#the way this is phrased like an argument but WHO on tumblr will argue with most of this

[karinyosa]

i love gus in both shows but i think his story “matches” a lot better with the others in bcs than in brba because although both shows are about people who justify increasingly harmful things to themselves, in brba the fatal flaw is more like ego, specifically with our main character (ego as in a projection of the self rather than just vanity, ego as an inflated idea of oneself in terms of an investment in the self as father/husband/provider/archetypical good man, an investment in legacy, in pride), whereas bcs is for the most part, about a bunch of people that do bad things for someone they love in some way, however twisted the logic. and i guess the ego thing applies to walter more than anyone else in brba, he is kind of contrasted with most people in the show, and while you could argue much of the cartel is also driven by some form of ego, that’s not really explored and they are kind of just a conglomerate of baddies in brba, and i guess you could also argue that gus’ ego is in his ambition, that his pride is apparent in his massive fast food empire and his immaculate reputation. HOWEVER. i think that the core, the soft underbelly of gus’ story being firmly rooted in max pairs a LOT better with bcs’ way of writing about relationships and changes the meaning of some of those things. the meth lab was THEIR plan, not just his. doing it successfully means the success of max’s ambitions in ADDITION to his. he remains in search of a cook for YEARS, because that was max’s job. the cook has to be a chemist and totally up to par because MAX was a chemist. los pollos HERMANOS. dedicado a MAX. and of course the revenge itself. more than his own ego, everything he does is a monument to max. he dedicates himself to this entirely, revoking his own emotions and needs, just kind of coldly functioning for this one purpose. and of course you could say that that is also still ego-serving because it’s still holding yourself up this false ideal. but at the very least it’s a very different show of ego than walter’s. compare that with jimmy and ice station zebra, jimmy and the time machine, jimmy getting into law AT ALL, jimmy confessing. the transformation from the name of the child gus once was to gustavo fring, and the transformation from jimmy mcgill to saul goodman. guys. guys. i know it’s been said but guys

[caputvulpinum]

I remember you being something of a scholar on christian theology. I have a question if you don't mind. My tumblr is full of people clowning on american conservative catholics that are angry that the pope basically fired that bishop in Texas, and the tumblr posters saying "lol u disagree with the pope that makes you disagree w/ god's word" or "that makes u a protestant" etc etc.

And while I do enjoy dunking on the trad caths, I think I heard at some point that the pope isn't always talking with his authority as god's most special boy on earth. That most of the time he is just being a human and therefore could be wrong/make errors. Not that I care about the jerk bishop losing his job, but I'm curious, how do we know when the pope is or is not talking with the authority of God backing him up? Does he have to say a special phrase at the start and end of the speech, or hold both hands up above his head, or something?

Okay so what you're referring to here is actually the concept known as papal infallibility, which is one of my favorite pieces of Catholic canon for one very simple reason:

You learn about it as being essentially the Pope is God's most special boy on Earth and what he says is always directly spoken to him from God and therefore is infallible. And if you are like me when you first hear about this concept, you will immediately get trapped in shower arguments for the rest of your life fantasizing about calling the Pope homophobic and arguing for the Catholic church to please stop being so goddamned homophobic all the time.

This is when you learn that papal infallibility is much more fallible than it is made out to be, and this is basically the source of the issue with Strickland, Torres, and any other Bishop that Francyman has decided to give the boot. See, papal infallibility isn't merely a divine play-pretend godmode button, it's a complex and intricate place within theological debate and Vatican hierarchical bureaucratic structure.

Without going into too much of a in-depth explanation, another way to think of papal infallibility is that it's essentially the Holy Roman Catholic version of the President of the United States declaring an executive order that bypasses the Senate. Infallibility is used for similar reasons--it's got a semi-strict set of rules attached to its usage, which means that the Pope is not constantly infallible, but rather that the Pope as God's chosen elect on Earth therefore commands His greatest attention, which allows the Pope direct intercession and communication with God on paths that the Church as a body should walk.

