????) I'm well aware this was written in 2008 but it's weird that I see this pattern continue today. Not to mention Mark Fisher took part in some ableist studies, and was a guy with questionable intentions on occasion.

it's like you Just said that reducing labour is good why are you calling your students lazy, that's so unprofessional and privileged. I wonder of coincidence that he is anti-meds when his right wing, pro-eugenics, accelerationist friend was addicted to amphetamines.

Or even just the amount of people who have written books about laziness and anticapitalism (excluding you) and just saying the most contradictory shit ever?? or not following their own ideology???

Anyway, I wonder if, when writing Laziness Does Not Exist, you came across any of this and were equally as baffled.

Materialism is just *so* true that high-status academics don't have a vested class interest in seeing their student struggles as legitimate or in recognizing the struggles of disabled people in general. For many edgy academic leftists having the correct opinions is just a way to flex one's intellectual status, not a lived experience they give a shit about. I'm not shitting Fisher in particular in saying this, it's more that it's a really widespread problem in the culture of these kinds of (very white, very academic, very cishet) leftists communities. You see the same kind of thing among some of the Chapo stan types, too, you don't have to be specifically an academic to do it -- lots of people throwing around the r-slur and flexing on how much they have read and doing fuck all for the oppressed people around them. I tend to find it especially common among people who inherited leftism from their (often academic) parents? Whereas leftist communities populated by Black & brown anarchists and working class people tend to fare a lot better in this particular respect.

Note that I'm not saying a person's identities are a guarantee of them being any more radical -- there's lots of liberals lurking in our midsts of all identities for instance -- more that someone's orientation toward power tells you a lot. and unfortunately there is an approach to leftism that puts a lot of stock in either institutional power via the academy, or in a kind of soft power of intellectual authoritativeness that tends to punish anyone who is supposedly less well read, less intelligent, lazy, needs disability accommodations, has trauma triggers, or what have you.

The simple answer is that power and privilege obscures other people's challenges from you, and the desire to preserve one's power (be it actually institutional academic authority or just the status of the person who supposedly knows the most in the room) leads to a lot of oppressive behavior. a lot of these guys that you're talking about believe in communism sincerely but they don't have humility, they believe themselves to be superior to most everyone else. and they tend to be white guys from wealthy families who either do not have any disabilities of their own, or they have the undiagnosed intj mastermind rational flavor of autism that makes you feel incredibly alienated from others but interpret that alienation as a sign of your intellectual superiority. (i had this type but i got better. a little)

[an-spideog]

I'll discuss this in my next video if I ever get around to making it, but a lot of learners tend to pronounce words like an and ag with an undue amount of stress.

Examples of Native Speakers

"A John Joe, tá mé ag déanamh an rud... críostúil" (John Joe, I'm doing the... christian thing)

Here we hear the ag skipped entirely, and the vowel in an reduced.

"Ehhh... bíodh na naipicíní i gcónaí ar an mbord a Sadie" (Ehhh... always have the napkins on the table Sadie)

Here we hear the 'n' dropped and the vowel again reduced, "ar a mbord".

"Mar tá mé ag obair" (Because I'm working)

Here we hear the vowel in "ag" reduced, but the "g" pronounced before the vowel. like "tá mé gobair"

Explanation

Similar to how in English we often reduce common words like "the" (we don't always say it with the "thee" sound, often it's just an "uh"), or we reduce "and" to "n" (To the point where people will think things like "Case in point" are "Case and point").

When I say "reduce" in this, that's basically what it means, the vowel just becoming a more relaxed "uh" sound. (See the notes for more information on this sound).

In Irish, at regular speeds of speech, an is not usually pronounced with the /a/ vowel you might expect, it usually gets reduced down to /ə/ which is the symbol we use for that neutral unstressed vowel, like what you might have in "the" a lot of the time. And also, in many situations, the n can be dropped entirely. It's similar for ag, which most learners correctly know to pronounce like eig (it's spelt with an 'a' for historical reasons, but the preposition is usually pronounced with an /e/ sound), and it is like that when used as a preposition generally. But when it's used with verbal nouns for the "to be x-ing" construction, it's usually reduced down to the /ə/ sound again. And the 'g' only gets pronounced before vowels.

Notes

More about the /ə/ sound:

This kind of reduction to /ə/ happens with most short 'grammar' words you can think of: an, na, i, mo, a, ar (when used as a verb particle), sa and others

I don't have a specific source for this post, but you can find this information in basically any dialectal study, so things like Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne, The Irish of West Muskerry, The Irish of Iorras Aithneach, etc.

I would've included the other clips as videos but apparently I can only upload one video to a post :(

Let me know if you found this kind of thing interesting, commentary on examples of native speakers

All speakers in these examples are from Galway, just because I have the most clips of those from Ros na Rún

If you have a keen ear you may have noticed that bord was pronounced with the Conamara pronunciation, /baurd/

If you have any questions about this stuff please ask, I love talking about it

[gotta-pet-em-all]

Pokemon-induced healing

And why you fuckers shouldn't rely on it for everything, Arceus fuck stop forcing your poor Chansey to take care of wounds that you should seriously go to the hospital for

* * * * *

okay. SO. To preface this, I volunteered in a Pokemon center for a while. And while this was just a volunteer position and not something I had medical training for, I've also got personal experience. Due to my poor coordination and shitty connective tissue, I tend to fall over, bump into things, and bruise very easily. So trust me when I say I know what I'm talking about.

So, how does pokemon healing work?

That's a fucking complicated question. So, let's start with the healing moves and narrow it down. The main ones I'm going to be talking about here are Heal Pulse, Life Dew, and Floral Healing.

Actually no I'm not qualified to talk about Floral Healing. If any comfey trainers wanna add on, feel free.

Heal pulse and life dew! So, Heal Pulse is the one I have the most familiarity with, and it's essentially a wave of energy that encourages your body to accelerate the natural healing process. No, it does not artificially age you, and it will not reduce your lifespan, but let's be real for a moment. If you get injured and need healing that much, your lifespan may be in danger for other reasons.

However. There are other dangers to it that really aren't talked about a lot, namely: repairing tissue damage, and infection. There are a lot of situations in which heal pulse can be risky:

-injured person has an artificially suppressed or otherwise compromised immune system.

-injured person has a heart condition, particularly where arrhythmia is a symptom

-injury is infected or contains foreign substance

-dead tissue is still attached to affected area

And I'm gonna break down one by one, why all of these are bad!

