#the term seems to primarily get used when someone commits violence be it physical or verbal against their partner or family members.

[st-just]

I have a bit of a question here with a probably long answer but you reblogged a post a while ago about ttrpg culture that linked another post and I was really curious why it is people say you cant or shouldnt hack 5e into a sci-fi campaign. I did it just fine with little effort outside of the usual task of building out a world (or several in this case) for it. Granted its essentially spelljammer meets shadowrun but thats still sci-fi enough to have been told time and again by people online that it cannot work

Like I get starfinder exists but im really comfortable in 5e and overall I find starfinder, like pathfinder, relies on a lot of modifiers for rolls, where 5e's math is simpler overall since there are less floating modifiers to calculate, and most importantly my players didnt want to learn a new system since a few of them have trouble committing all the rules to memory and JUST picked up 5e for our other campaign.

Overall people always act like it could never work and theres never any reason to try, even in situations like this i should have just slapped my players with my starfinder book instead of just changing up how a some of the spells work, and the campaign was great, so why is it that people are so insistent on not even trying to do it?

re

So I've never actually played/looked at Starfinder, but to the extent it's 'Pathfinder IN SPAAAACE' it's, like, possibly the single worst possible suggestion to give someone when you're trying to explain the benefits of a non-D&D system, so not sure what the people who say that stuff are really talking about. (Even saying pathfinder/starfinder isn't D&D seems like useless pedantry to me. It's all just Edition 3.75 but with a third party publisher)

But to actually answer the point - there's no problem at all hacking D&D 5e to run Sci Fi instead of Fantasy - the difference is basically set dressing and aesthetics and renaming all the magic stuff. But the sci fi it's good at is still very distinctly D&D sci fi - a zero-to-hero adventure series where the challenges and obstacles the heroes face are primarily expressed in terms of physical harm and danger, and which are primarily defeated through small-scale violence between the protagonists and their opponents.

Like, if you're willing to squint about character classes and whatever, D&D can do something like Mass Effect fine. It would really, really struggle to do Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. (Or I mean, you could do Duet or By Pale Moonlight as D&D sessions, but they would be roughly 90% freeform roleplay with a few die rolls thrown in here and there to keep up appearances. At which point why did you spend an hour doing all the math for character creation in the first place?)

Honestly I think a decent chunk of the rhetoric around this is kind of cartoonishly vitriolic and pretty unbecoming, but it is kind of painful to try and hack at the thing to tell stories it's not at all suited for (if you're not looking for power fantasy pulpy heroic tactical violence, don't use the game that spends 90% of its word count on that!).

(The other thing is that D&D very much relies on the players as acting as independent agents - if you're character isn't someone who solves problems by personally charging into danger, and whose primary problem solving toolkit can be expressed in terms of tactical violence, they just don't really work as a D&D character.)

...sorry, it's pretty late and I'm rambling. Hopefully I understood what you were getting at?

[godkilller]

Character Flaws

Bold the ones that apply to your character:

absent-minded | abusive | addict | aggressive | aimless | alcoholic | anxious | arrogant | audacious | bad liar | bigmouth | bigot | blindly obedient | blunt | callous | childish | chronic heroism | clingy | clumsy | cocky | competitive | corrupt | cowardly | cruel | cynical | delinquent | delusional | dependent | depressed | deranged | disloyal | ditzy | egotistical | envious | erratic | fickle | finicky | flaky | frail | fraudulent | guilt complex | gloomy | gluttonous | gossiper | gruff | gullible | hedonistic | humorless | hypochondriac | hypocritical | idealist | idiotic | ignorant | immature | impatient | incompetent | indecisive | insecure | insensitive | lazy | lewd | liar | lustful | manipulative | masochistic | meddlesome | melodramatic | money-loving | moody | naive | nervous | nosy | ornery |  overprotective | overly sensitive | paranoid | passive-aggressive | perfectionist | pessimist | petty | power-hungry | proud | pushover | reckless | reclusive | remorseless | rigorous | sadistic | sarcastic | senile | selfish | self-martyr | shallow | sociopathic | sore loser | spineless | spiteful | spoiled | stubborn | tactless | temperamental | timid | tone-deaf | traitorous | nonathletic | ungracious | unlucky | unsophisticated | untrustworthy | vain | withdrawn | workaholic

[scripttorture]

Hi! I'm not sure if this falls within your scope, so I apologize if it doesn't. I was curious about if you have any info on common types of torture committed by criminal organizations- specifically in my case, the American mafia/Cosa Nostra. I've had some difficulty getting reliable information and have heard conflicting things about *if* they even regularly torture individuals. Thank you in advance for anything!

That’s a very good question. It’s not outside my scope but I’m not sure how good the information I come up with will be because this isn’t something I typically look into so my usual sources/starting points might not be the best ones.

 With the pandemic on and no books on American organised crime specifically on hand I think I’m going to have to treat this question more generally. However this book came up during my searches and I think it might be a useful starting point for research or worldbuilding. It’s a research piece comparing the functioning and criminal activities of three Italian criminal organisations, the American mafia, Japanese Yakuza, Chinese Triads and a Russian criminal organisation. If nothing else it should give you an idea of how different organisations like this function.

 You might already be aware of the legal definition of torture. Essentially torture is defined as any form of painful stimulus that is deliberately inflicted by a government official (or in some cases an organised group that holds territory) for the purpose of ‘extracting information’, forcing a confession, punishment or intimidation. Any of those motivations still count if they’re aimed at a third party rather then the person being tortured (ie if a soldier captures and beats the brother of an enemy soldier to try and get information from the enemy soldier, that is still torture.)

 Some countries explicitly include international organised criminal gangs in their anti-torture laws. Some don’t.

 From a behaviour standpoint I think it’s fair to say that some of these groups behave more like we’d expect from torturers and some don’t.

 Members of groups like the LRA, Daesh and Boko Haram will generally be classed as torturers if they act in ways that meet the other criteria. Because at their height these armed groups effectively occupied and controlled areas of the countries they operated in. They took control from local governments to the point that those government organisations effectively ceased to function and were replaced by organisations (or lack thereof) that the criminals wanted.

 And all of those groups tortured as part of a wider campaign of terror.

 As you move away from that pattern of criminals trying to create their own country then things get dicer. Whether a group meets the definition of torture depends on the country. And from a research point of view the behaviour we’re looking at may get further away from what we typically see in torture scenarios.

 For instance the SEC and groups concerned with fishing in Thailand don’t really control territory. They can’t be understood to have taken control from the government in the areas they operate.

 But both operate large scale slavery operations that traffick people across boarders in order to exploit them. These operations by their nature concern the abuse of thousands of people. They generally also have specific people that are- I’m gonna say ‘primarily responsible for the stages of the process where a lot of physical abuse takes place’.

 Basically they have people whose effective job is abusing others for the vast majority of their time. Whether it’s the men smuggling enslaved people across the Sahara or guards on the fishing boats out at sea.

 You also have organisations that fall somewhere in between the two patterns I’ve described so far, like Mexican Cartels.

 But there are also large organised criminal gangs that aren’t necessarily involved in this scale of people trafficking or systematic abuse. This doesn’t diminish the impact of their crimes. But there is a difference between crime that by it’s nature always results in direct harm and crime that may but does not necessarily result in direct harm. An extortion racket is not the same as a slavery ring in terms of injury and body count. 

 While it doesn’t form part of the legal definition the scale of violence is important here. A torture case typically means thousands of victims over a relatively short period of time. And because of the scale it means the people involved in this abuse could easily be carrying out violent attacks for the majority of their day, every day for months or years.

 This is not necessarily the pattern in all organised crime.

 Smuggling goods, loan sharking and rackets don’t necessarily lead to the same scale of violence or the same constant exposure to violence.

 Drug smuggling can mean smaller scale slavery but to be honest I know next to nothing about it outside of the slavery aspect so I’ll leave it at that.

 All of this might seem like extraneous information when the main question is about torture techniques. But the thing is- torture isn’t defined by the techniques used to inflict pain and the majority of those techniques are very very simple.

 The most common torture today (probably historically as well) is hitting people. And I’m pretty sure that members of any organised criminal group hit people.

 Most of the other common tortures would be impractical/impossible without the ability to hold someone prisoner for an extended period (days or weeks). Starvation, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and stress positions are not really possible if a victim can’t be held for several days.

 As for the other common torture techniques used in America today- Well one of them is basically Tasers or stun guns. I’m pretty sure if they could get hold of them a lot of violent criminals would use those devices. They’re expensive but they’re simple to use.

 Waterboarding is pretty simple but it can also easily go wrong and when it does it can cause some pretty…. Difficult to disguise injuries. Like brain damage. Dry choking tortures have the same problems.

 Getting back to the main question- I think part of the reason that you’ve heard conflicting things might be colloquial vs precise usage of the term ‘torture’. Because it isn’t clear to me that the American Mafia do practice torture regularly from a legal stand point.

 Mostly because I haven’t seen anything saying they’re involved in large scale slavery in America.

 But it’s incredibly likely that they do use some of the same techniques. Purely on the basis that most of the time those ‘techniques’ are ‘apply hand to victim’s body with force’.

 And most of the time it doesn’t need to be any more complicated then that.

 Sorry I couldn’t find you anything more specific but I hope this helps. :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[evelynnxcarmichael]

MORAL ALIGNMENT                 NEUTRAL EVIL

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes.

For the neutral evil being, law and chaos are beneath consideration in this character's quest for pure evil in the universe. At the root of this character 's personality is the word "wicked." Evil is his goal; natural and man-made forces, if allowed to take their course, weed out the weak and useless in society. The deserving should take advantage of this condition to further their own goals by any means possible, especially to destroy weaklings who put forward "good" actions to promote the well being of all, which is just an excuse used to deny the deserving their due. To the neutral evil being, life is of no value, for those who cannot take advantage of their superiority don't deserve it, and they'll only interfere with the rightful pursuits of those who do.

A neutral evil character never feels compelled to keep his word. He will attack and kill an unarmed foe (those are the best kind). He will harm and may possibly kill an innocent. He will use torture to extract information and for pleasure. He may kill for pleasure. A neutral evil character will use poison. He will not help those in need without a reward and he works well alone or in a group. He responds well to higher authority until that authority attempts to use the law to hamper his ability to pursue his own agenda. He will follow the law unless breaking it is in his best interest and he's reasonably sure that he will not be caught. He may betray a family member, comrade, or friend if it is convenient to do so and it advances his agenda. Neutral evil characters are indifferent to the concepts of self-discipline and honor, finding them useful only if they can be used to advance their own interests or gain power over others.

ENNEAGRAM OF PERSONALITY               TYPE 8: THE CHALLENGER

Eights generally have powerful instincts and strong physical appetites which they indulge without feelings of shame or guilt. They want a lot out of life and feel fully prepared to go out and get it. They need to be financially independent and often have a hard time working for anyone. This sometimes necessitates that the Eight opt out of the system entirely, assuming something of an outlaw mentality. Most Eights however, find a way to be financially independent while making their peace with society, but they always retain an uneasy association with any hierarchical relationship that sees the Eight in any position other than the top position.

Eights have a hard time lowering their defenses in intimate relationships. Intimacy involves emotional vulnerability and such vulnerability is one of the Eight's deepest fears. Betrayal of any sort is absolutely intolerable and can provoke a powerful response on the part of the violated Eight. Intimate relationships are frequently the arena in which an Eight's control issues are most obviously played out and questions of trust assume a pivotal position. Eights often have a sentimental side that they don't even show to their intimates, such is their fear of vulnerability. But, while trust does not come easily to an Eight, when an Eight does take someone into the inner sanctum, they find a steadfast ally and stalwart friend. The Eight's powerful protective instincts are called into play when it comes to the defense of family and friends, and Eights are frequently generous to a fault in providing for those under their care.