There are usually supposed to be bureaucratic machinations for dethrocking or deposing a bishop, much of which is directly connected to confirming and providing direct evidence for certain crimes that the Holy See would consider too serious to allow him to continue serving in his position. But the Pope is the divinely elected God-Emperor Best Favorite of Oily Josh and his Daddio Self, so generally speaking when it comes to the Pope, there's always the option baked in for him to say "Fuck you I'm the Pope and you're going to do what I say without precedent".

This is the core of the issue for the current Strickland debacle--there might not be hard-and-fast written rules stating that Strickland can be removed from office through traditional means, but Francis doesn't approve of what he's preaching and using his office for since it's causing the minorest of itty-bitty issues with his principled stance of being The Pope That Liberals Might Vaguely Not Hate As Much. So he's functionally exercising a form of papal infallibility by skipping over procedures and etiquette to tell Strickland "Fuck you I'm the Pope and you're going to do what I say without precedent", and Strickland is going "But I thought you would only do that to bishops who belong to brown countries :(", and here we are.

[aspd-culture]

Heya, idk if this is a valid question or is really dumb, but like, does the age at which ASPD behavior starts to show have to be strictly 15?

I have been wondering whether I should get officially diagnosed, since the media and general societal representation of it doesn’t seem as reflecting of me (with exception of a few) but I do relate extremely closely to most of the diagnosing criteria. Although??? The physical aggression thing?? Like I have those impulses and plenty of them, but I just don’t follow through with most because of convenience. That sort of thing is one of the main things that makes me doubt whether I do actually have it. (Same with impulsive behaviors etc)

But my main point/ask is the age thing. As a very young child I was pretty sweet? Ig? Like I wasn’t an aggressive child, rather pretty passive. As far as I recall, my symptoms started when I was about 15-16, when I was starting to process that mine was a traumatic situation? and earlier than that I was just an edgy teen, I guess? I sure had some of the symptons way earlier, but the main ones/ the ones that I feel are more prominent in me didn’t show up until a bit later? I’m not sure. So my question is, does it mean it can’t be ASPD?

Also your page is lifesaving. Thanks man.

Note: due to the way copy and pasting criteria works on tumblr, this post will be written exclusively in plain text, as copying and pasting it all over again would take forever, but I want this post to be accessible still.

I haaaate the way the DSM phrases criteria. Absolutely no worries, it is confusing as heck and you wouldn't be the first person at all to ask about this.

So, the symptoms of Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder (DSM criteria below) need to show by or before the age of 15. (I do not know if Intermittent Explosive Disorder satisfies this criteria, but it very well may.) That means they may start when you're a toddler, or they may start when you're 14.5. Anywhere in there, you have to qualify for one of those two disorders, but you also do not have to have been diagnosed with them.

Also, having had been an "edgy teen" definitely could have been those symptoms showing themselves. The reason ASPD can't be diagnosed before 18 is because teenage edginess could either be symptoms or be normal, and the only real way to tell is if it continues past teenage and into adulthood.

The diagnostic criteria of Oppostional Defiant Disorder is as follows, quoted from the DSM-V TR:

A. A pattern of angry/iritable mood, argumentative/defiant behavior, or vindictiveness lasting at least 6 months as evidenced by at least four symptoms from any of the following categories, and exhibited during interaction with at least one individual who is not a sibling.

Angry/lrritable Mood

1. Often loses temper

2. Is often touchy or easily annoyed

3. Is often angry and resentful.

Argumentative/Defiant Behavior

4. Often argues with authority figures or, for children and adolescents, with adults.

5. Often actively defies or refuses to comply with requests from authority figures or with rules

6. Often deliberately annoys others

7. Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior.

Vindictiveness

8. Has been spiteful or vindictive at least twice within the past 6 months

Note: The persistence and frequency of these behaviors should be used to distinguish a behavior that is within normal limits from a behavior that is symptomatic. For children younger than 5 years, the behavior should occur on most days for a period of at least 6 months unless otherwise noted (Criterion A8). For individuals 5 years or older, the behavior should occur at least once per week for at least 6 months, unless otherwise noted (Criterion A8). While these frequency criteria provide guidance on a minimal level of frequency to define symptoms, other factors should also be considered, such as whether the frequency and intensity of the behaviors are outside a range that is normative for the individual's developmental level, gender, and culture.