So, it's not quite as well known, but heal pulse actually does have an impact on the immune system. In ancient times, it was believed that cursed pokemon would make you sick when they healed you, but in actuality, this phenomenon was simply the pokemon kicking the immune system into gear for a minor/dormant infection that would have happened anyways. However, this can be dangerous for people with a compromised immune system, because you're basically trying to squeeze blood from a stone. In most cases, it can make their immune systems worse, and while this is thankfully temporary, it's still deeply unpleasant and may interfere with someone's plans because you've abruptly shunted them to the hospital when they were going to have brunch with the girls this week instead.

Next is arrhythmia. I've got this one, it flares up from time to time. I cannot stress enough that disabled people are everywhere. We don't just exist as tokens at the edge of your imagination. We're probably at the grocery store or on public transportation. It may just be that I'm a bit jaded, but it pisses me off more than anything that I have to experience symptoms when I would love to be frolicking through the woods. Anyways, heal pulse relies on the heartbeat to synchronize with and distribute the energy-- so when the heartbeat is uneven? Things can start getting a lil fucky. Usually this results in dizziness, nausea, feeling flushed, and on rare occasions fainting. People with heart conditions are more common than you think, please ask us before messing with our bodies.

Third thing is infections. Remember how I said that heal pulse kicks your immune system into overdrive? Well, the immune system is responsible for expelling all foreign matter from your system, not just illness. This is why you'll want to make sure to clean a wound first, unless it's urgent. You can skip the wound cleaning part if it's an emergency, but... it's not really pretty. Seriously. I don't advise it.

Fourth reason! Okay, so, this is gonna be a little gross, but let's say you trip and skin your knee. It's bleeding, you've got a weird little flap of skin hanging off. Normally, that skin will turn white (or at least it does for me; I have light skin, but I'm told it may turn a pale greyish color for people with dark skin. That said, I'm gonna be real. I do not want to look up pictures, so I am trusting the dark skinned folks reading this to know what dead/peeling skin looks like for them) and eventually fall off. HOWEVER. If you apply heal pulse to it? There's a decent chance that your body may attempt to revitalize the dead skin at the same time as it scabs over the wound and then the skin closes up and eats the scab. It won't kill you, and eventually the extra flap of skin will die, but it's still. Geh. It's really not pleasant. Don't do it.

If this sounds fucking horrifying, that's because it is! All of these things are fucking horrifying to happen to your body! Don't ask me how I know this!

Now that you've all been suitably terrified of the dangers of heal pulse, let me introduce you to an alternative: life dew! Life dew does not interfere with arrhythmia, can be stored with special preparation, and generally has much weaker effects. It tends to help with the process of clotting and scabbing more so than healing, so if you've made any mistakes, they're generally easier to remedy.

Pokemon healing, like any other type, requires consent. Yes, there are exceptions-- sometimes a person cannot reasonably consent in their current state, or there was an accident with a wild scyther and consent is the last thing on your mind with all the blood everywhere. Even so, please always keep in mind that you need to respect the sanctity of other people's bodies and take accountability for your actions as a trainer.

That's all!

[my-deer-friend]

I have a two part question if that is okay!

1) What graduate program are you doing? Is it online? What was the application process and admission like? I really would like to get a graduate degree in history but I don't know if I could up and move for a year or so to get it.

2) How do you combat bias in your research? I know I struggle with preconceived ideas that I have or what I hope to be true, I just wonder if you have any advice!

Thank you so much for your blog and research! It's so interesting and informative!

Hi, friend!

I've skirted around it, but I'll say it outright here – I'm not going to say what program I'm taking. It's not online, but there are many, many such options out there that are. You'll have to do the research for yourself and see what fits your needs and goals. And the process is going to differ vastly by country and institution, so I can't be any help there either.

Now, as for biases.

All people have biases. Step one is to acknowledge that you have them, and try to pin down what they might be, remembering that even "positive" biases can be detrimental to good academic work. (Do some reading about unconscious bias. It’s eye-opening.)

Other people have biases too – that applies both to primary as well as secondary sources. Always ask: Who wrote this? To whom? From what perspective? With what goal, motive, ideology? What are they trying to convince the reader of? I always like to do a quick "bias check" before I start reading – who are the authors, and how might that shape their perspective? (For example: one of my readings by a British scholar very firmly tried to make the case that English, and not French or other continental European writers, were really the ones responsible for the Enlightenment. Now, that may be right, but I'm going to take that with a huge pinch of salt.)

In academia, your biases tend to be enforced by what you read, so the best way to minimise them in the first place is to learn how to vet the quality of sources, to read broadly, and to be critical of all of it. This is a challenge in sociocultural historical research, because we don't really know what someone meant, or felt, or did in between the points of evidence that we have, so a large degree of interpretation is present. And that is where the bias hides.

As soon as I get that "I want this to be true" feeling, I stop and examine it, because that's usually a sign that wishful thinking is filling in the gaps in my research. I wouldn't need to be wishing if I could back the claim up, right? So I look for the holes and the leaps of logic, and find a way to address them, and sometimes that means I'm proven wrong. (You will often be wrong. This is normal, common and good.)

I also find that bias creeps in more easily when making a broad and sweeping assessment than a more specific one. "So-and-so was gay" is a claim that is rarely possible to prove to any degree of academic certainty, but "this interaction between X and Y shows there was a homoromantic dimension to their friendship" is both useful and provable. Scaling down the claim you are trying to make (and the stakes you personally feel in making it) can really help to reduce your bias.

And of course, the tried and tested method – try to disprove your own claim. Have you missed any straightforward alternative explanations? Have you left unfavourable evidence out? Have you "creatively" used a source to make your point? (Biographers stop doing this; challenge level impossible). Are you leaning on logical fallacies or making excessively large logical leaps at the core of your argument? Would someone without your agenda be compelled to come to the same conclusion? And so on. Get someone to read over it and do a "wikipedia edit" (citation needed; said by who?; sources dispute this, etc.).

Good luck!

[aspd-culture]

Well, since I’m having a massive flare manifesting (at the moment) as the bone-itching urges, I guess I might as well turn it into something productive.

So, mostly for people who are trying to understand what it’s like living with ASPD more than people who know they have it, here’s the best description of it I can give - should be better than most of my previous attempts because it is currently all I can think about anyway!

In my experience, these urges are after things in one of three categories: impulsive, destructive, and disruptive. Note that these are just the categories I personally made up to help me understand what exactly my ASPD is after and how to explain it to my loved ones so they can get an idea of how to help.