Eights are prone to anger. When severely provoked, or when the personality is unbalanced, bouts of anger can turn into rages. Unhealthy Eights are frankly aggressive and when pushed, can resort to violence. Such Eights enjoy intimidating others whom they see as "weak" and feel little compunction about walking over anyone who stands in their way. They can be crude, brutal and dangerous.

MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE              INTJ / ISTJ

You are an Introvert

Introverts are energized by being quiet, reflective, and calm. They maintain a distance from the outside world and prefer to conserve their energy rather than expend a lot of effort seeking excitement. They enjoy:

Contemplating ideas and experiences

Being in calm surroundings

Exploring a subject in depth

Reflecting on thoughts or feelings

Maintaining distance and privacy

Quiet and solitude

You May Be a Sensor or an Intuitive

Sensors process information in a concrete, realistic way. They focus on observing and recalling facts, experiences, and details. They like to focus on:

Observing sights, sounds, sensations

Noticing details

Experiencing the present moment

Concrete, provable facts

Realism and practicality

Knowledge from past experience

Intuitives process information in an abstract, imaginative way. They focus on ideas and concepts that cannot be directly observed. They like to focus on:

Observing patterns and connections

Interpreting meaning

Imagining potential

Ideas and concepts

Innovation and creativity

Possibilities for the future

You are a Thinker

Thinkers value logic, competence, and objectivity. They believe that every person has a responsibility to take care of him or herself. They are concerned with:

Using logical reasoning

Being unbiased and impartial

Considering costs and benefits

Seeking consistency and justice

Keeping a competitive edge

Making objective decisions

You are a Judger

Judgers like structure and order. They keep organized and plan ahead, resist distractions, and stay focused on their goals. They prefer to:

Create a plan and stick to it

See a task through to completion

Adhere to a schedule

Set goals and maintain focus

Follow rules and regulations

Set clear expectations

CHARACTER TROPES

Wounded Gazelle Gambit - Using self-inflicted injuries, real or fake, to deceive others and manipulate them into doing what you want. Often used to frame a third party, this strategy is particularly effective for, and often used by, women, due to societal prohibitions against harming women.

Green-Eyed Monster - Envy is the desire for some object, item or abstract notion (such as love or power), which can lead to hatred of the possessor(s) of said object. If they cannot secure the object for themselves, the envious party may go so far as to harm or… eliminate the possessor. If they're egocentric enough, they may even destroy/kill the object. The Envious party may not have coveted the object at all until they saw another person having or enjoying it.

Complexity Addiction - They're addicted to coming up with complex schemes. They simply can't help but make an overdone, overblown plan. Maybe they're insane. Maybe they're bored. Maybe they view it as being artistic. Maybe simple plans aren't as amusing or as evil or are just too boring for them.

Villains Never Lie - The villain is usually telling the truth, or something that is "technically" true, for certain values of "true", anyway—there are only a few cases where the villain just makes something up for giggles. 

Crocodile Tears -  Basically, fake tears. Often a key part of a Wounded Gazelle Gambit.

Playing the Victim Card - A character has given a speech about how poor and oppressed he is, that he's a victim of circumstance, and everybody seems to be out to get him. The problem is that the character making all these statements is a villain. ( only used in relation to @jamiefwalsh. too much of a prideful bitch to play the victim to anyone else ).

Bitch in Sheep's Clothing -  The Wounded Gazelle Gambit is a favorite tactic of this sort of antagonist, and if they are genuinely evil, expect them to be a Villain with Good Publicity.

If I Can't Have You... - "If I can't have you, then no one will!" is a Stock Phrase often spoken by jealous and envious or narcissistic characters (often villains) demanding to be loved.  @jamiefwalsh

It's All About Me - Toddlers have this attitude by default, as their brains are not developed enough to understand that other people have different viewpoints. We're less forgiving of (non-disabled) adults who behave this way, also termed assholes.

[ramajmedia]

Chicago P.D.: 5 Things That Are Accurate (& 5 Things That Are Fictional)

A spinoff from the popular Chicago Fire TV show, Chicago P.D. focuses on a police intelligence unit run by Detective Sergeant Henry “Hank” Voight.  Introduced as a dirty cop in Chicago Fire, he uses the same morally questionable methods to catch criminals and other more corrupt cops which the other members of his unit practice as well.

For this reason, the Chicago P.D. series has been heavily criticized for its inaccuracies about police work in general.  Yet there are grains of truth buried underneath, which are explored further below alongside the aspects of this show that aren’t true.

RELATED: LAW & ORDER: SVU - 5 THINGS THAT ARE ACCURATE (& 5 THINGS THAT ARE FICTION)

10 Accurate - Racial Tensions Between White Cops And Ethnic Minorities Is An Existing Problem

 With Season 5 of Chicago P.D., a stronger attempt was made by the show to replicate what was going on in the real world regarding policemen.  For instance, the premier episode had a scene where a member of Voight’s unit named Adam Ruzek (who’s white) draws a gun on a young black man but gets defused by Kevin Atwater (the only black guy in Voight’s unit).

In recent years, it has come to the public’s attention that racial tensions between white cops and members of an ethnic minority still happens in places like Chicago which have a long history of gang violence and police corruption.  This wasn’t further helped by a report that came out from the US Department of Justice in 2017 which criticized several things about the CPD including using “Force against black Chicagoans 10 times more frequently than their white counterparts,” The Atlantic magazine states.

9 Fictional - Cops Have The Authority To Deny A Lawyer To Their Suspect

Despite Chicago P.D.’s attempts at being realistic, it still resorts to common cliches found in other police detective shows like denying a lawyer to an unscrupulous suspect or criminal when they request one.  Legally, this is problematic in reality as any suspect in a crime has the right to speak to a lawyer if they request one, even before they give testimony to the police, and therefore denying them could be considered a rights violation.

Though in the state of Arizona, “A defendant does not have the right to delay the investigation by demanding to speak to a lawyer and if an attorney cannot be reached at the time being, the investigative procedures may be initiated” when it comes to DUI offense cases according to a Phoenix DUI Lawyer.  The reason for this is that if the investigation takes too long, then whatever drug or alcohol may be affecting the suspect will lose its influence thus making it harder to determine their guilt.  But this does not apply to criminal cases like the ones in the Chicago P.D..

RELATED: 10 MUST-SEE SHOWS FOR FANS OF TRUE DETECTIVE

8 Accurate - Cops Do Get Involved In Fatal Shootouts

Being known for its action-packed sequences, Chicago P.D. will occasionally thrust its characters into a crazy shootout that results in people getting hurt or even killed.  Though the frequency of these shootouts in the series is questionable, that doesn’t mean cops don’t get involved in them.

Within a city like Chicago, for instance, the number of shootings per year is incredibly high on average.  But according to a recent report by the actual Chicago Police Department on WTTV Chicago Public Media, “There have been 978 shootings through the first six months of the year…marking an 11% drop over 2018” which isn’t much of a change overall.

7 Fictional - Police Intelligence Units Get A Lot Of Action

It seems like Voight’s unit can never catch a break on Chicago P.D. as almost every day of the week they’re out busting criminals and investigating crime scenes with the occasional shootouts.  But contrary to what the show displays, a real police intelligence unit doesn’t do much in terms of action.

What they primarily do is gather information on possible criminals and hand it over to different agencies whether they’re local state or federal authorities.  They may investigate crime scenes for clues, interview witnesses, or obtain search warrants, but they don’t make arrests or prove crimes.

RELATED: THE 10 MOST BADASS MOVIE COMBAT UNITS

6 Accurate - Accidentally Fatal Shootings Do Happen With The Police

Because the characters in Chicago P.D. are morally flawed, the show will go out of its way to either justify their actions or put them in a situation that makes them seem sympathetic.  In the Season 5 premier episode “Reform,” for instance, one of Voight’s unit members named Jay Halstead accidentally shoots a young girl during a shootout with some gunrunners.

While this could be interpreted as a cheap way to make us feel sorry for Jay, who didn’t mean to shoot the girl, it does happen to cops in the real world.  In 2015, a woman named Bettie Jones was fatally shot by a CPD cop by accident along with a man who was causing a domestic disturbance according to the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper.

5 Fictional - Handcuffed Suspects Can Be Freely Assaulted By Cops

It is common to see handcuffed suspects getting assaulted by cops in movies like L.A. Confidential or TV shows such as Chicago P.D., but generally this is not how suspects are treated once they’ve been brought into custody.  While they may be considered dangerous, due to the possibility of concealing a weapon or resisting arrest, that doesn’t mean policemen can wail on them like free punching bags.

However, there have been instances where cops have assaulted handcuffed suspects even to this day, but they typically don’t get away with it.  Instead, they get charged with misdemeanor and/or assault and are ordered to leave the department.

RELATED: CHICAGO PD: 10 FAN FAVORITE CHARACTERS, RANKED

4 Accurate - People With Questionable Backgrounds Have Been Put In Charge Of Overseeing The CPD

In the fifth season of Chicago P.D., a new character was introduced named Denny Woods.  An independent auditor hired to oversee the CPD, he exploits his power to get back at Voight (whom he was partners with as a former cop) for a prior event.

Now it may seem unbelievable that someone with a questionable background could be given the responsibility of overseeing a police department in the real world, but it does happen.  For instance, a former federal prosecutor was put in charge of Chicago’s Police Accountability Task Force a few years ago and this was met with some controversy following “Distortions of her record” according to the Chicago Reporter.

3 Fictional - Desk Sergeants Have A Lot Of Authority

Aside from Voight, another character that made an official debut in Chicago Fire before appearing in Chicago P.D. was Trudy Platt.  A Desk Sergeant for the Chicago Police Department, in general, she supervises patrol officers like Kim Burgess and Sean Roman while occasionally interacting with Voight’s unit.

Now while she does live up to her title in terms of primarily working at a desk, Platt’s authority isn’t as significant as the show makes it seem like.  In reality, a Desk Sergeant (or Desk Officer) receives information about incoming incidents and then dispatches it to patrols. So Platt wouldn’t necessarily be tasked with supervising other officers, as this would mainly be the Police Sergeant’s duty which is a different position altogether.

Related: Chicago PD: Best & Worst Relationships, Ranked

2 Accurate - Cops Have Been Known To Torture Criminals In Certain Cases

One of the main criticisms aimed at Chicago P.D. is that almost every criminal Voight’s team takes into custody gets tortured in some form whether it’s physically or psychologically.  Now this kind of behavior is ethically inexcusable, especially for a cop to commit since it violates certain rights the perceived criminal has whether they committed the crimes they’re accused of or not.

While such tactics are frowned upon by just about every police department in the world, there were cases where cops did torture perceived criminals regardless of their innocence.  Recently, a digital archive was released that documented incidents between 1972 and 1991 where CPD “Officers performed torture” on people they arrested as stated by The Atlantic.

1 Fictional - Physical And Psychological Torture Is Always Used By Cops To Get Information From Suspects

 When it comes to interrogating a suspect of a crime, the police will use different methods to get the information they want out of them.  However, they will not resort to things like torture either in the physical or psychological form as conducted by Voight’s unit in the Chicago P.D. show.