B. The disturbance in behavior is associated with distress in the individual or others in his or her immediate social context (e.g., family, peer group, work colleagues), or it impacts negatively on social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning

C. The behaviors do not occur exclusively during the course of a psychotic substance use, depressive, or bipolar disorder. Also, the criteria are not met for disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

[End quote]

Conduct disorder's criteria more clearly shows the lead-in to ASPD.

The diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder is as follows, quoted from the DSM-V TR:

A. A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of at least three of the following 15 criteria in the past 12 months from any of the categories below, with at least one criterion present in the past 6 months:

Aggression to People and Animals

1. Often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others.

2. Often initiates physical fights.

3. Has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun)

4. Has been physically cruel to people

5. Has been physically cruel to animals

6. Has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, armed robbery)

7. Has forced someone into sexual activity

Destruction of Property

8. Has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage.

9. Has deliberately destroyed others' property (other than by fire setting).

Deceitfulness or Theft

10. Has broken into someone else's house, building, or car.

11. Often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., "cons' others).

12. Has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g. shoplifting, but without breaking and entering; forgery)

Serious Violations of Rules

13. Often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years.

14. Has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in the parental or parental surrogate home, or once without returning for a lengthy period

15. Is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years

B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning

C. If the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met for antisocial personality disorder.

[Skipping a bit of the quote which specifies codes for the various ages CD can present. It is worth noting that these are *not* criteria, they are specifications to be noted in the file of the person being diagnosed with conduct disorder to accurately describe their experience. As you'll see, these specifications are flags as to whether a child/teen with conduct disorder should be evaluated for ASPD upon reaching adulthood.]

Specify if:

With limited prosocial emotions: To qualify for this specifier, an individual must have displayed at least two of the following characteristics persistently over at least 12 months and in multiple relationships and settings. These characteristics reflect the individual's typical pattern of interpersonal and emotional functioning over this period and not just occasional occurrences in some situations. Thus, to assess the criteria for the specifier, multiple information sources are necessary. In addition to the individual's self-report, it is necessary to consider reports by others who have known the individual for extended periods of time (e.g., parents, teachers, co-workers, extended family members, peers).

Lack of remorse or guilt: Does not feel bad or guilty when he or she does something wrong (exclude remorse when expressed only when caught and/or facing punishment). The individual shows a general lack of concern about the negative consequences of his or her actions. For example, the individual is not remorseful after hurting someone or does not care about the consequences of breaking rules.

Callous-lack of empathy: Disregards and is unconcerned about the feelings of others. The individual is described as cold and uncaring. The individual appears more concerned about the effects of his or her actions on himself or herself, rather than their effects on others, even when they result in substantial harm to others.

Unconcerned about performance: Does not show concern about poor/problematic performance at school, at work, or in other important activities. The individual does not put forth the effort necessary to perform well, even when expectations are clear, and typically blames others for his or her poor performance.

Shallow or deficient affect: Does not express feelings or show emotions to others, except in ways that seem shallow, insincere, or superficial (e.g. actions contradict the emotion displayed; can turn emotions "on" or "off" quickly) or when emotional expressions are used for gain (e.g., emotions displayed to manipulate or intimidate others).

Specify current severity:

Mild: Few if any conduct problems in excess of those required to make the diagnosis are present, and conduct problems cause relatively minor harm to others (e.g., lying, truancy, staying out after dark without permission, other rule breaking)

Moderate: The number of conduct problems and the effect on others are intermediate between those specified in "mild" and those in "severe" (e.g. stealing without confronting a victim, vandalism)

Severe: Many conduct problems in excess of those required to make the diagnosis are present, or conduct problems cause considerable harm to others (e.g., forced sex, physical cruelty, use of a weapon, stealing while confronting a victim, breaking and entering).

[End of Quote]

As you can see, the criteria required before age 15 is not as intense as many professionals describe it. Remember that you are only required to have shown 3 out of the total 15 criteria in there. There is even a whole specifier for Conduct Disorder that is mild and only includes things like lying, basic rule-breaking, and/or staying out past curfew.

Acts of physical aggression are not actually required for ASPD at all, it's just that many prosocials see that being one of the possible symptoms and fixate on it, thus pushing everyone with ASPD into the box of physical aggresion. You absolutely can have ASPD and never act on any violent thoughts or urges.