Impulsive - Doing something, anything, *right now* with no planning, notice, or thought about it. No questions asked, let’s just go. These tend to be the least harmful and the easiest category to find replacement behaviors in. Examples (both of destructive behaviors and replacement behaviors) are unplanned road trips, large purchases, long/aimless walks, etc. Anything that causes a change in scenery tends to go here, as well as anything that very well *should* be planned out but isn’t.

Coping strategies that may help: If you have ASPD, sometime when you are calmest (maybe right after satisfying one of these urges so you know it won’t be coming again for a while) pack a bag of some kind to keep in your trunk or backseat with everything you might need for one of these including spare keys to your house if your area is safe to do that in/if your trunk locks separately from your car - because really, are you likely to remember them in the moment? - 2 phone chargers (just in case one breaks) with both a wall brick and a car charger, at least 1 set of spare clothes you don’t care about never wearing besides for this, travel shampoo, conditioner, soap, and toothpaste and a disposable toothbrush, at least a day’s worth of any medication you take, enough money to get any essentials but not so much that you mind if it gets lost or stolen - sweet spot of maybe like $20 to $30?, etc. Think “I have to spend a night in a hotel and can’t bring anything but my phone” because you know if you have to remember anything, you won’t and/or the replacement behavior won’t work. If your loved one has ASPD, I can’t speak for everyone, but I would *love* it if my partner did this for me so when I get impulsive we could just *go*. It might be best if you drive tho so they can crank up the music and enjoy the ride without the responsibility. Another would be to set aside some money separate from your normal savings just for this. Whilst it can make money tight and isn’t an option for everyone, it’s important to balance the burden of planning for money to be tight vs coming out of a flare realizing you spent rent money on a console/laptop/tablet/new phone/speaker system/etc.

Destructive - Breaking something, someone, or myself. These are the common ones you think of by the criteria; picking fights, breaking things, hurting yourself/others, sh and sui attempts, drvgs, drinking, smoking, gambling etc. If it can damage person or property, it tends to be in this category. In my experience the most dopamine comes from the first time you do these behaviors, so these things may seem super out of character for the person in question.

Coping strategies are hard to find with this category; really just lean into harm reduction vs stopping them. As much as it sucks, if you have a loved one with ASPD in your life and they are trying to do something destructive, you can’t just stop them unless you have a replacement behavior they seem into trying out in the moment. If you do, you’re pushing it in the direction of causing harm to you because we *need* to fill these urges somehow. I’m not saying just let them harm themselves or someone else - I’m saying reduce the harm as much as possible without taking the “fun” out of it because then it won’t work and the pwASPD will again be forced to find something else to fill this urge. For me, the longer the urges go on, the more intense the behavior has to be to work.

Disruptive - Doing or saying something that would warrant a “what the fuck?”. This includes breaking into abandoned places, lying for the hell of it, buying something you don’t even want or need, yelling in a quiet room, cheating, etc. If it causes a serious change in routine or subverts expectations, it tends to be in this category.

Coping strategies that may help: to be honest many of these don’t need a replacement behavior because many of them are a lil out there but aren’t really hurting anyone. If you see a pwASPD you care about playing Webkinz at 3AM trying to find out which swear words they can successfully name their pet, mind your business. If you do need to replace the behavior, though, lean into the idea of novelty. Is there a mall you’ve never been to around you and you have a bit of money to burn? Go check it out. Do you have a pool that you could swim in despite it being like 65 degrees (F) and raining (not storming)? Go for it. Does sleeping sound lame as hell, but sleeping on your dog’s bed sound more appealing? You got it dude. Wanna read a book upside down? I will be the first in line to tell you how awesome that is once you’re done. Pull a Joey from friends and see how many pairs of your underwear you can put on at once. Move all your furniture an inch to the left to mess with your roommate. This has a lot of overlap with advice I would give to pwADHD as well and a lot of it is basically chaotic neutral activities.

For me, my urges don’t always pick one category, sometimes anything from any one of these will help. However, I find it best to try and take the thing my ASPD wants to do (said thing is almost always a bad idea for one reason or another) and look to replace it within the same category. The only thing is that you want to have the ideas for this on deck for when the urges hit because if your brain has to come up with a replacement behavior in the moment, good ideas will become useless because it doesn’t *want* to replace the behavior, it wants to do it.

Again, these won’t all work for everyone, but they are at least how I experience my urges and tricks I use to keep them from getting the better of me. As always, ymmv and I do not take responsibility for anything that may come of how you choose to respond to your urges. Many things mentioned in here are examples to describe the urge, not suggestions, and therefore things that are illegal and/or dangerous have been mentioned. I do not advocate for anything illegal or dangerous. Still, I hope this helps someone.

[ms-demeanor]

Quick question about Framework laptops: Can you not actually upgrade the motherboards on them? Because their site/Ifixit makes it look like you can.

https://guides.frame.work/Guide/Mainboard+Replacement+Guide/79?lang=en

It has admittedly been a few years since I looked at their site and it does look like they've launched an upgradeable motherboard.

I will admit that this doesn't necessarily do much to quell my skepticism, for this reason:

When I first started working with computers professionally in 2011 it was maybe a 70/30 split between SATA/IDE drives that came in with laptops and it was still quite common to pick up PCs with 32bit operating systems.

About 5 years ago it started becoming more normal for us to send computers out of the shop with either an SSD and an HDD or just an SSD.

Then it went to M.2s. Then NVMEs.

About every three to four years I've watched memory technology change - when I started is was DDR3, then DDR3L, then DDR4, and DDR5 has been shipping recently.

When I look at the Framework website I see that all the DDR4 is on sale and all the DDR5 is pre-order. Is motherboard that's compatible with DDR5 going to be backwards compatible with the parts of your framework laptop - like the keyboard, screen connections, battery, etc, that you've ordered over the years? Apparently the last three generations have been compatible for major components, but there have been issues with chargers between generations. It won't be compatible with the RAM, that's for sure - or your M.2 drive.

At that point you're replacing the motherboard every couple of years and possibly other components and will just be keeping the frame and body? I feel aluminum is not the biggest extractive concern associated with computer manufacturing. (Like at what point are we reducing actual waste and at what point are we bound up in aesthetics? If you're replacing your motherboard, processor, RAM, and storage drive every few years what is the waste that you're saving - the screen? The touchpad? how many motherboard cycles do you think a screen will last?)