Though cases of police torture have come to light, it’s not an approved method for conducting an interrogation.  At most, a cop will intimidate a suspect using the “Good Cop, Bad Cop” technique but they typically won’t resort to using physical violence or blackmail for the sake of getting a confession.

NEXT: ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK: 5 WORST THINGS PIPER DID IN SEASON 7 (AND 5 TIMES WE REALLY FELT FOR HER

source https://screenrant.com/chicago-p-d-5-things-accurate-5-things-fictional/

[owl-eyed-woman]

Attack on Titan Season 2 Episode Reviews - Episode 1

It’s been a hard four years. But now, the wait is finally over. Attack on Titan is back and all is right with the world. So, with the advent of a new season (and a new era of joy in my life), I’ve decided to review/recap each episode of AOT Season 2. A bit of background: I was a big fan of AOT season 1 while it was airing, and after rewatching the anime these past two days in two glorious 6 hours chunks, it’s clear that this fangirl fire still burns. However, I have not read the manga - yes, I somehow managed to repress that temptation and yes, the struggle was very real. But honestly, not reading the manga has been a conscious decision on my part. I found the twists and turns so vital and thrilling in the first anime that I wanted to retain that experience for the second season. So expect a lot of shocked reactions and enthusiastic ramblings with each revelation, and perhaps some ill-advised speculation. There will most likely be some gushing in these reviews, but I will endeavour to include incisive critical analysis, of course. Enough background, onto the review! The show begins with a wonderfully brief recap, (good work show) before picking up where we literally left off, addressing that final, tantalising shot of the last the season: a titan within the wall. This is exactly what we needed, no pussyfooting around, no wasting time, we’ve only got 12 episodes so let’s just get right to it! Before the shock can settle in, Pastor Nick begs Hanji to keep the titan out of the sunlight, which is ominous to say the least. Hanji complies with this but, desperate for an explanation, tries to interrogate the Pastor, threatening to drop him from the wall. Pastor Nick remains tight-lipped though, knowing so much more than he’d ever willingly divulge, even under threat of death. It’s a potent reminder that they’re not just fighting titans but the worst parts of human nature, be it corruption, greed, complacency or, in this case, blind faith and irrationality. As a character, Hanji has always had this intensity about her, but her personality and thirst for knowledge has been presented more light-heartedly as almost goofy. Here though, we get to see some of the frightening ways this intensity can manifest as well as their very genuine frustration that the knowledge they desperately need is constantly hidden from them. It’s a necessary reminder of the emotional depths of a character who is too often dismissed as a ‘mad scientist’; they too have seen many comrades die for humanity’s survival and are just as dedicated to the cause, willing to kill or even be killed. But even more shocking than that, in the face of this new information, Hanji, one of the most joyful and enthusiastic characters in the show, isn’t invigorated or scheming, they’re just exhausted and terrified by the depths of their ignorance. Crucial information has always been hard-won for our mains, but not only that, it’s how much they don’t know that truly terrifies and takes a heavy toll.

No time to rest, though! Further demonstrating that AOT intends to use every second of its runtime, not only is a titan attack imminent, it actually arrived 12 hours earlier and the battle is already well under way. Following this revelation, the episode flashes back 12 hours to the activities of the rest of 104th cadets who are having some downtime at the Scout Regiment barracks. Being a soldier isn’t always high-stakes, sometimes it’s just sitting around, bored. It looks like this season will be focusing a lot more on the side characters and I am very excited if this is the case. AOT has been the ‘Eren/Mikasa/Armin Show’ for a while and it will be good for the show overall to start fleshing out some of their thus far underutilised characters, like Bertholdt, Reiner and Conny, who have been sketched more vaguely in character terms. Oh, and Ymir and Krista too! Yeah, there’s a fair few I’m excited to learn more about.

As the first to encounter the incoming Titan attack, the 104th cadets are tasked with alerting the surrounding villages, but have no time to get into gear. The difficulty of prepping ODM gear is something I’ve thought about and clearly it’s on the showrunner’s minds as well with the opening featuring the gang suiting up, so to speak. ODM gear is amazing but by god does it look complicated and very intricate (I may or may not have had a dream once about frantically trying to put together my own set to fight a titan, but I digress). I’m digging this greater sense of vulnerability or even nakedness that comes with such a simple development and the ways it may change how future conflict is addressed. Not only this, the emotional stakes have been significantly raised for several of the characters as their home towns and families are explicitly and immediately at risk. The stage has been set for some tense, future moments!

In a brief digression from this main action, we visit Eren who is still recuperating from his titan battle. While Mikasa sleeps peacefully at his bedside, Eren dreams of his mother admonishing him for his weakness and his constant reliance on Mikasa. Eren has always had a complex regarding his own weakness and inability to protect those close to him – I mean, AOT literally begins with Eren unable to save his mother. He so desperately wants to protect those around him, but, unfortunately, Eren just isn’t the best protector, Mikasa is. Because of this, Eren often resents Mikasa and pushes her away when she attempts to get closer to him.

So, what does his comment about buying Mikasa a new scarf signify? The scarf is a symbol of several things; it symbolises their bond as family, Mikasa’s devotion to Eren and how he grounds her, and for Eren, quite simply, the time he saved her life. So, with this comment, Eren is renewing his commitment to being the protector instead of the protected with a new scarf showing that he has protected Mikasa as he once did. It seems as though he has entirely missed the point– Eren has always been a bit emotionally dense, especially when it comes to Mikasa. For Eren, the scarf primarily and most importantly represents the time her saved her physically. But for Mikasa, what matters is how he saved her emotionally. Eren’s heart is in the right place, as he is trying, in his own way, to say he truly cares about Mikasa. But Mikasa doesn’t need Eren to protect her, she needs him to be there for her emotionally. I’m interested to see if this dynamic plays out this season and how Eren and Mikasa continue to grow. Regardless, it’s nice to have a quiet character moment in such a plot heavy episode, even if it is more of a setup for future development than anything momentous in and of itself.

But there is only one star in this episode and that is the beast titan! Miche, who volunteers to stay behind to hold off the titans and give the others a head start, is given the dubious honour of first encountering him in all his glory. The design of the titans has always been such a vibrant, varied part of the show, in one moment unsettling, in another goofy and in yet another absolutely terrifying. The beast titan is yet another example of Hajime Isayama’s keen eye for designing unique and startling creatures. So much meaning is packed into his design! His almost ridiculously stocky, square body suggests a terrifying strength. His as of yet unseen 17m height highlights the fact that he can’t be classified under our previous understanding of titans.* His fur sharply distinguishes him from humanity and normal titans but his expressive, humanoid face and piercing, intelligent eyes throws into sharp relief his connection to us, and the threat his intelligence presents. Long ape-like arms combine the bestial with the uncanny while the decision to reference primate anatomy again suggests an uncomfortable proximity to humanity and hints at the theme of evolution. The beast titan is so effectively frightening because he occupies this uncomfortable, liminal space between species, further emphasising the increasingly unstable boundary between titan/beast and human.

It’s only appropriate for this to be the titan that delivers us a bombshell: some titans can talk. AOT has always been about breaking down the divides between monsters and humans, and the implications of this are mind-blowing. This reveal is also perfectly paced, with his first line delivered offscreen as we focus on Miche’s reaction instead. The action of the show itself seems to pause, forcing us to stew in this feeling of disbelief before confirming the origin of the voice. It’s the filmic equivalent of someone saying “is that what I think it is?”, revelling in that moment of incredulous shock. They’ve chosen a great voice too, appropriately ominous and imposing. It’s fair to say I am both terrified and mesmerised by everything about the Beast titan: his design, his voice, his intelligence, the way he can control the titans and how he seems to be studying humanity. As a side note, I want to give a shout out the to the goggle-eyed, big nosed chibi titan. He is disgusting and I love him.

In the end, Miche, shaking off his shock, tries for one last, heroic attack before being devoured under the beast titan’s orders. I will miss you, weird sniffing guy. To be honest, I found this death scene a little too sadistic. While gory deaths are undeniably part of the appeal of AOT and essential to keeping the stakes high and tense, it seems to go on for just a touch too long as we see him being violently torn and bitten apart by several titans. There’s a fine line between impressing the visceral terror of such a death and revelling in the violence thus cheapening the moment. Ultimately though, any opinion on this is intensely personal and, in this case, I won’t definitely rule on whether Miche’s death is tasteful or tasteless.

And now after waiting four long years, a new wait begins for the next episode. It’s going to be a long, long week. See you Sunday!

*Yes, there have been taller titans (colossal ones even) but I think its’ notable that his height of 17m specifically surpasses the typical classifications of titans i.e. 15m titans. **I did not expect to write this much, I will try to keep things more succinct next time

[scuttleboat]

The Princess, the Hero, and the Tower

Fantasy Archetypes in The 100 Season 3

Okay so earlier in the hiatus I was part of a long thread discussion about season 3, specifically episodes 303 and 315, where we basically screamed for several pages about the parallels and the similarities of those episodes.  In that @raincityruckus pointed out that Bellamy was basically like a hero going to rescue the princess, and someone else talked about Clarke as a princess kept in a metaphorical tower maybe all through 3a, and that of course devolved into more squee over the screen-literal symbolism of episodes 3 and 15.  I don’t remember all of that episode discussion, but this week I decided to just take that idea and run with it into a huge scale break down of episodes 303 and 315 as a fractured fairy tale. So… here we are, 2000 words about symbolic storytelling, as well as a tribute to the mythic storytelling that has made this one of my favorite shows of the last three years.

If the tone is a little formal, it’s because I originally was going to submit this to a media site, but I decided it would be more fun on tumblr.  This is, as always, just one way among many of looking at the show.  Credit to @mego42, @verbam, @thelovelylights, @raincityruckus, @storyskein, @ship-picky, @nataliecrown, @velvet-tread, @alienor-woods, @bellsqueen, @easnadh1, @pythiaspeaks, @awesomenell65, @bellamyslady, and others.

Intro

In looking at executive producer Jason Rothenberg’s whirlwind story, it helps to love classic tropes as much as the show does. Archetypes from speculative fiction, religion, mythology, and fantasy are borrowed liberally. Alongside the well known science fiction stories of evil computers, outer space, and mad scientists, seasons 2 and 3 made liberal use of mythic characters and tropes. The second season told the overarching story of the villagers versus the dragon–or in terms of The 100, the Sky People &  the Grounders versus the Mountain Men. It’s a siege and infiltration story right out of The Hobbit, only this time the beast in the mountain is a society of science-vampires, the antihero burglar is a resourceful man instead of a nervous hobbit, and the armies outside are commanded by fierce warrior women. You could even parallel the Sky People to city-dwelling humans and the Grounders to forest-dwelling elves. From within the mountain, it’s a trip down mythology lane with in-world terms like “The Cerberus Project”. The show wants us to be clear that yes, entering Mount Weather equals a descent into the underworld.  Beyond plot specifics, major characters and groups have the most genre-specific names that a primetime television series can get away with: Griffin, Kane/Cain, The Commander, Octavia, Cage, Dante, The Outsiders. The 100 loves mythic stories and larger-than-life characters.

If season 2 was a story of alliances against old and terrible villains, season 3 lowers the stakes to a human level. Now our protagonists are facing personal political conflict and the creeping threat of a corrupt false religion. I’ll leave the religious allegory of ALIE’s cult to one side for this discussion, and focus on the story of the Clarke, Bellamy, Lexa, and the classic fairy tale storytelling at work in season 3.