I was also a very sweet and passive child, developing most of my externalized ASPD symptoms (rule breaking, disrespectful behavior/actions, challenging authority, etc) around age 13. However, the internal symptoms were there for me much younger - easily bored with poor handling of boredom, lack of empathetic reactions, difficulty apologizing/showing remorse due to not really feeling it, becoming very angry but not showing it, resulting for me in self destructive behaviors like cheek biting or controlled destructive behaviors like breaking something that wouldn't be missed (pencils and pens mostly for me).

Regardless of what symptoms were shown when, symptoms are still symptoms, and if you had enough for Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder before your 16th birthday, you are well within possibility of having ASPD. Keep in mind that the lying, manipulation, etc that can qualify for Conduct Disorder doesn't have to be grandiose or destructive except where it is explicitly stated in the criteria that it does (such as fire setting only counting for the destruction of property criteria if you meant to damage something with said fire).

It's so easy to count yourself out of ASPD because you don't fit the stereotypes or public perception of ASPD, but I assure you that there are many, many ways something as complex as a personality disorder can show itself.

It is absolutely a great thing, however, that you are covering your bases and making sure to do the research to see if this is what you have. That is the basis of an informed self-dx, should you come to the conclusion that you have ASPD.

Now, as for actually getting diagnosed, your mileage may vary with professionals. Many have bias against pwASPD ingrained into their practice, and won't diagnose you with it even though you have it if you aren't/weren't violent, law-breaking, or if they just think you "seem far too kind to have ASPD" (a real quote a former professional said to me a few months before I was diagnosed by my long-time psychiatrist). This doesn't mean you don't have ASPD. If they can't give you other explanations that make sense, and if their reasons for denying you that diagnosis are based in stigma or anything other than actual criteria, then you are well within your rights to continue being self-dx.

A professional should be able to explain, using criteria, why you don't have a disorder you think you may have. If they're doing their job, they should be willing to explain to you what their reasons are and point you in the direction they think may be causing the symptoms. And no, "just acting like a teenager" isn't good enough if enough symptoms have persisted into adulthood for you to meet the criteria for ASPD.

I hope this helps, apologies for it being so long.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for implying my sister’s a transphobe?

For context: i’m a nonbinary girl and at the time had recently broken up with my trans girlfriend of a year. I also have very different political stances than my sister, which historically makes me very frustrated (she’s a liberal so very into making sure people have rights but never acknowledging the structural problems that cause minority hatred/prejudice).

So my sister and i were playing a videogame together and having a great and fun time. We were switching the game and there was an add for Hogwarts Legacy on her home screen, which we both saw. I genuinely don’t remember who commented on it first. Either i said something like “ugh, please don’t get that godawful game” or she said something like “oh i wanna get/play this game”. Knowing me it was probably the former. A throwaway comment for sure. Either way, that started a little argument between us.

More context: my sister and i both grew up as avid potterheads. I was even more obsessed with it than her, as a lonely middle schooler with no friends, harry potter was my favorite avenue of escapism and basically my main coping method. Which is why i was so devastated when, in 2020, i found out about all the terf shit jkr had been posting and supporting. It felt like losing a close friend, and so it’s a subject around which i have a lot of pain thinking/talking about. But my sister (cishet) usually thinks I’m overreacting. She doesn’t support jkr’s rhetoric but doesn’t think that supporting her or her work monetarily is a bad thing whatsoever. Mainly she believes it simply won’t make a difference to her bottom line.

Anywho, we were arguing about Hogwarts Legacy and how i think that she shouldn’t give jkr any money regardless of how closely she was involved with the production, since she’s getting profit from it regardless. Sister brings up that she’s seen trans people who want to buy and play the game, and that i’m not the authority on the issue. I tell her that the people saying that are not the majority of the community, and that maybe she should listen to the person who’s actually trans and sitting right next to her. She disagrees, and i say “then just don’t call yourself an ally”. I don’t quite remember what she said, but the argument didn’t last long after that.