Basically I have doubts about the durability of the modular model and the ability of framework to keep pace with the inevitable changes that will happen in computer technology as time goes on.

And if you have to replace your motherboard, processor, and RAM every two to three years to stay up to date I'm really not certain that I see much advantage (ecologically or technologically) in doing that over using a single laptop for 7+ years and upgrading it periodically.

Basically, here, what this user on the framework subreddit says:

(I'm not certain that IS the minority of users - tons of people on the specs post are talking about their 10-15 year old laptops, and I feel like if we could teach people more about computers from a purchasing and maintenance standpoint we'd have more people using their computers for ten years)

And also, it's expensive. The motherboard upgrade for a framework owner is as much as a lot of people would hope to spend on a new computer, and you'd still have to get new RAM at a minimum.

And I mean look I know that I think about computer part compatibility more than most people; i have probably purchased more computers in my life than anybody but corporate buyers at this point.

I think that framework is a great option for the people who know that that's the option that they want, but there seems to be the assumption among the community that people are blithely buying computers every two years and throwing out the old ones because they don't know any better and that misses a couple of points:

1 - most people work as hard as possible to get the most out of their computers, often pushing past the realistic ability to upgrade or maintain their existing devices

2 - people who do replace their computers on a 2-3 year schedule tend to do so either because they are very wealthy or because they are pretty broke. Most people who I encounter would *love* to keep their computers longer, but also find that $400 is prohibitively expensive and so are stuck in a cycle of refurbs and chromebooks and black friday sales.

Basically i think that framework is a great idea for people who need to have a new top of the line computer every three years; it is an improvement over buying a new computer every three years, it is doing the "re-use" bit of reduce, re-use, recycle.

However I think that's not most users and I think we could pretty easily get to a place where more users would benefit from reducing through better proactive purchases and maintenance.

Basically: I'm leery of telling people who aren't power users to get a power user computer even if it is theoretically easier to install RAM in a framework than to pop the bottom off of a Dell because it's not actually that hard to pop the bottom off of a Dell.

IDK the entire computer industry is fucked in a major way and at least framework is acknowledging that so props to them on that, and hey it rules that they have a refurb marketplace. That is definitely a company I'd trust for refurbished devices.

[polyabathtub]

Apropos of absolutely nothing (my dash losing its collective shit about the Panthers victory celebrations, me repeatedly seeing videos and going “lol that man is most certainly not drunk”), here’s some info on how one might be able to tell that someone is taking MDMA (aka Molly, ecstasy). The common term for this is rolling*.

Disclaimer: I do not actually know what specific people may or may not have taken, I’m just providing some useful information for my fellow fic writers (fic stands for fiction!) should they decide to write fiction inspired by some of the amazing content we saw last week.

I have heart problems so have never been able to take it myself—but I’m friends with a lot of burners**, and have been blessed with the opportunity to participate in MDMA-fueled cuddle piles. It’s a good time but it can also be dangerous, and it doesn’t mix well with a lot of common medications (particularly antidepressants).

MDMA is a party drug. It makes things like pretty lights and textures more interesting. If you’ve seen “Someone Great” on Netflix, Jenny getting super into textures is a pretty good representation (it’s also one of my favorite movies, but be warned you WILL cry). I couldn’t find a gif within 0.2 seconds of searching so you don’t get one, sorry.

MDMA causes muscle clenching. Taking magnesium helps (magnesium threonate for the brain, magnesium glycinate or bisglycinate are also good for muscle spasms, not too tough on digestion and cheaper). It’s also rough on the brain. Taking something like NAC can reduce risk, but in general MDMA isn’t something that’s safe to do frequently, even if you have a good source and you’re testing your drugs before taking them. I’m not an expert on safe use so I’m not going to give specific recs here, but the people I know who take it research heavily and pregame with supplements.

The other thing that’s key—electrolytes. MDMA messes with electrolyte homeostasis, so it’s important to stay hydrated, and that hydration should be more than just water. If I were, say, a professional athlete celebrating a championship win with Molly, I would probably carry around a bottle of something like pedialyte to sip from (though my personal preference would be a sports-oriented sugar containing supplement like Skratch or LMNT).

MDMA removes your inhibitions to physical contact, particularly with people you’re already positively oriented towards. So, slow dancing with your teammates? Absently groping your teammate’s chest while half paying attention? Literally hanging off of whoever is next to you all night? Molly.

MDMA wrecks pupil reflexes, so anyone taking it who is outside of their natural environment (a dark room with interesting lights) is easily recognizable by their absolutely massive pupils. Or squinting like hell when they hit bright lights***.

MDMA keeps you from sleeping until it wears off. The high lasts 3-6 hours but it’ll probably keep you awake until the morning. Also, when it wears off it often causes molly blues, which might last for a few minutes or hours or sometimes up to a couple of days. Essentially, MDMA floods the brain with serotonin, and when it wears off, it can take some time for things to re-equilibrate.

My point here: I really think there’s a lot of fanfic potential in certain Panthers (Barky) trying this thing for the first time and having an amazing night and then suddenly feeling some big “oh god now that I’ve won it, who do I become?” feelings that <player of your choice> then helps them through.

*for an example of “rolling” in a sentence, see this quote from my recent fic wie viel:

Leon briefly regretted not wearing a hat, or maybe sunglasses, which were fairly effective as a disguise but tended to make people assume he was already rolling—the man wasn’t acting like he’d recognized him, though.

That fic relies on Leon showing up to a private party with a ton of cash (because he’s leaving open the option of buying drugs and also isn’t sure how expensive the party will be) and keeping his face bare (so people won’t assume he’s already set for the night). This conveniently enables the misunderstanding that drives the rest of the plot.

**burners: people who go to Burning Man. This is not a euphemism but it probably could be. If you aren’t sure if any of your friends are burners, don’t worry—they’ll tell you! (I say this with affection, but it is exactly like when your childhood friends got back from summer camp and wouldn’t shut up about it for weeks)

***yes I am thinking of a specific photo of a specific 2-way cat

[andreal831]

Do you think Mikael genuinely loved Esther?

No...?

It's hard because we see so little of their interactions.

We don't see any of their interactions in Dahlia and Esther's flashbacks in Season 2, which I think would have been the only time that Mikael did genuinely love her if he did. From what Esther tells Dahlia, it seems like Mikael and Esther were spending time together and he made her feel safe and loved. I do question if this love was genuine or if it was simply Esther's naivety. Esther had just watched her family be slaughtered and kidnapped by the village she was now being held captive in. She wasn't in the best mental state to be falling in love. She was also, I believe, fairly young and easy to take advantage of given everything.