The principal episodes that introduce and close this fairy tale arc are episode 3, “Ye Who Enter Here” and episode 15, “Perverse Instantiation, Part One.”  The third and the second to last episodes of the third season mirror each other with three main elements: the trapped princess, the well-intentioned hero, and the tower that separates them. The first version of this rescue fails, the second succeeds. Put another way, it’s twice that Clarke Griffin, leader hero and princess of the Sky People by nickname and by practice, is held in the tower of Polis against her will. Twice this season Bellamy Blake, the warrior hero of the Sky People, leads a team in ascending the tower to get to her. In episode 3 this ends in bargaining, deceit, miscommunication, and unwarranted violence. In episode 15 it ends in fortitude, teamwork, freedom, and trust.

The Archetypes

There’s three parts to the mythic archetypes at work in the arc these two episodes form: the princess, the hero and the tower. Call her Wanheda, call her the Chancellor’s daughter, or call her an ambassador–in the scope of this political drama Clarke fulfills the role of the princess. She spends most of episodes 3 and 15 in literal captivity, at the top of a tower, being convinced that her people are better off if she capitulates to her captor. In the first instance of her captivity Clarke does willingly capitulate, and in the second she doesn’t. If your first instinct in reading this is to point out that by the time Bellamy arrives in “Ye Who Enter Here” Clarke is no longer a captive but a willing participant, that will be addressed soon. In broad terms, Clarke was a prisoner for a week by episode 3, and she remains a prisoner on screen until Lexa’s political bargaining is successful. 

Bellamy is the second archetypal character at play. Call Bellamy a prince, a knight, a suitor, or a hero of the realm: he’s the warrior who ascends to free the princess, for ill or for good. In these dual episodes and in the politics around Polis, this is his function in the story. Not for the series as a whole, and not in Arkadia itself during season 3, but for this trope and these events, this is his archetype. I want to note here that I’m not in any way implying that Clarke is not herself a hero–she is, and I’m first in line to scream it from the rooftops–but just that in this narrow analogy, Bellamy fullfills the role. I don’t think it’s an accident that the show itself plays with the “knight” label in episode 311. Aside from showing that they’re aware of the opinions of their fanbase, it’s part of how The 100 likes to flirt with tropes and then take them into new directions. Given how loaded that term has become, and also given that Bellamy can’t really be said to have been raised in any kind of noble class, I like the term “hero” instead, for fairy tale analogies. And you can fight me over the “suitor” label too, but c’mon guys… he raced up a tower to save her twice. TWICE. Boy is probably in love.

The third aspect of this triangle is the tower of Polis. The producers could have given the Commander any type of futuristic structure, mansion, or castle as the hub of the Grounders. Could be a hotel or stadium. They chose a single tower, like the one that imprisoned the princess Rapunzel in numerous paintings and films. Although this tower primarily holds Clarke captive in season 3, it doubles as a sort of political cage for Lexa as well, evoking the similarities between the young women. In fact, it seems to be the prison/grave of a great many powerful young women. When Lexa is gone, the tower holds Ontari next, but she buckles under pressure and throne is swiftly taken by ALIE. As Nightbloods and as an A.I. respectively, Lexa, Ontari, and ALIE are the spiritual progeny of Becca Pramheda, and the imposing tower in Polis is a tribute to her awesome but eogmaniacal legacy.

Episode 303

So there are three ingredients to make up this fairy tale: the princess, the hero, and the tower. Episode 3 of season 3, “Ye Who Enter Here”, gives viewers the first ascent to rescue the princess. Bellamy is manipulated into believing that Clarke and the Sky People’s other leaders will be killed in an assassination conspiracy. He leads a team to sneak into the city, murder the guards, and fight up the tower. They burst into the throne room with the intent to rescue Clarke, Kane, and Abby, but instead discover they’ve been lured here under false circumstances. Abby and Kane are not in danger, and Clarke has already conceded to the Commander’s political bargaining, even taking a willing role to stay as an ambassador.

So why write the rescue in episode 3 to fail? The metatextual explanation is that the conspiracy and near shoot out in the throne room serves to escalate the conflict between the two cities, to drive a wedge between Clarke and Bellamy, to frame Lexa’s coalition as weak without Clarke’s aid, and to show Bellamy’s willingness to commit violence in the set up for his dark tragedy arc for the next third of the season. Bellamy loses two women he loves in this episode; Gina is lost to war crimes and Clarke is lost to politics. Already seen by his friends as someone reacting too emotionally where a threat to his loved ones is concerned, this tragedy creates an opening for Pike to recruit him.

The character reasoning for Clarke in episode 3 is simpler, yet in many ways more difficult for the audience to accept: the princess doesn’t want to be saved yet. At this point of her journey, Clarke is not ready to go home. She has a new plan for her political goals, and the beautiful warlord who held her captive is now offering her an escape from the direct duties of her people. As an ambassador, Clarke can serve Arkadia’s interests from an emotional and physical distance. She is keeping them safe, on the terms Lexa set. It’s a respite from responsibility, packaged in the allure of comfort. If she stays, Lexa will benevolently rule the Sky People as the thirteenth clan, and Lexa will personally give Clarke a place of protection and relief. For someone as soul-shattered as Clarke has become, what a relief that must be.  

The positioning of Commander Lexa and Polis is also written in a specifically mythic manner in this episode. First of all, she is presented in all her splendor, so as to portray both her nobility and power (and her great hair care regimen.)  After Bellamy’s aborted assault on the throne room, Lexa privately bows to Clarke and vows to protect te Sky People. However, this only happens after Clarke has publicly bowed to Lexa and given the Wanheda’s “power” over to the Commander. Clarke, with the help of Kane and Abby, has effectively conceded her kingdom to Lexa as an overlord.  Putting it that way perhaps unfairly takes some of the romance out of it–Lexa and Clarke are romantically entranced by each other, and the intent behind the political union is genuine. Lexa’s personal commitment to Clarke is real. However, that commitment was only given after Clarke submits to her will and hands Lexa the symbolic power of the Sky Peopl. If this episode felt like a political wedding between a princess and a king for the rights to her realm, that’s because it ticked all the familiar boxes of such a story. It was a concession before it was a commitment.

To summarize so far: Clark isn’t ready to go home in “Ye who Enter Here”, and Bellamy’s motives are driven by fear and the manipulation of outsiders. This rescue fails, and the episode ends in a massacre that none of the main characters are able to prevent. It establishes the major players in their respective roles for the conflict between Polis and Arkadia over the next five episodes.

Episode 315

A lot of story happens after this: Clarke and Lexa play out their star-crossed romance, Bellamy, Pike, Kane and Octavia play out their own bloody drama, and ALIE slowly absorbs the people of both cities into her cyber cult. When the heroes of the Sky People revisit Polis in episode 15, completing the circle they began in episode 3, they once again face captivity, traitors, and a dire race against time. “Perverse Instantiation, Part One” becomes the heroic mirror of episode 3. The setup is the same: the princess is imprisoned in the top of the tower and is asked submit to a greater power. Once again that power is personified as a beautiful woman sitting on the throne of the city, heir to Becca Pramheda. While Lexa was assisted by an A.I., ALIE is an A.I. And like Lexa, ALIE believes she is serving humanity best with her choices. Clarke is also in a familiar position: give in, accept the fate that the ruler on the throne wants for her, accede her personal sovereignty. Instead of the symbolic power of bowing, Clarke can give the literal power of the Flame’s password.  Instead of the distant threat of war on her people, Clarke now faces the immediate threat of torture and coercion. New words, but the song remains the same.

Yet Clarke is a different woman now: she will not give in to this. She will not consign humanity to ALIE’s rule. Instead of speaking for Arkadia she speaks for all thirteen clans, and she stands her ground. ALIE has nothing to offer Clarke, so instead ALIE attempts to take away what Clarke loves–friends, family, hope. ALIE fails, because Clarke has finally found her inner strength after a season of self-doubt.

It’s all so familiar from here. Once again, Bellamy ascends the tower to save the princess of his people. Once again his group captures the elevator and fights their way to the top. But he’s a different man as well: he tries not to kill his opponents and his success is dependent on the cooperation of his fellows. The warriors who follow him trust him where before they doubted his methods. His mission is in service of all the peoples of the realm—not just his personal fears or the defense of his single community. He is there because Clarke asked him to be, because the threat is real this time, and because they built a plan with their friends and allies to defeat this enemy together.  

As before, Bellamy believes Clarke is in danger when the elevator carries him up. But this time he’s right–the princess is trapped, tormented, and they arrive just in time to save her and Abby. Bellamy personally cuts Clarke’s bonds from where she is tied to a post like some kind of village virgin being sacrificed to appease the local monster. Subtle with imagery, this show is not! They stall Jaha and free Abby; they fail to save the puppet Ontari, but the password remains safe from ALIE. Finally, the mirror version of the ascent in episode 3 is complete, this time toward a hopeful end. The hero has reached the top of the tower, the princess is free, and the protagonists have survived against great odds.

“Perverse Instantiation, Part One” ends immediately after the completion of the trope, but in true 100 fashion, just because they defeated the minions and saved the princess, the story isn’t over. Actually, everything is terrible, and we’re all going to die.  No sooner does the show wrap up one genre homage than it skips right on to the next: the mythic fantasy arc had ended, and science fiction rules take over for “Perverse Instantiation, Part Two”.  

[saltandlimes]

This is so awesome that I’m posting it so the rest of the world can see. I hope you don’t mind, dear! Also like super random, but wow is this awesome research and information for people. (Also I slightly edited because, as you say, mobile sucks)

[SW headcanons at the end]

WELL OKAY IF IT’S ESSENTIAL INFORMATION and I’m procrastinating on some technical writing like nobody’s business HERE IS AN ATTEMPTED BREAKDOWN OF WHAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF “GLORIFIED METAL STICK” MOBILITY AIDS ARE GOOD FOR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHY I’M DESIGNING WITH THEM

Insert disclaimer that the only person whose body I have extensively studied these things on is my own and I’ve been using various mobility aids for less than a fifth of my life so this is not magic gospel etc whatever MOTION INCLUDING VIOLENCE TIME

Basic-as-heck term definition party: canes are what you think they are, o reader; forearm crutches are those things that look kind of like canes that go up to your elbow (for example, these are mine https://www.ergoactives.com/products/crutches); armpit crutches are the design family that, uh, go up to your armpits, I guess that is kind of obvious. This includes the off-the-shelf ones you see people with broken legs and stuff with, as well as fancy shit like my beloved www.djoglobal.com/products/donjoy/rebound-crutches that spawned this discourse in the first place.

The way I walk it’s a successively escalating trade off of increasing quality of walking with my hands at the expense of being able to use my hands for other things. Canes I have a free hand no matter what, and all the ones I’ve had have been aluminum with a wrist loop and so very easy to either just drag up off the floor when I pick my hand up or hook the handle over my wrist and treat like an awkward bracelet. Nothing else has that degree of unobtrusiveness, but it’s at the expense of the least increase in physical function. They’re the most versatile for combat because they’re just three feet of metal with a handle; I can flip one up into my hand to hold it like a sword with the handle as the pommel in one gesture without taking the wrist loop off, or throw it in the air and catch it at the base and swing it using the handle as a hammer. Most of my sparring with fencers has been with canes; any higher than that up the scale (the scale is both figurative and my arm) requires moving to a set of combat motions that are fairly unique.