We continued playing whatever videogame, and then i excused myself to have dinner. When i came back k stopped by her room to share a fun fact, and she confronted me about how much it hurt her that i said she wasn’t an ally. She told me that she had put in real work by taking an intersectionality class in college, and by attending trans rights protests — all of which i’ve never done (mostly because of mental health issues i won’t get into). She was crying and upset, and i told her i was sorry for having that conversation at a bad time, and for how i phrased my thoughts, but that i didn’t take back what i said about her not being an ally and to say i was would be lying. I didn’t say much more because i saw how upset she was and didn’t think that was a good time to argue about my opinions - so we decided to talk about it later when she was calmer.

I still haven’t started that conversation because i haven’t decided if what i said was unnecessary and made me an asshole, or if what i said was justified and she needed to hear it. It’s been a few months now and we’re both back in college and living hours away from each other in different countries.

So, tumblr, AITA?

What are these acronyms?

[feybeasts]

“This doesn’t matter” is one of the most misunderstood coping statements in the English language. Co-opted by dimestore nihilists to throw up their hands in defeat, by pessimistic souses to throw things they cannot or do not wish to understand into the same pile of meaninglessness, it has become the stock phrase of the bitter, the feckless, the jaded.

But what if I told you such definitions are inherently wrongheaded? What if I told you that “This doesn’t matter” is, in fact, a phrase that can help organize your thoughts, quiet your fears, help you live with a world that is often loud and distressingly complex?

You see, it comes down to one of the peculiarities of the human mind. This particular peculiarity, both in the lives of the neurotypical and in my particularly frustrating autistic brain, is such; we like to define things.

No, that’s not too strong a statement- we NEED to define things, at least, that’s what our pattern-seeking lizard brainstems tell us. Everything must be understood, categorized, sorted and solved. There can BE no unanswered questions, there can BE no open statements. Either something is solved, or it’s an aggravating and stressful mystery, and it is in the latter case that, I hope, I can help to enlighten you to the great value in “this doesn’t matter”.

To give an example for our means- there’s a good post out there showing a map of the world where the south pole is up top. Now, for those of you who have been through the public education system in the US, I think you can feel the immediate thought that springs into your head on hearing that- “well, THAT isn’t right! The north is up!”

I know some of you, however- let’s be real, this is Tumblr- MOST of you answer that first statement in your own heads- or perhaps aloud- with a second, more “correct” statement: “No, it’s wrong because there’s no ‘up’ and ‘down’ in space.”

And while this point can be argued against the former, with both sides on that post bringing up all sorts of arguments about why the maps are the way they are or which projection is more correct, here’s where I arrived:

“Oh, it doesn’t matter”

This is not, as so often the statement is used, me dismissing the points being made on both sides, playing the devil’s advocate, or everyone’s favorite strawman, the “moderate.” No, the reason I think this, and the reason I talk about it here, is because that’s the point I think the south-up map makes, and that other posters made later in the thread when they shared other projections.

It doesn’t matter because as long as the map is correct and readable, its orientation is meaningless. It doesn’t matter which end is up, because it’s correct regardless. And that. THAT. Is where “it doesn’t matter” is such a powerful statement- it isn’t a dismissal of an argument or the sides taken, it is a reminder to yourself that the argument, the very human need to find the “right answer” is invalid in that case- the answer doesn’t matter because it’s not a question with one answer.

It is complex, it is variable depending on perspective.

It doesn’t matter.

And there it is, friends- the key to so very many things, so many arguments, so many complex issues- it doesn’t matter not because it has no answer or nobody has the “right” answer, but because to “answer” it is unimportant in relation to simply finding the perspective that works best for you.

When you can identify those situations, when you can look at something complex and subjective and see past the arguments and the shouting matches and the diatribes, you are free of that instinctual need to “solve” it.

You realize the answer to the question your lizard brain is posing, the category it fits, is that “It doesn’t matter”

And that, friends, is often an answer in itself.

In life, in love, in identity, in philosophy, your answer to the question is often just as much your own as someone else’s answer is theirs. The question of who is right, the puzzle of who has the “correct” take on it is meaningless, it’s not a question at all, because there isn’t a right one, only a million little arguments that do nothing at all but to hurt people by having them.