It was clear that Dahlia and Esther were not fully accepted into the village given how they enslaved Dahlia. Just because we didn't see Esther being treated the same, doesn't mean she was welcomed. So I see it one of two ways. Mikael genuinely fell in love with Esther and was willing to face the consequences of marrying an outsider. Or, the one I think is more likely, Mikael was "encouraged" by his father/village leaders to marry Esther to secure Dahlia for life. This was fairly common for the time.

Esther does say that Mikael was better before Freya's "death," but that, to me, just means he wasn't physically abusive. There is a low bar with Mikael. I also think that any love for Esther he may have had died when Freya "died." It does seem that Mikael blamed her for Freya's death. The only joy he got back was after Klaus' birth when he thought he had found his warrior son. As Klaus got older, he became angry that Klaus wasn't the warrior he wanted him to be. Mikael never recovered from that anger. He may have felt fondness for Esther for giving him a warrior son, but that again would have disappeared as he grew disappointed in Klaus.

I don't even think Mikael's anger at Klaus killing Esther was about Esther really. Rather it was about Klaus taking what belonged to him. Even how they interact in TO doesn't suggest any love lost. I wish we could have seen them interact more in TO or TVD. A lot of Esther's backstory gets erased or told through other characters which causes the fandom to reduce her to a two dimensional character. Fleshing out her relationship with Mikael would have been really interesting, but they didn't do it because they didn't want to humanize Klaus' excuses. The show focuses on male villains as abuse victims, but tends to erase the women in these stories or even justify the abuse they suffered.

So the short answer is I don't know because the show didn't bother to give Esther a backstory. But to me, it doesn't seem like he did. If he did, it didn't last long.

Thanks for the ask!

[sneakyboymerlin]

I have one silly goofy rule: if you vague me, I won’t always be as transparent in return… especially when you call me a bitch. I also enjoy literary and media analysis as a hobby (there’s a reason it’s my best subject lol), so I don’t exactly mind a chance to talk on it.

Gwen’s boobs visible below the cut.

Breaking: Tumblr user “Arthur The People’s Princess,” who calls Arthur a “tsundere,”’calls ME a bitch and accuses ppl who think Merlin is not a villain of “babygirlifying” him 😭😭😭 very “do as I say, not as I do.” liiiike at LEAST say it on anon 💀💀💀

But this is even funnier because… the show’s main tactic to make Arthur appear superior was by only ever contrasting him to people far worse than he is (e.g. Uther or the villagers in 5x03). But they had a second tactic, where they would “make a character ooc so their fave would seem better.” For example, the 4x03 deleted scene btwn him and Gwen (thank god they deleted it), the format and characterization in 5x01-5x03, etc. It is quite clear that they set up conversations to tell-don’t-show how grand Arthur is, even though he is surrounded by people who have the exact same standards and more. He is coddled by the narrative as a form of overcompensation for his flaws and dormant character progression. This is also influenced by his status as a rich nobleman (prince, then king) wherein a servant like Gwen believing that commoners are just as worthy as nobles means nothing, yet a king believing in this somehow makes him uniquely worthy. Credit and reward is unevenly distributed.

This “babygirlifying” of Arthur (calling him a tsundere and princess) is a pretty obvious attempt to dismiss his serious faults (the bigotry that leads him to act tyrannical towards magical peoples, continuing his father’s genocidal legacy). Because white cishet women are typically viewed as weak and harmless, comparing or associating a character with “womanly” traits/tropes can be used to give the impression of harmlessness or innocence. This is, of course, misogynistic, among other uses.

The slight against Gwaine is also very interesting, because it tends to be the type of merthur shipper that the op is, not the people who pay attention to Gwaine, who reduce him down to “clown manwhore.” But more on that later.

The show is centered on Arthur’s need to progress from a stuck-up bigot into the king who will fulfill the prophecies, bringing peace back to the five kingdoms and returning magic to the land… so why is it so difficult to understand why people might pay attention to Arthur fulfillment of (or lack thereof) the story’s structural promise? Other people possessing flaws does not negate Arthur’s flaws, which had a wide impact due to his excess of power, wealth, and reputation.

Gwaine being tentative towards magic, Morgana indulging in tyranny, and Merlin’s questionable navigation of prophecy do not in any way rescind Arthur’s central flaws. He is the one who continued to ban magic, despite Gaius making Dragoon’s innocence clear in 4x07, despite accepting the Dolma’s aid in 5x09, despite the unicorn incident in 1x11, right after a sorcerer saved his life in 1x10. And still, after a sorcerer saved his life in 1x04. After he recognized how many Druids had been slaughtered for their association with magic. These are events he knew about but chose to ignore to stay in his comfort zone (idolizing Uther and justifying his own privileges).

Also, the fact that op can only approach this topic through a merthur lens (the comments about Arthur and Gwaine both imply merthur) is more telling than any analysis I could write. Merlin and Gwaine do not exist only in relation to Arthur. We’re not the ones reducing him down to “clown manwhore,” because unlike op, we don’t see his character or connections as trivial by comparison. I know I for one have written multiple analyses on Gwaine’s characterization, traumas, and beliefs — flaws and all — because I believe there is more to him than many surface-level readings ascribe. Try looking in a mirror next time you say it.

Toodles 🛳️

[gingerylangylang1979]

Carmy, Sydney, and Marcus... Because We Will Never Shut Up About It.

Deep thoughts while waiting for the feeling to come back to my mouth after a dental procedure, so forgive me if this is all over the place:

The dynamics between Carmy, Sydney, and Marcus have sparked endless posts due to key scenes in E7 and E8. Most takes seem to be polarized to either sympathize with Carmy or sympathize with Sydney and Marcus. I’m here to say a binary view is a reductive take. I’m approaching this from a perspective of social consciousness, personal experience, and objectivity needed when creating meaningful commentary on media. Hell, I’m even going to say it’s crucial to analyzing culture in general. Ignoring these factors is much of the reason people fail in relating to each other and moving forward together from a place of understanding and commonality. I’m probably going to piss some people off with my points but please at least read to the end and then be pissed off all you want. 