Forearm crutches are kind of like canes without the wrist motion; my wrist is locked straight and it doesn’t make any sense to flip them upside down to use as a bat instead. I can swing from the elbow–even aside from trying to hit people, one of the tics I have with forearm crutches that I don’t with anything else is swinging them in a little sideways arc with each step instead of just back-and-forth if I’m on uneven ground, because that motion is much easier from the elbow than either the wrist or the shoulder–and I can bend my elbows, which means I can, for example, cross one or both crutches in front of my body to prove a point or block projectiles. Motions are increasingly exaggerated and unsubtle, but generally have more force behind them.

The only armpit crutches I can speak for are mine–the question-mark shape as opposed to the kind of triangular ones, I’ve tried them, we had deep disagreements–but given what I know about playing soccer with the other kind of armpit crutches there might not be a huge difference here. At any rate, they move with my arms and not only do I not have wrist rotation I basically have none in the elbow; what I can do with them is limited to the range of motion of my shoulders with a metal bar jammed under them. Trying to hit things with armpit crutches without taking them off (see below for the alternative to that) is all big, openhanded or overhead swings and jabs, and I can’t cross them like forearm crutches.

On the other hand, armpit crutches have the second-largest range of motion when standing still, and the largest range of motion without taking them off! Where propping my elbows up on forearm crutches so that they stay put without my hands on the handles is weird and a bit precarious and the added motions are basically “ability to use a phone”, and the versatility of a cane is mostly just that I can lift it easily, if I stand still and don’t lift my upper arms above my shoulders armpit crutches will just stay put. So I can text, or read, or do fine manual labor, or curse people out with appropriate gestures, or even stick my hands in my pockets or behind my back. There’s way less violence/other uncommon physical actions one can do without preparing for it, but if you’re going to be standing still and need continued physical support (strictly you’re not supposed to put weight through your armpits and also no one actually follows that rule) it’s the closest you’ll get to a loophole giving you the range of expressiveness of someone without crutches. The best physical example I can think of is if I was teaching a class and I had to use a high whiteboard frequently (ugh) I’d probably just give up and use one forearm crutch or a cane so my writing hand would be free, but if I’m /lecturing/ armpit crutches are basically invisible.

Which is how I got here: thinking about gesturing relating to giving orders etc., versus hitting people, and who I would prioritize those around! Which brings us to: MEANWHILE BACK AT THE STAR WAR as long as we’re here and in a format I can do links here’s where I’m at for the grab bag of characters I’ve slapped stuff on so far. Sorry for the ugly links and the fact that I am in love with a few designs specifically, I very much play favorites.

It would probably make more sense for at least some lightsaber users to have canes instead of forearm crutches but I am the boss of me and also working off of not having any specific disability headcanons and instead going “what would I need to cosplay this person” so forearm crutch party it is. Between https://www.ergoactives.com/products/crutches and millennialmedical.com/forearm-in-motion-crutches.html the canon saber colors are covered and I haven’t gone through Jedi-by-Jedi to figure out which handle is more their #aesthetic for the most part.

I haven’t seen any Rebels let alone S3 (booo me, etc.) so I know what color I’d give Thrawn (the Millennial blue anodized aluminum) but not if the way he moves would tip him over into forearm crutches vs the fact that I’m giving most high command kinds of people armpit crutches. So blue millennialmedical.com/in-motion-pro-crutch.html versus millennialmedical.com/forearm-in-motion-crutches.html and disclaimer that it’s not just aesthetic; I get the impression if forced to pick a color he’d pick a definition of what he is that includes species over rank, I think?

On the complete other side of the “how much of your identity is your rank” spectrum, we have established that I can’t /not/ give Krennic those same Millennials in white, look at this shit, I am being personally persecuted. millennialmedical.com/in-motion-pro-crutch.html Even aside from being the right color they’re nominally severe and elegant while also being kind of weird and having a lot of potential for casual damage. Also this became a character analysis project at some point.

Hux gets mine (www.djoglobal.com/products/donjoy/rebound-crutches), that’s kind of just a given. “Black metal with a single red bar is The Aesthetic” is what got us here. …That and the fact that things I have established I can do while wearing mine include standing still with my hands clasped behind my back, and wandering around wearing a (leather) greatcoat as a cape, so… They fit him more than plain black armpit crutches would, and that train of thought is how I realized that was the general model (damn it. Puns. Go away) to go with for command staff in the first place.

Speaking of black and red, my roommate’s reaction (“Darth Emo Douchebag (sic)”) when I got them aside there’s not enough red in them for Ren BUT there is in the red-bodied version of the Millennial ones!

Also I’m giving Ren armpit crutches despite having established that forearm crutches are my favorite for combat for three reasons. Two and a half? His canon saber is fucking absurd in design in general and also in /size/, this is not a dick joke, it is a fucking magic space broadsword, having it be in the same design family as everyone else’s would be weird. And the caveat to how limited my range of motion for hitting people with armpit crutches on is that they’re about a foot longer and if I take one off and hold it like a bat while leaning on the other I suddenly have four feet of metal to swing–which is the most effective/intimidating combat option for me, and also the one involving highest burn-out rate (I have two crutches for a reason) and undermining of the purpose of having crutches itself. Which seems appropriate. (And if you’re weaponizing forearm crutches you can block. Even without taking them off the range of motion for armpit crutches–like, imagine your arm is four feet long, entirely straight, and there’s about 20 degrees less range of motion from the shoulder–makes them offense-only, and a form of offense with long, telegraphed strikes that require complete commitment to the arc.)

Back to people who aren’t primarily hand-to-hand combatants: the fact that I’m flying by the seat of my pants basing these choices off of what they would mean for my daily life means that, basically, command staff etc get /either/ canes or armpit crutches–because they’re the two options that give you the most expressiveness with hands without dropping them–based on whether I think they’re also someone who’d prioritize increase in daily walking range versus increase in dexterity.

So Sloane, in the continued tales of ‘not-very-anon just really wants to upgrade to the In-Motions but has literally no justification for it and so is giving them to space fascists instead’, gets these, too millennialmedical.com/in-motion-pro-crutch.html but in the gunmetal/charcoal gray. Even though she now holds a rank that means a white uniform, she doesn’t strongly identify with it; metal in the steel-to-gunmetal range registers to me personally as much more of a generic authority thing, and it wouldn’t clash with her olive/black uniform or the white one.

But I gave Tarkin one of these instead https://smile.amazon.com/Hugo-Mobility-Adjustable-Handle-Reflective/dp/B005IV0AZ6/ref=sr_1_8_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1486768005&sr=8-8&keywords=Hugo%2Bmobility&th=1 because I feel like he’d prioritize use of his hands to what on me would be a fault, and similarly take the narrow tip for pinpoint turns over “being sure that you won’t fuck up your entire balance if you miss the ground by more than ten degrees”. I briefly considered the amber color because it matches the highest rank he’s attained but honestly the 'it’s the gun color’ logic holds here too.

The other thing canes are easier for is getting up/sitting down quickly, so for someone who either alternates between desk work and short distances, or is going to be probably seated but jump up and yell at people on short notice, it’s the intuitive choice there too. So the other cane-user I have a solid design claim for is Carise Sindian and she gets the cane that’s actually my current backup/job interview cane (it intimidates people less, idk, I don’t get it and I don’t like it but oh well): https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B005IV0C2W/ref=sr_ph_1_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1486768449&sr=sr-1&keywords=Hugo+mobility, in aquamarine. Bright, obviously a deliberate fashion statement without being frivolous if you have any idea what you’re looking at, I like the wider bases even though they make me less graceful in specific circumstances because they also stand up on their own so if you need to look like you know what you’re doing in unfamiliar environments (like, say, Random Politics Events) you don’t have to play the game of “whoops where can I lean these up against oh they fell on me again ow this was definitely intentional”, and for her I’d want to prioritize the appearance of intentionality and dignity.

I know I want Sinjir (hey, look, it’s someone who isn’t a villain! I swear I like them sometimes!) to have a cane with a molded left-handed grip and the tack-hammer-shaped handle that is a good, well, hammer in a pinch if you flip it around and hold it by the end of the cane, but I haven’t found one I can link.

Similarly, Leia strikes me as either a walking stick person or as someone with a folding cane who actually disassembles it, with no middle ground, and I have no idea what to look for there because I am not either of those kinds of people, so I am going to stop now and do my overdue Thing instead and hope that the stream of consciousness didn’t make this unreadable and that it was in fact interesting!

[gizmodouniverse]

Civil RIghts

FAQ about racism

“Am I Racist?” Yes.

“WTF DUDE, I’M NOT RACIST, I I LOVE ALL PEOPLE!” Okay, okay, let me explain. When most people think of the term racist, they have images of this Hitler-mustache-twirling hateful redneck who believes the white race is superior over all others. Most racism is not deliberate and is usually very subtle. Most psychologists/sociologists refer to this as implicit bias.

“What is implicit bias” Let me go ahead and Tarentino it. Humans have evolved with a tribal mentality. Anybody who is different or outside of our tribe is scary. They might hurt us and they may have germs that are different from ours. Therefore, they might be dangerous.

Implicit bias are the subconscious feelings that we have toward people or cultures who are different from our own.

“Wtf are you talking about?” Subconscious feelings are feelings you often don’t even know are there. They may include anxiety, fear, or behavior that is less warm and welcoming than you would show to people of your own race and much less than of your own social circle.

“What does this mean for the real world.” When it comes to members of a different culture or race we may be less inclined to approach them or make friends with them. We may not be inclined to smile at them on the street. We may see them as more intimidating than we normally would someone of our own race, despite being of similar size or other physical qualities.

“Wait a minute, I have a few friends whom are of a different race than I, I can’t be racist.” Unfortunately, part of implicit bias is that we often see people whom are close to us as the exceptions rather than the norm. In some ways, our mind has brought them into our social group and assigned the qualifying relationships to them. Those relationships typically do not extend past that person.

“Okay, so how do I stop implicit bias?” Well, Alcoholics Anonymous put it best when they said “the first step is admitting you have a problem. As in, you consciously have to identify that those feelings exist and try to actively work against them and, honestly, they may never go away.

“So what does this have to do with police officers?” Well, police officers are humans too. Which means, implicit bias.

“So police officers are terrible people?” No, not at all. Police officers are flawed individuals who just want to go home to their families every night. Often times, their bias manifests itself by the fear and anxiety that they feel when dealing with members of a different race and may lead to being overly tough or strict.

Most police officers do not wake up in the morning with a plan to go kill some black people...

But...

this bias sticks out like a thumb when officers often do not connect with or understand some of the communities that they are given charge of.

“Why not?” A couple of reasons, really. These are just a theory of mine.... 1. Police are often of a different demographic than the communities that they are given charge of. 2. Police often do not give enough time and attention to be involved in the community as a member of the neighborhood. 3. Police training seems to lack enough focus on serving the community, de-escalation, and ensuring safety of it’s citizens and too much focus on military style tactics and weapon s training.

“But what about...” I would like to revisit the police on a separate FAQ.

“We’re all equal.” What do you mean.

“We should all be treated the same.” Yes.

“Well, how come black people get special treatment? Nobody ever talks about racism towards white people!”

White people are, essentially the ruling class. They essentially hold most government positions and most leadership positions and they have for 300 years. It is entirely normal for a subsection of people to hold a moderate amount of resentment for that.

“So? Black people can hold those positions, they’re holding themselves back. They must not be interested.”

Not entirely, the vast majority of black people have been stuck in poverty since the end of the Civil War.