The usual opinions regarding these three tend to fall into two camps. One, Carmy failed and is a horrible boss and his white man pain does not excuse his behavior and Sydney and Marcus are at no fault and are trying to reach excellence, within a system that is not in their favor, without proper support. Two, Sydney and Marcus are totally to blame for what happened and Carmy deserved to snap and shouldn’t have apologized or accepted them back. Both opinions are usually presented simplistically, sometimes with a few more shades of nuance, but essentially this is the essence of what I’m seeing voiced. Strictly agreeing with one or the other is not accurate. 

My conclusions from take one are that Sydney and Marcus are deserving of leadership that will foster and guide their development to a higher level but Carmy in his current state is incapable of giving them what they need. That doesn’t make him a monster, it makes him human, regardless if he is a white man in pain or not. I don’t know any man or woman in his situation that wouldn’t be struggling given his lived experience. I don’t know any human who is having panic attacks at the drop of a dime, is always on the verge of tears, is still freshly grieving, dissociates, and sleep cooks who would be able to give new employees their best and maintain composure at all times. It’s just not realistic. Just because someone has authority doesn’t mean they can deliver what is needed at all times. 

Sydney and Marcus are both young Black professionals striving for more in Carmy’s kitchen under his uneasy authority. He isn’t looking at them as employees to mentor, he's looking at them as talented resources to help foster stability. That’s where he is at with them professionally. That’s all he has to give. It’s a case of bad timing, not a bad person. Sydney and Marcus were not getting the leadership they desperately needed and their lived experiences aren’t recognized but despite their lived experiences they would still be in the same scenario. Anybody coming into that kitchen would not be getting Carmy’s best. That sucks but it is what it is. 

Much has been said about how we shouldn’t dismiss the relationship between Carmy and Sydney as mentor and mentee because she has stellar credentials, is a superb cook, is a capable leader (in ways Carmy fails), has business experience, and has saved The Beef many times. She is invaluable. So I agree that we shouldn’t just reduce her to a mentee in Carmy’s kitchen. But she did seek to work with him for a reason. She does think she can learn from him. So while she may not be super subordinate to him she herself acknowledges that she has something to gain from him. She told this to Richie in E2. She said they could ALL learn a lot from him. She wants to get to the level of perfection she reveres him for. He made the best dish she’s ever had. She is seeking something from him she didn’t get in her previous experiences, even as her own boss. That does not diminish her, that’s saying basically what her words and actions have shown us. Carmy gave her a title but he never outlined the dynamic and was wishy-washy. One minute she is “everything else” the next he’s “Yes, Cheffing” her. She was confused on where she stood at any time. When he gave feedback or tried to get her on point he never explained how or why. When he snapped at her about Tina’s insubordination I think he was trying to get her to see it didn’t matter, he wasn’t going to micromanage personal dynamics and she needed to steer the ship and do what needed to get service back on track. Instead of that he just barked. Instead of telling her what was up with the risotto and offering to workshop it with her, he was just dismissive and offered a wet eyed apology. He failed to communicate properly when she urgently needed it. 

Marcus is totally new to elevated cuisine having worked at McDonald’s and his time at The Beef under Michael. Once he sees that Carmy and Sydney are coming from a whole other world he is intrigued and wants more. Moving from bread baking to becoming a real pastry chef is his vision. Another establishment may have gotten rid of him once they outsourced bread but he was kept on and given a new trajectory. He admirably catches a spark and runs with it. He starts putting in the work to immerse himself in fine patisserie knowledge and practice. Carmy does allow Marcus space to experiment. He does give Sydney authority to lead. But what he offers them is messy, undefined, and not fully realized because he isn’t capable and he is unaware of how this is being internalized by them. 

Mentally, he doesn’t have the bandwidth and he also doesn’t have a healthy model to reference. We all know it takes a lot of work for someone abused to break the cycle of abuse. All he knows is his own experience. It’s easy to say okay dude, don’t do that but it's harder to just flick a switch and be different. It’s even harder when you are in your own crisis mode and are starting from fucked. Carmy’s trauma can’t just be switched off nor can his bad habits. He tries, he fails. It’s not an excuse but it is an explanation. He is a white man in pain but he’s also human. Sydney and Marcus happen to be at the receiving end. Not fair, but also not intentional. He knows he wants to do better, better just didn’t come fast enough. 

My conclusions from take two are that Sydney and Marcus did make mistakes but they are not worthy of continued blame and Carmy should learn from his loss of control. Sydney totally deserves a pass. As mentioned, she came through for the team big time on numerous occasions. When she quit that’s when Carmy went into full meltdown. Him screaming wasn’t it, to me. Him losing it when she left was the full meltdown. He knows he needs her. She’s MVP. She was overworked, underpaid, harassed by Richie, and hazed. She could have and arguably should have quit many times. She could have gotten a job elsewhere but she chose to stay committed to The Beef until she couldn’t. She reached her breaking point and was like why am I putting up with this shit? I wouldn’t have, I would have been like see ya way before she did.  She helped Carmy transform that place, as noted by Tina and Marcus, yet received very little in return. Maybe she abandoned the team but how many times did Carmy leave her in the lurch? Carmy messed up by not taking the minute he always asks her for and touching base about the tension over the review and making sure they were aligned on all points before launching a new service model. They could have done the run through she seemed to be asking for but he was full steam ahead and ignoring the issue. 

Marcus is a slightly different story. No, I don’t think he deserves to be berated endlessly nor is he a lost cause but he does need to realize that while maybe making cakes and being on task E7 wouldn’t have fixed the shit show his repeated lack of listening to both Carmy and Sydney about staying on task was ignored. He did get space to do his thing all he was asked was to not get sidetracked. Carmy said he trusted him but he still didn’t listen. Carmy gave him a pep talk after he still didn’t listen and blew a fuse in the middle of a day that already started fucked. He still didn’t listen. The day they were starting a new service model and Carmy warned him to stay on task he still didn’t listen. When Sydney got onto him about it he still didn’t listen. That’s a lesson any employee needs to learn. I don’t care how talented and passionate you are what work place would allow you to just not listen after multiple reminders? You simply have to follow direction. Him not processing that is a huge flaw. The thing is a good, capable leader would take the time and work with him to establish a way to prioritize and create a development plan. They would see that he is going to sink if he doesn’t get that under control. It just wasn’t the time for that in the midst of all the chaos of getting The Beef solvable and Carmy wasn’t equipped to give that or recognize it was needed. What I do fault Carmy with is not taking control and realizing they couldn’t do the impossible in E7. He should have just stopped, regrouped, canceled the orders, and done a post-mortem on what went wrong. His blowup wasn’t just about the to-go’s or the review. He was holding it together, barely, for months and this was him finally blowing a fuse. 