“Yeah. Well, that was in 1865, that’s 150 years ago!”

Perhaps, but government policies have traditionally been very difficult on black Americans.

After the civil war, black Americans were set free from their masters and owned nothing. Many got their start as sharecroppers or “slavery by another name” which basically meant that they worked for their old masters and got a portion of the crop as payment but frequently owed their masters money for “renting the equipment.”

“See, they could have gotten started on their destiny and made something of themselves!”

In theory, but after the Union left the confederate states to their own devices, they got started with clamping down on black people’s right to vote through violence and intimidation. After former confederate leaders resumed their racist governments, they started enacting laws that were very difficult on the black communities. We know these laws as Jim Crowe

“Who is Jim Crowe?!” Jim Crowe wasn’t a person. They were a serious of laws that relegated black people to the status of second class citizen. They were denied the right to vote, own property, segregated into different facilities. They were not allowed to address white people directly or sometimes indirectly and were often required to display high levels of respect towards white people or suffer violence and intimidation. If they were lucky, the police threw them in jail for the crime.”

In fact many of these laws were enforced through street justice. Which means that white civilians just lynched them and no one cared.

If, somehow, a black person did get arrested. They were found guilty of whatever crime they committed. Juries were made up of white people because jury assignments were determined by voter rolls... so black people were disqualified.

“Wow, that’s all bad stuff, but that was a long time ago.”

Not really. Jim Crowe officially ended in 1965 with the passage of the Civil Rights amendment.

If you weren’t around, then you probably have a parent or grandparent that was.

“Okay, so they passed the civil rights thing, we’re all equal now and blacks have equal chance as whites do.”

Yes, but no. Wealth is often generational. Each generation strives to be just a little bit better than the last one.

Most people often inherent financial and social wealth from their parents and get a chance to build upon that.

Let me give you an example, we have heard about Henry Ford and the rise of the automobile.

“Yes, he was able to make cars available to the masses!” Yes, but when we say the masses we mostly mean white people. Remember, black people still mostly don’t have anything.

“Okay, so people can drive, big deal” This meant that people could move further from the city and live in the suburbs. New Deal provisions made it easy for a person to get a 30 year loan for houses out in the suburbs.

“See, Black people could have...” No, not at all. See black people often did not meet residency requirements of these neighborhoods (you had to be white) or the loan officer/bank was racist, or, quite simply, black people did not own collateral so they just couldn’t get a loan.

In time, these affordable housing projects in rural areas in the suburbs appreciated greatly.

“Appreciated?” They went up in value. That means white people could borrow against it, sell it, or leave it to their children. They often used that money to send themselves or their kids to college. The increase in value also meant they paid more in property taxes. Because of location and simply being white, they often had access to better jobs.

“What does property taxes have to do with anything?” In the United States, property tax tends to go towards schools. Higher property tax means better schools. In contrast, black people were stuck in the inner city. They mostly did not own their housing and the houses were worth much less which means much less funding for schools.

“What are they doing in the inner city?” We all know that “rough part of town” when I say that, we all have an image in our head of where that is and who lives there. That’s literally the area that black people live in because they are stuck there because of residency laws and lack of access to high paying jobs and education has historically made it difficult to leave so they tend to be stuck in poverty. They did not choose to move there so that their gangs could meet without using FaceTime.

“Why don’t they move?” Ever tried to move with no money? The job situation is improving somewhat as society progresses, but we are talking 150 years of struggle that we have to get through.

“Well, how come they get special attention. I mean, affirmative action and other social programs purposefully help black people. That’s reverse discrimination!” Those arguments only make sense if you’re assuming that Black and White people are similar economically. However, black people are very economically disadvantaged and those programs seek to help them catch up. I don’t understand this need to be jealous.

“How come they get BET?” Black people have a different cultural and entertainment interest than you do. Unless you want to watch “Tyler Perry presents” all day, in which case you can tune in to BET.

“But they have drug problems/kill each other/lazy/paternal abandonment” Yes, they often have issues related to poverty and insecurity. Many civil rights leaders do seek to address those concerns but you may not have heard of them because they’re not directed at you.

“Well, okay, but I don’t have white privilege.” Yes you do. Whites privilege is the implicit bias that you don’t have to deal with because you primarily deal with people whom are of similar culture and race to you. White people don’t often ask other white people who they are and where they’re going because they are seen as part of the in-group. Often, you literally look like everyone else around you and are barely noticed. Furthermore, Hitler-mustache-twirlers are a thing that you don’t have to worry about. Sometimes they are in powerful positions and disqualify people if their names sound foreign or black.

“So why don’t we get rid of those Hitler-wannabes?!” It’s complicated. Sometimes white people sympathize with them as members of the community. We don’t usually have individual racist interactions with people in our in-group so we may never know what level of racist people are until they start discussing how they are inspired by the text of Mein Kampf Racism is very deep in some societies and while some racism is explicit... sometimes you cannot convince people that something is racist because it’s difficult for someone who has never been a victim of explicit racism to understand how something is racist. Dog whistle tactics, by design, float over our heads.

“Dog whistles? Like those things you blow on that are only meant to be heard by dogs?” Yes, but for racism. Words have double or hidden meanings or are designed in such a way that you can say it and most people won’t understand what is being said except for the intended audience.

This was a powerful tactic used during the southern strategy.

Examples: New World Order - typically used to be anti-Semitic. Pest control in relation to Nazis - typically used by anti-semites and holocaust deniers. “States’ Rights”- was once a politically correct way to say “States’ rights to own slaves.”

“Whatever, why should I feel guilty for being white?!” Don’t. Nobody is responsible for the actions of their ancestors. We just need to push forward and try to help our fellow Americans instead of working against them.

“YEAH! White pride!” 🤦‍♂️. White is a race. American and European are cultures. American and White are so intertwined that simply saying white is like acknowledging American accomplishments without including the other races that made it happen.

“How comes you can say Black Pride, then?!” Black people lost their history prior to the civil war. Black pride is more of a rallying cry for the trials and tribulations that black people have had to endure over the years as a people.

“All Lives Matter!” Yes, but Black Lives Matter is an actual organized group who wants to address issues related to race and police brutality. All lives Matter is not a group. They do not organize marches or discuss solutions. It is literally just something that people throw out as a counter narrative to the group. If you would like, you can organize a ALM group and connect with BLM and practice political activism and work together to find solutions for the problems facing America, today.

“Is X racist?” Yes, minimally he/she has implicit racism. BUT If they are in a leadership position, they may also be racist in that they don’t identify with or try to identify with issues that face members of a different race and/or promote laws or ideologies that either directly or indirectly harm members of a specific race, sometimes based on ignorance, sometimes apathy, and sometimes racial identity.

[psychotherapyconsultants]

Another School Shooting, Another Week in America

There are no words to express the depth of frustration, agony, and heartbreak I feel when I see in the news that there has been yet another school shooting in America. 17 dead. Seventeen lives ended before they could graduate high school, find love, go to college or learn a trade, and start a family.

As humans, our inclination is to turn to the perpetrator of this crime and ask, “Why?” But as Americans, we need to stop asking this question and offering empty “thoughts and prayers.” Instead, we need to start looking for solutions to this growing epidemic of mass shootings in our country, consistently perpetrated by homegrown terrorists. This is uniquely an American epidemic. This is uniquely an American problem.

You don’t read about many school shootings throughout the world, because they simply don’t happen in other countries. You don’t read about people wringing their hands over a failed mental health system in other countries, because they actually have a pretty decent mental health care system.

It’s easy to dismiss each school shooting as it happens as, “Oh, that person was just crazy.” We should’ve known better. Someone should’ve acted on the signs.

But in the case of Nikolas Cruz, we can clearly see how broken our American mental health system is today. And how the “signs” (which change to fit whatever person we’re talking about) are unknowable until after the act. It also shows that no mental health system is up to the task of preventing gun violence in schools, because that’s not the primary job or mission of mental health professionals.

Politico makes the case:

Yet despite the fact that he was well known to local police, school and mental health officials, he legally purchased the AR-15 that he used to gun down his former classmates. Cruz slipped through the gaps in a dysfunctional mental health system and a gun background check setup not designed to stop mentally ill people who haven’t been incarcerated or court-ordered into treatment.

What are we supposed to do, lock people up before they commit an actual crime (e.g., “pre-crime”)? Lock up every teenager who expresses dark thoughts? That would be a good half of all teens today. Lock up anyone who is a bully or “doesn’t fit in”? That would be the other half of all teens today.

Cruz, 19, was apparently in counseling for a time, but quit going last fall. It was unclear how long he had been in therapy, and what he was seeing a therapist for. But therapist’s aren’t fortune tellers, and they have a pretty lousy track record in being able to accurately predict future violence. The best predictor of future violence is past violent acts. And while Cruz had a history of some physical violence, it was primarily directed at inanimate objects and animals — not people.1

Can We Catch People Like Cruz in Background Checks? No

The article later implies that reforming the background check system would’ve caught Cruz and made it impossible for him to purchase the gun with which he used to kill 17 people:

Policy experts and lawmakers have tried reforming the background check system to include more people, but Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era regulation did the opposite. The rule required the Social Security Administration to report people on disability insurance who had severe mental illness and required someone else to file for them, to the FBI’s background check system to prohibit them from purchasing a gun.

However, the article leaves out an important point — it isn’t clear that Cruz was even on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or had a “severe mental illness.” As a 19 year old, it would’ve been unlikely he was, as benefits generally stop when a child turns 18. He was expelled from high school and living at home with his mother in 2016, when he was 17, so he no longer was a student and didn’t appear to suffer from any type of serious disability — he held down a job and was working on getting his GED — that would’ve qualified him for SSDI.

All of which just means that even if that particular regulation was in place, it likely would’ve had no effect on Cruz’s ability to legally obtain a firearm. Getting outpatient mental health treatment alone is not — nor should it ever be — a barrier to exercising one’s 2nd Amendment rights.

His mother died in November 2017 — just 3 months ago. That’s likely a key event that contributed to him taking a course of action that ended in the current tragedy. Oddly, however, after moving in with a friend’s family, he showed absolutely no signs of trouble:

He was respectful, followed the rules and seemed grateful to have a home. Up until the shooting, there was no sign of trouble. Just the day before, he had ridden with his friend’s father to the alternative school where he was working on his GED, then went to his job at the dollar store.

This is a person you’d still be concerned about? Nope, not most people. Not even a therapist, if he had been seeing one.

It is super easy to look back at a person’s behavior in hindsight and see everything that points to a clear indication that he was guilty. That it was inevitable that he would’ve committed this or a similar crime. Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as “hindsight bias.”

But we have to remember — most people with similar symptoms don’t commit these kinds of heinous crimes. We shouldn’t indict everyone who acts a little strangely or has behavioral problems based on a small minority of people who then go on to commit a crime. We have to remember, there is no significant correlation between mental illness and an increased risk of violence.

Cuts to Mental Health Care in America

Of course, none of this helps when the President calls for the mental health system to pick up the slack, and then calls for deep cuts in the same system:

But just this week, for the second year in a row, his budget proposed deep cuts to the nation’s mental health programs and programs meant to help prevent crime in schools and assist them in recovery from tragedies.

Only in America can we ask a broken, fragmented system to do more with less, and expect results. The reality is, things are only going to continue to decline and there will be even more tragic school shootings in the months and years to come.