I think when some see the scene of Sydney and Marcus talking shit about Carmy they stay stuck on neither accepting blame. I took the scene as two young Black professionals bonding and talking shit because coworkers talk shit about their boss. As far as demanding apologies from Carmy or Sydney and Marcus, fine, sure, whatever. Carmy did apologize to both of them. Maybe it wasn’t as gushing and dramatic as some think he needs to be to atone. I dunno, I think it was okay for where we are in the story. Sydney and Marcus are still a bit bitter and cautious, as one would expect after being chastised in front of peers. I don’t think it’s fair to expect them to prostrate themselves to Carmy, someone they are still giving a bit of side eye to after he did humiliate them. They don’t fully understand what’s up with Carmy. He keeps things well guarded. When he opened up about Al-Anon Sydney, rightfully so, she said it was too personal. So he takes that as let me keep my shit to myself, like I always have, we ain’t that close, sorry. By the same token, Sydney and Marcus may not be at the point of being like hey, these are my experiences being Black in the workplace, thirsty for more, and feeling marginalized so I’m sensitive to x, y, z. 

Everyone is in their own story and not fully transparent because they are all navigating how to exist together joyfully and productively. Nor is anyone a mind reader. But really, at the core all three of their needs and struggles are universal. Who hasn’t felt unsupported and taken for granted? Who hasn’t had to keep adulting when their world is crumbling? I think what’s needed more is a sit down between all of them to hash it out. What we got in E8 was venting from Sydney and Marcus and guilty resignation from Carmy. Not satisfying, but realistic. They have work to do as a team. They need love and forward positive movement more than they need some perceived deserved atonement. Words are easy and cheap. Anybody can say they sorry, what they actually gonna do?

My whole point is we need to look at all of them as just people. I’m not saying be blind to identity but at the core everyone’s arc could be anyone’s arc. All of their struggles are universal. I am a Black woman and I relate to all three of them for various reasons. Like Sydney, I have been the young Black girl thrust into leadership but not supported in growth. My authority has been questioned, I’ve been bullied, I’ve been given too much on my plate because I’m “so capable and being held to a higher standard.” Like Marcus, I’ve hyper fixated on a new passion to the point of obsession and had trouble figuring out how to maintain the baseline while chasing perfection. Like Carmy, I have depression and anxiety, had an addict family member who died suddenly (my mom, I didn’t go to the funeral either and had to go back home abruptly) yet still had to be the boss of a shit show while trying to heal, deal, not overshare, share, yet ask for a minute that was never given all at the same time. 

I don’t know if I’m making any sense but I think everyone needs to look deeper if they seek to prioritize any of these character’s needs over another and be dismissive of anyone’s struggles. I think that’s what the show is kind of about. And maybe do the same thing with people IRL. Anything else is unproductive and unkind. There is not enough mercy, grace, empathy, and understanding. 

Anyways, be blessed and Happy Holidays! 

Edited to add: In no way am I dismissing the conscious or unconscious bias of some viewers who fail to empathize with Sydney and Marcus. I forgot to include that earlier. My point is conscious and unconscious bias can be at play with either take on the conflicts between these three characters.

[schizosupport]

I’m started abilify and zyprexa. I read the side effects and I’m so afraid of several of the things listed. I’m desperate for medication that works, but they both look terrifying for me. Could you say what was best/worst being on them or what you know about them? If you got time, can you express what they’re supposed to help me with as well because right now I’m just terrified they’re trying to poison me or turn me into a zombie

Hi there anon. Are you starting both of those at once? I must admit that I find it bad form to start someone on two different antipsychotics at once. There just isn't much evidence in favour of giving more than one type at a time, and it does increase the likelihood of side effects. Not to mention, if it helps, now you don't know which one is helping, and if you actually need to be taking both. (Edit: And it can be harder to judge which one might be causing which side effects)

What dosages do they want you on?

I definitely understand you being scared after reading the side effects. Antipsychotics have some pretty heavy things written on there. It's worth noting that a lot of those side effects are rare, but there's also a few things that are par for the course with antipsychotics. That's especially stuff like sedation, which is more prominent with Zyprexa than with Abilify.

The goal of the med is for it to become easier for you to tell reality from delusion and hallucination, to make it easier to "think straight", and to hopefully thereby alleviate some of the anxiety and other bad feelings you may be dealing with as a result of such symptoms. They can also help you sleep better, which can help stabilise you. For me, I feel like antipsychotics help me think more straight and they give me a "thicker skin" - I'm a little more numb/a little less sensitive depending on how you think about it. And I'm less liable to scare myself with scary thoughts.

For me, these beneficial effects arise at a fairly low dose, as I'm very sensitive to meds in general. At higher doses, the side effects tend to outweigh the benefits, for me. For me the side effects at higher doses is stuff like feeling numb/out of touch, sedation and reduced creativity. It's important to figure out whether the positive effects outweigh the negative effects for you, and at what dose the tradeoff is beneficial, if any.

Overall zypreza (olanzapine) is "heavier" than Abilify. It's more likely to make you feel sedated and lethargic, and like it's hard to think and plan. It's common to feel pretty knocked out by it. It's definitely recommended to take it in the evening for this reason! Abilify is less likely to sedate you, some even report that it keeps them feeling MORE alert, and I used to take mine in the morning without a problem. Personally I wasn't a huge fan of Abilify, though it undoubtedly helped me. My reasoning is that it didn't feel like it did much, but at the same time it did do a great deal, mostly for the better at the time I think, but it felt odd to me. I like that risperidon (which is more in the direction of zyprexa albeit less hard-hitting) feels more obvious in how it affects me.

I will say that they aren't trying to poison you, these drugs aren't dangerous in that sense, nor do I think their goal is to turn you into a zombie (figuratively or literally).

I think it's good to go into this experience with a healthy amount of scepticism, while also allowing cautious optimism. Try to keep a diary of symptoms and changes that occur. If you have someone close to you, try to get them to help observe how these drugs affect you (for better and for worse). It helps to have an outside eye, and if this person could help you talk to your providers that's a big help, because as much as it sucks, professionals are sometimes more likely to listen to a third party.

I hope the meds are helpful, anon, and if they aren't, I hope that your healthcare providers will be helpful and accommodating in figuring out where to go from there.

Best wishes!