And yes, it would be silly to talk about all of these mass shootings without addressing the tool that allows so many deaths to take place in such a short period of time — certain types of guns with high-capacity magazines. What is the point of such magazines or guns? Very few hunters use them. They are simply ridiculous for self-protection purposes. So other than, “Because I like them,” there seems to be little point in them.

Finally, it’s clear that if enough people communicated more clearly and consistently about a person of concern, there still doesn’t mean a lot can always be done in most communities. It seems everyone in this particular community knew about Cruz — the school, teachers, the police, and even his own mom. He was in therapy, he was getting treatment. But still nobody could help him. And in the end, nobody could stop him. That should be cause for concern for us all.

Enough is enough. We can’t address the problem of school shootings without a complex, multi-faceted response. It’s not just one thing — it’s a combination of factors that need to come together to fix this problem.

Nothing ever changes if nothing changes. Let’s be the change needed to end this problem and keep our children alive to see adulthood.

  For further information

Politico: How the alleged Florida shooter escaped years of warnings

Washington Post: Fla. shooting suspect had a history of explosive anger, depression, killing animals

Footnotes:

Some may claim that’s a clear indication of certain psychopathic tendencies. But in professional terms, even if he was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, most people with that disorder don’t murder other people.

from World of Psychology https://psychcentral.com/blog/another-school-shooting-another-week-in-america/

[scripttorture]

Bit of an odd situation for this one, so I apologize if it's out of your scope. CharacterA was a child soldier in Russia, groomed from around age 6 to be an assassin and honey trap. Due to time travel bullshit, CharacterB has now found themselves in charge of a 3-year-old CharacterA who has much of the child soldier mentality and trauma still present. What kinds of lingering issues should they expect/keep an eye out for, and how could they best help this child recover? Modern setting. Thanks!

I might be able to help a little but I don’t know anything about childhood development. And that means that because of the age of the character there’s going to be a lot of important stuff I miss.

 Scripttraumasurvivors had some posts on how abuse effects childhood development and how kids at different ages express symptoms. I’d suggest taking a look at their blog.

 The impression I get is that the outlook for child soldiers is generally poorer then that of other children but there’s a lot of variability and it doesn’t necessarily have to be as bad as it is now.

 There are a lot of different factors that lead to child soldiers having shorter, poorer and less healthy lives and some of those factors can be eliminated.

 The biggest one is rejection by the community. People typically don’t want to care for child soldiers. They are often an easy target for the anger and frustration victimised communities feel towards armed groups.

 Isolation exacerbates mental health problems. Isolated children are less likely to learn acceptable social behaviour (a big problem when they’ve been taught violence is the best solution). And rejection reinforces the narrative their captors push on them: that the only home they’ll ever have is with the armed group.

 The cases I’ve read about are all with much older children. Typically child soldiers are much older then this. They’re usually in their teens.

 It’s also important to remember that ‘child soldier’ encompasses any child working within an armed group, whether they are actively fighting or not.

 Self esteem problems, mood swings and difficult behaviour (sometimes violence but more often aggression and inability to respond to social cues) all seem to be common.

 I’m not sure what these would look like in very young children. However one of the things child soldiers often talk about is difficulty going back to school, getting training or finding jobs. They’re very aware their lack of training has handicapped them. I’ve not read any accounts of them being put back in school among much younger classmates but I imagine at least some of them would find it humiliating.

 I’d say that whatever the age (and whether they’re in school or not) this character is likely to feel isolated from and unable to relate to their peers. These feelings may include a degree of jealousy that their peers have access to things Character A does not.

 I honestly don’t know how to write these complex feelings manifesting in a three year old.

 I do know that in young children the symptoms and emotions at play often get read as the child ‘being difficult’ or ‘acting out’.

 Patience and compassion are important.

 I think the other main thing to keep in mind for Character B is repetition.

 Children raised in these kinds of indoctrinating environments are- They’re subjected to a lot of repeated messages some are about things the group wants them to believe and some are ‘accidental’ lessons. So for instance the group might put a lot of effort into teaching children that ‘You can’t trust anyone outside the group’. And they might accidentally instil things like ‘Do not eat in front of bigger people because they will take your food’.

 It would be perfectly normal for Character A to be consciously aware of some of these lessons and unaware of others. For instance if they were explicitly told not to trust outsiders they’d be aware of that and able to verbalise it. But they might not be able to verbalise (or properly think through) something more complex like ‘when you raise your voice I become anxious because I associate that with anger and I associate anger with emotional or physical abuse.’

 This is something that applies to adult survivors and I expect it would be more pronounced in children: people can’t always explain why something feels bad or even what about the situation made it bad.

 Which means that care takers like Character B need to be patient and be careful about the behaviours/lessons they reinforce.

 Any rejection, however small it seems, could be read as ‘evidence’ for that common cult-style lesson that ‘no one outside the group can be trusted, no one outside the group will care about you’.

 Undermining these things takes a lot of time. And it can be complicated by the fact that someone can know a feeling is irrational yet still feel it.

 Again repetition, providing a consistently safe and nurturing environment, is key.

 Any form of physical punishment, whether it’s smacking, sending a child to bed without supper or making them stand in a corner, should be avoided. There’s considerable evidence that smacking at any level is harmful to children. In this particular story I think any sort of physical punishment would worsen the relationship between carer and child, while also reinforcing the message that the people who trained Character A were right.

 Beyond that I tend to get a bit more vague because while I know a little about child soldiers there’s still a lot more reading I need to do.

 There is a lot of variety in outlooks and outcomes for former child soldiers.

 A fair proportion of them go on to have normal lives and contribute to their communities. That proportion increases when there are concerted efforts to welcome them back and care for them.

 Some former child soldiers are scoped up by criminal groups. I personally think that a lot of this is because of communal rejection and a lack of other options. Without schooling and skills former child soldiers are relatively easy targets.

 I don’t have a breakdown of common mental illnesses in former child soldiers. The general symptoms of trauma are typically the same regardless of the trauma, so you could pick some symptoms from the list on this Masterpost here. They would all be in the realm of possibility even if I can’t tell you how common or uncommon they’d be for child soldiers in particular.

 I haven’t read enough about or by child soldiers to feel confident guessing a number of symptoms. If the character survives abuse or torture as part of their time as a soldier then I’d suggest following the guidelines in the Masterpost of around 3-5 symptoms.

 Because we don’t have any way to predict which individual survivors develop which particular symptoms I always recommend approaching this choice as an author and considering what works best with the story.

 You might want to rule out using some symptoms because of the character’s age. You’ll also want to consider how the character’s age would effect the expression of symptoms.

 Anxiety (and related mental health problems) can cause a rapid heart rate, pain in the chest, shakes and a light headed, dizzy feeling. Depression (and related mental health problems) can manifest as tiredness, lack of appetite (or conversely much increased appetite) and nausea (sometimes vomiting).

 In a character who can’t necessarily express what they’re feeling (who doesn’t know mental health terms) these symptoms can be confused with physical illness.

 My impression, based purely on anecdotes, is that many mentally ill children are labelled as ‘problem children’ long before there’s a suggestion that they might be unwell. It can be difficult to know how to help someone who doesn’t have the vocabulary or experience to express what is wrong and how to fix it.

 It’s also really natural, whatever the character’s age is, to get angry at the lack of understanding and accommodations for mental illness. It’s especially difficult to be patient when you’re in pain.

 The only other thing I can think of in terms of Character A is that they’d probably say a lot of things adults would find very disturbing.

 They’ll not only have been exposed to a lot of… It’s not even really ‘age inappropriate’ so much as inhumane things. They’re told these things are normal. They’re used to being praised for them.

 If this child is used to being given positive attention for- Pointing out how someone could be manipulated or killed then they are likely to do it once they begin to trust Character B.

 And the problem here is that responding with horror, or telling the child to stop can damage their trust in the adult. It can feel like rejection and it can be difficult for very young children to understand why something they were previously praised for is now wrong. Even when a child understands being unable to express or share things they’ve come to see as ‘normal’ is difficult.

 All of which boils down to this: Character B has a damned difficult job ahead of them.

 It is hard to rehabilitate traumatised kids even for professionals with experience. For someone who doesn’t have that background it’s stressful, intense and they might not expect so many moments when things seem to get worse instead of better.

 They need a lot of patience and an absolute commitment to winning Character A’s trust. Which could take months or more. Consistently providing a stable, safe, loving environment is essential.

 What that should look like to best serve the characters isn’t a question I can answer precisely.

 There’s a list of sources on child soldiers here that you might find helpful. Also my salty complaints about Cambridge University Press’ search function.

 Barber’s book (which I haven’t read yet) focuses primarily on recover and rehabilitation so it might be helpful to you. However age is a factor and I am unsure how many children in Barber’s data set were under 14.

 I hope that helps :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[a-scorpio-king]

Passive Females, Aggressive Bodies

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about abortion and the constant push by so-called “pro-life” individuals to limit the ability of those with birth-capable bodies to control their reproductive health.  Ok, let’s be honest, I think about this stuff all the time but I read an article not long ago, the second such in the past year or so, that talks about the biology of human reproduction and the ways in which the gestating parent’s body literally fights for control, and survival, with the growing fetus pretty much from the second the thing is implanted.  

The article, published on aeon.co, essentially lays out the many ways in which human reproduction is anything but romantic, natural, or, especially, safe for those doing the gestating, and only instilled in me even further the idea that a fetus, until the person carrying it effectively gives it birth and, by so doing life, is nothing more than a parasite that will kill the person carrying it if it can, all in the name of its own survival.  Likely, this is largely--the article goes on to explain--due to evolution, which has caused these conditions to occur over many thousands of years in order to create humans with large brains, brains which require huge amounts of resources during the pregnancy stage in order to properly develop.

Further, the number of pregnancies successfully carried to implantation, and not even to term, is significantly lower than those which end up in the toilet every month, carried away by a menstrual cycle that is guarding the person’s health so rigidly it is literally safer for the person to bleed for 5-7 days than to carry a developing fetus anywhere other than (un)safely attached to the uterine lining where the parent’s body can keep a watchful eye on it.

This isn’t the miracle of life, it’s fucking war.

But the point I’m trying to make is that in a situation where the person’s body is actively trying to starve and stymie a fetus’ access to the parent’s resources, for so-called pro-life individuals to portray abortion as an act and allowing an unwanted fetus to gestate as simply allowing “nature” to take its course is not just hypocrisy but actually quite monstrous.  The act of gestating a child has become so dangerous to the human species that the parent’s body will fight tooth and nail to get rid of it because the alternative is being stripped of health and life one heartbeat at a time until the parent’s body is nothing more than an essenceless husk at the end of it.  I’m put in mind of the scene in Mad Max: Fury Road in which the lifeless fetus is cut out of Angharad’s dying body in order to take possession of a potential male offspring.  So-called pro-life individuals see only the poor dead fetus, so ripe with potential and life, while completely ignoring the life of the woman draining out on the dashboard, robbed of autonomy and made into just a vessel for someone else’s ambitions.

The passivity with which so-called pro-life individuals try to paint themselves is so aggressive, so demeaning to people with pregnancy-capable bodies.  It’s wrapped up in the false premise that pregnancy, the state of being pregnant, is a passive state, and any movement to change that state is an aggression, when, as the article referenced earlier ad nauseum shows, pregnancy is anything but a passive thing.  To end a pregnancy is less violent than the violence being enacted daily between parental body and fetus.  The article poses it as a sort of natural selection, that any embryo not strong enough, not fully implanted, must die in order to protect valuable resources, but when it comes to abortion, shouldn’t it be only the natural progression that the final say over the continued existence of a parasitic embryo lie with the one in whose body said embryo came to be?  And to take it further--because a lot of people are afraid of so-called late-stage abortion because suddenly the even-more-voracious parasite is bigger and has a face--shouldn’t the decision of whether to potentially sacrifice one’s own life in order to bring that squalling parasite into the world lie with the one, the only one, who will forced to give up their life for that to happen?  

But this all plays into the idea that pregnancy-capable individuals--generally gendered female--be always passive, accepting of whatever comes to them, never taking what they want or in any way making demands on others, especially on cis males.  Besides being just wrong--not all pregnancy capable bodies are female--it feeds into cultural norms that are designed to privilege the cis male individual, which we can all identify as patriarchy.  

In thinking about these juxtapositions of passivity/aggressivity, I’m minded of a novel I read recently (on audiobook, to be specific), by Emma Donoghue.  Her most recent novel, The Wonder portrays the experience of an English nurse, a Nightingale Nurse, to be specific, trained by the redoubtable pioneer of the profession herself, hired by a tiny Irish village to investigate the wondrous little girl in their midst who seems to subsist indefinitely without eating.  Now, this post is soon going to cross over both into the realm of Discussion of Actual Scenes in the Book (aka spoilers) and also pregnancy and sexuality specifically dealing with cis women.  I’ve done my best to keep this post as non-transphobic as I am capable till now, but as the subject matter of the novel specifically deals with cis-coded women, I will generally be talking about women and gendered cultural expectations around being women, so please just know that I’m not unaware of what’s happening, but to avoid complications I’ll use the gendered terms from the novel itself.  (I certainly understand that trans women and trans men are even more pressured to conform to cultural gender expectations and receive even more harassment.)  As to the spoilers, well, reader beware, I guess.  Or stop here and go read the book.

The Wonder deals with the parallel storylines of Lib Wright, a widowed nurse, and Anna O’Donnell, and eight-year-old girl who refuses to eat and has become a source of spiritual tourism for her community.  Lib has been hired to watch Anna and ascertain whether she is in fact eating from some hidden source, or to keep her from eating, or to prove she is a saint, depending on whom Lib meets during her two-week stay in the impoverished village.  Already this is ringing cultural bells--a little girl becomes famous for literally doing nothing, the only acceptable way for a female to gain notoriety.  Lib, on the other hand, is part of possibly the only profession remotely acceptable for a woman to have outside the home--taking care of others, mothering--even though to do it for money is a cultural indicator that Lib is used up, not good enough even to care for her own family, which the reader finds out is far too close to home for her.  

Throughout her two-week stay in Ireland, Lib fights the opposing urges to nurture Anna and convince her to eat, and to conduct her watches as a strict experiment, reveling in the moment she foresees herself finding Anna out and proving that there is no such thing as manna from heaven upon which a little girl can sustain herself.  Lib wants science, not superstition, to be proven the authority--something all people who believe in reproductive autonomy can support--and yet for that to happen Lib must completely relegate Anna to the guardianship of people who have something to gain from her continued starvation, which runs completely counter to what Lib’s professional calling.  This internal conflict isn’t helped by the apparent inaction of Anna’s parents, who seem to revel in Anna’s wondrous behavior and treat her as though she were some sort of saint come to earth.  The aggressive passivity of Anna’s mother, in particular, is almost violent in its insistence that Lib, a representative of science and reason, is an enemy to be defeated through Mrs. O’Donnell’s faith alone.  Adding to all this is Lib’s own ignorance of Catholicism and treatment of the Irish she encounters; she looks at all of them as superstitious savages who continue in their poverty and malnutrition out of some perverse desire to follow their backwards religion, when in reality the post-Blight state of Ireland is anything but simple.  

 Lib’s ability to solve the mystery of Anna’s wonder is primarily the result, though, of her character arc as she meets various members of the community as well as an outsider--a newspaper reporter from Dublin who is both educated and intelligent--and comes to understand their position and why they act the way they do.  Lib grows as a character, is brought to see her own errors, and is then in a position to investigate the true mystery behind Anna’s situation.  Lib is that horror, the intelligent woman capable of thinking for herself and coming to logical conclusions, whom many of the so-called pro-life agenda seek to hobble, or in whom they don’t believe; they harbor such fear of those capable of pregnancy making their own choices about their bodies, and take the--un-asked-for--role of “my sister’s keeper,” seeking to take away choice before a choice can even be made, in case that choice runs counter to the aggressive and broken morality of those who value the unborn over the living.  Of course, as Lib learns, so does the reader.  The reader is exposed, through Lib’s interactions with Anna’s family, and eventually with Anna herself, that Anna’s wonder is a result of sexual abuse and the inaction of those who are supposed to care for her physical and emotional well-being--namely, her parents and her priest.  Anna is starving herself to get her brother into heaven, on the belief that reciting a particular prayer while fasting will release him from purgatory sooner.  The problem is that her dead brother is only in purgatory--or better, hell--because of the sins he committed against her.

Like Lib, Anna’s situation is a direct result of the actions of a male member of her family, but she has been blamed for it.  Nothing Anna could have done could have prevented her brother’s desire to rape her, just as nothing Lib could have done would have saved her newborn child and made it live, and thus her husband’s leaving her because, in his words, there was no reason to stay any longer.  Even when women are passive, they are forced to carry the blame for men’s actions.  Lib went to the Crimea and became a nurse, attempting to care for men injured in imperialist violence; Anna tried to starve herself.  Both were trying to atone for something they didn’t do, and for which they could never be redeemed in the eyes of their respective societies.

The events of The Wonder may not be identical to what happens today, in a modern society that still actively keeps women from exercising autonomy over their own bodies, but it is a stark illustration of the fact that women--and girls--will always be held responsible, will always be culpable for the actions of men, will always be expected to adhere to an enforced--and false--passivity, as long as women are considered second-class or not-the-default.  Being pregnant is not passive; to be and remain pregnant is the violent path, the way of force, the dangerous way to travel.  To end what can turn out to be the most perilous thing a person can do--is the path of least resistance.

Unless, that is, those who would prevent an abortion consider it a personal attack on themselves and their petty, interfering morality, just as Mrs. O’Donnell considered Lib’s attempts to find the cause of Anna’s starvation a personal attack on the righteousness of the entire family, on the Catholic church itself.  Lib only wanted Anna to do what was natural--to eat, to take care of herself, to find a way to live a good and normal life--just as every person capable of bearing a pregnancy should have the ability to make the natural choice about what is right for themselves and their bodies, independent of the self-righteous and holier-than-though guilt being heaped upon them by those who violently persist in confusing intrusiveness with saintliness.

[scripttorture]

If I understand correctly you've said that torture for information wasn't a thing until recently. If that's right, what do you make of the reference in Procopius's Secret History to someone refusing to divulge information despite being tortured? I understand that probably nothing in the Secret History actually happened but I don't think its age is in any doubt so it seems like it should be as reflective of that time's attitudes as modern fiction is of ours.

Gentle reminder that the blog is primarily for writing advice. I amgoing to answer this but it doesn’t seem linked to a story and I’m supposed tobe helping people with fiction. I appreciate that I’m probably the only placeyou can all freely ask questions about torture but that does get a bit muchsometimes and I’m always going to put questions on writing about torture first.

 And this may get a little long.

 My definition of ‘recently’ may not be the same as yours especially ifyou’re from the US, Canada or Australia. And that’s on me for not being clearabout my terms. But if I’m talking about history and I use the term ‘recent’ Icould mean anything within the last 400 years or so. Because I’m used to theidea of events back in 1000AD having a clear and obvious impact on our present.

 And uh I have no idea what Procopius’Secret History is. Google informs me it’s Roman, that makes sense.

 Two things about my theory here:

1)      It’s my own theory based on myown reading and a more thorough academic analysis might well knock it topieces. I try to be clear when something is my opinion or my own theory.However informed it is, it doesn’t have the same weight as rigorous peerreviewed analysis. That’s a big part of why I’m answering this: I want all of you to question and factcheck me like any other source.

2)      It’s about what people primarily see torture as ‘for’ ratherthan a statement that torture was alwaysused ‘for’ particular purposes at particular time periods. Torture certainlywas used in the context of interrogation and confession in societies that Idon’t think used torture primarily in those contexts.

 The Romans (and Greeks) used torture in a judicial setting. But I stilldon’t think we can really claim it was the major ‘use’ of torture in theirsocieties because these societies were founded on slavery.

 Torture was used in attemptsto extract information. However we are talking about societies in which asignificant proportion of the population were subjected to physical and sexualabuse on a daily basis. In the case of the Romans we’re talking about a societythat turned public murder and torture into mass entertainment.

 Given how pervasive torture was in everyday life I don’t think the ideathat torture was mainly used ‘for’ information stands up.  Not if we’re using modern definitions oftorture.

 I think that in Roman and Ancient Greek societies torture was mostlyabout brutalising slaves and physically demarking the ‘difference’ between freecitizens and the enslaved.

 And I’d contrast that with the attitude to torture that seems to havebeen present in Britain after theRoman Empire fell.

 My interpretation is that the cultures that followed didn’t think oftorture as primarily a method of interrogation, a way of extracting confessionsor a way of terrorising people lower down their social hierarchy. I think theysaw torture primarily as a punishment, as something people were sentenced to.

 It was still part of the judicial system but in a very different way. Ithink there was a much heavier emphasis on ideas about criminality, sin andsuffering as a form of redemption.

 And while this use of torture as punishment did start to phase out in around the 1500-1600s many of them werestill on the books into the 1800s.

 I think the 1400s and 1500s started to see a heavier emphasis on ideasof torture as a means of interrogation and forcing confession but again there’sstill a heavy emphasis on punishment.

 There’s also a fair bit of religiously motivated torture which…I don’tfeel I’ve got a good enough grasp on the religions involved to really delvevery deeply into. I feel there were bigger political and internationalconnotations to this violence then ‘just’ terrorising and murdering minorities.

 There was also a lot of torture in the military. Rejali actuallysuggests it was the military that started the shift towards ‘clean’(non-scarring) tortures in Europe that started happening around the 1700s. Thiswas very much torture as ‘discipline’.

 I also think it’s useful in some contexts to distinguish the tortureEuropeans used against each other from the torture used against others in thecontext of Empire building. A lot ofpractices that were common in certain colonies were not common in Europe at thesame time.

 And the primary motivation in a lot of colonies was (I believe) closerto Roman ideas about citizens vs barbarians and keeping people lower on thesocial hierarchy ‘down’ then it was to ideas about what made interrogationeffective.

 That’s a very quick overview of torture in Europe (concentrating mostlyon Britain) and the ways I think attitudes to it (and use of it) changed overtime.

 Essentially I don’t think that all historical societies looked attorture the way we do now. Different cultures justified the atrocities theycommitted in different ways and their beliefs about what violence couldactually accomplish didn’t necessarily match ours.

 I think the pervasiveness and popularity of the idea that torture canproduce accurate information (not true) isa relatively new phenomena in Western countries. The idea that it’s the mainthing torture is ‘for’ and the regularity with which it turns up injustifications- these also seem to me like a much more recent thing.

 In the same way we don’t now tend to give much weight to the idea thattorture could save someone from hell. Our justice systems rely more on prisonthen ritual mutilation.

 Attitudes and cultures change over time. Emphasising modern attitudestowards torture doesn’t always fit in a story with a historical setting.

 I hope that clears things up. :)

Disclaimer