[ooops-i-arted]

Hey! I found your blog the other day because I was salty and looking through fandom opinions to make myself even saltier. You said something about Ahsoka that made me stop dead. I had to read it several times just to be sure and even then I couldn’t believe it. I thought I was alone in not liking Ahsoka - this entire fandom is set on making her out to be this ✨Super Awesome Special Best Girl Who Does Everything Right All The Time✨ and those are literally the only opinions you hear about her. But right from her introduction I didn’t like her. That’s a rant for another time, but I’m just going to leave it at how I’m so confused by her personality. She grew up in the Temple, right? So why is she so Rebellious™️? Why does she wear a crop top and mini skirt? Why’s she so sassy and rude to people? That’s not normal Padawan behaviour no matter what anyone says. They were just trying to find a marketable character for a children’s show and gave her the personality of every Nickelodeon American Teen Protagonist!

Welcome to the fold, new sibling. Have some candy, we like to share here in the Ahsoka Haters Club. >o<

I think you hit the mark on focusing on making her ~relatable to the Youths~ in her intro more than making sense for her character/how a real teenager would act. (Sabine and Ezra felt much more natural to me in that aspect.) I also think part of the issue is something soooo many female characters are forced into - male-dominated fandoms like this tend to be hostile to women (see: Ahsoka's debut period, Rey, Rose, Cara Dune before those types realized the actress was One Of Them, the Kotor fans who are intensely against female Revan or sexualize Mission, etc) so the creator(s) go overboard in trying to make them appealing to that particular loud section of fandom. So Ahsoka wears age- and character-inappropriate clothes*, she's snarky and sassy and "one of the guys." And in this rare case, it worked. She was eventually assimilated. Notice how she's replaced Padme in 99% of official and fandom merch? Padme, a character who is reduced to "sadness" or "fashion icon" (neither as easy to box up and tie with a neat Girlboss bow despite her demonstrated political activism and combat prowess) aka has actual character traits and flaws, reacts to things in a not-always-appealing-to-fandom way but in a way that makes sense for her character, is written to be multifaceted and not just designed to appeal to the common majority? Huh.

(Leia's "she's not a princess anymore she's a general" thing also felt that same way to me and rubbed me the wrong way, but Leia largely escaped Girlbossification because she was already a fully realized character in her own right, and also being created before the internet-style fandom probably helped.)

*Apparently we can lay that at the feet of George "there is no underwear in space" Lucas though. Once Filoni took over Ahsoka started wearing MUCH better outfits. Credit where it's due. (Ripping off Gandalf for your shitty oc still sucks though, let's be clear. But contrast her Rebels and TCW S7 looks with her tube top or cocktail dress for example. And as someone who had boobs about Ahsoka's size at her age, a tube top wouldn't cut it for marching band let alone lightsaber combat. Her first look was AWFUL.)

[sepublic]

I love the Castlevania show, but I can't help but be miffed by how much of the source material and colorful bestiary the show tends to ignore in favor of more vampires. I love characters such as Striga and Morana, but then you've got fairly generic ones like Dragan or Nikolai, who are just there to be obstacles and don't have any real personality themselves.

It's just a little confusing, because why do the writers keep trying to come up with OCs when they have plenty to pull from the actual games? In the games, vampires themselves are actually very rare; They're usually only represented by endgame bosses like Dracula, Bartley, Brauner, etc. Otherwise, the vast majority of enemies are night creatures, ghosts, haunted suits of armor, and the like.

But instead of embracing the weirder monsters like the Minotaur or Werewolves, the Castlevania show keeps defaulting to regular old vampires who are basically just humans with pointy ears and teeth. The show keeps defaulting to Vampire melodrama, like it's trying to emulate other pieces of Vampire media, instead of embracing what sets Castlevania apart from those stories. It has a concerning lack of weird castle exploration for a show called Castlevania.

Skeletons only appear in one scene, and I'm sorry but a common staple of a series should not be reduced to a mere fanservice cameo. It's like the Resident Evil live-action films making everything about zombies and reluctantly including a Licker as the ultimate monster. It's like if the Super Mario Bros. Movie barely had Goombas, they made the show too normal from the source material.

That isn't to say the source material is a perfect narrative, far from it; It can get pretty damn repetitive at times, especially with certain character roles and dynamics. I'll die on the hill that Annette's reimagining was justified, and Ortega and Hugh Baldwin are admittedly less interesting versions of Maxim Kischine.

The repetition makes sense! Castlevania's priority is gameplay, and each installment is meant to be its own thing. But when you're doing it as a TV show, a story, and having each story arc play a part in a larger narrative, you have to mix things up in terms of story and characterization, because you can't rely on different gameplay mechanics and levels to differentiate entries in an animated show.

But all that said, it's tiring how much the show will ignore aspects that wouldn't conflict with the writing at all in favor of more generic vampires. I don't want to see vampire politics and melodrama, but it's infinitely more interesting if its melodrama and politics between slimes and minotaurs!

I dunno, it feels like the show is limiting itself on an aesthetical level. What difference does it make in terms of writing if there's a flying Medusa head, or an Axe Armor? I think the writers are afraid of coming across as 'corny' as if Castlevania itself isn't crazy and anime as hell, but this just makes them come across as lacking sincerity. It's like how people complained about a bunch of 2000's movie adaptations of superheroes watering down everything to be more 'serious' and 'realistic' and 'believable', but it just made it grey and boring and cut away what made it unique.

The writers could've easily replaced characters like Dragan with, say, Sir Grakul from Super Castlevania IV, or had freakish looking night creatures be the ones to monologue (instead of treating Flyseyes as the one exception). There's acceptable departures from the source material, and then there's just straight up ignoring it, and then going out of its way to make up new things when stuff is already there to use. It's not as if the animators struggle with animating non-humanoid beings, considering how many unique night creatures they've come up with. So can we please stop being lowkey embarrassed of the source material???

It'd honestly make the show so much more memorable if we got to see Richter fighting a Skull Knight or Mummy. It's just so much wasted potential, especially when they ignore game Richter's compelling narrative of a Fallen Hero, in favor of making up something completely different. I can understand revising protagonists who barely have anything to them, like John Morris from Bloodlines, but Richter HAD a meaningful storyline to expand on, and one that deconstructs his role as a vampire hunter!

Given the show's attempts to be a grittier deconstruction and its suggestion that killing vampires isn't 100% good, I don't know why they didn't go with the idea of Knight Templar Richter whose desire to be needed in battle leaves him vulnerable to Shaft's brainwashing. The deeper, character-driven writing does not have to be mutually exclusive from fantastical and weird elements.