Sometimes, all you need to do is look at that “question” and tell yourself “Oh. It doesn’t matter. I just have to love them anyways.”

And when you do that? Well… you can devote a lot more of yourself to the things that matter the most. 💖

[mojoflower]

heyy there, im new to tumblr & i was learning to use it & ur post introducing people to tumblr came up and i read it. i just have a question, i read somewhere else that it is not welcome to disagree/argue w someone in my reblog of their post. say someone idk posts ab t swift & matty healy (controversial topic) & i reblog disagreeing, would that be seen as improper etiquette, as just spreading negativity? sry for the random q but u seem like u'd know. u can msg me to answer if u'd rather <3

Hello, @ashtraygrrrl and welcome! I'm glad that my post was helpful, what a lovely thing to hear.

We so happy to have you, and thanks for asking about things when you're unsure.

What you're talking about here is called (not-so-fondly) 'hijacking a post'. That can mean either using your re-blog to attack the OP (Original Poster)'s post or using your re-blog to just... say something completely unrelated. In either of these cases, if the hijack takes off, the OP is suddenly in the wildly upsetting position of getting hammered with potentially vicious reblogs that become totally out of their control. And that's a cruel thing to do to someone.

If you need to make your counter-argument, then use your own original post to do so, and tag it appropriately, so that the people who are interested can find it. (This does NOT mean tagging the OP.)

Now use your judgement, of course. The OP might be a mutual and y'all might have the kind of rapport where this is perfectly fine. Or you might be on a 'Yes, and' post where your random detour is appropriate and appreciated.

Mostly, just remember that you don't know anything about the OP, and err on the side of kindness. Then, hopefully, the community will treat you in the same way, and Tumblr stays fun and inclusive rather than toxic.

A good rule of thumb is to treat posts (whether they be random thoughts, art, fic, meta, etc.) like dishes at a potluck. If you don't like it, you don't shout about it, make a scene and cause that cook feel terrible... you just move on and sample the next one.

Remember to liberally use the 'Block' feature. It doesn't hurt anyone to do so (the blocked person/tag/phrase never even knows it) and helps your blood pressure and enjoyment.

[wizardnuke]

im talking about the essay grade again and i got off topic and started talking about the lit analysis potential inthe vast majority of fanfictionbjust. Ignore

i feel like it's such a humblebrag for me to be like "i don't understand how i continually get really good grades in english" because i understand objectively that 1) i am very good at analysis and/or. finding quotes to support whatever the fuck thesis i decided would be easy to support (see: "good at analysis") (i think i honestly just randomly hit the jackpot on "good thesis" but on god i just looked at macbeth and gawain respectively and was like Ah. Women's Wrongs. Easy Peasy) and 2) i know from looking at other people's essays that i am just kind of. marginally-to-a-lot better at grammar and phrasing/understand the very specific madlibs-style layout i have to use and what vocabulary that i need to be putting out. it's madlibs. there's a really technical and specific layout that needs to be followed and i just kind of follow it. it's not hard. it is boring. if i could write academic papers on the shit i'm actually interested in they'd be worthless because it's niche and/or wild tumblr user conjecture. anyone who seriously writes on. hold on i need to generate a thesis. "the cyclic nature of abuse and its direct correlation to homoeroticism in cn's supernatural" could u fucking imagine. that's hilarious. that's some hackjob shit no matter how well i could keep a straight face on the matter because all that people care about is Old Shit. i have no real vested interest in actual literary works beyond "they're important and better than people think". i have extremely strong feelings on a lot of modern works, generally movies and shows and niche dnd webshows, i cannot make a career in that shit, my english prof thinks fanfic is bullshit and i see where he's coming from! i don't think it's bullshit. but. the academic perspective on fanfiction is like "they're not making original work" because the setting/adjacent themes and characters r lifted from another work and there's no real originality in it except that the best fics i've read are like.. an alternate form of literary analysis that is so far from actual essay writing that it's unrecognizable. but people can see the themes and the motifs and rehash them in a way that is absolutely a kind of analysis of the original work, but with flourishes and new ideas and batshit choices that the og media either couldn't make/didn't feel like making/tentacle sex wasn't really thematically fitting but an author decided "hey what if i put themes into this consentacles fic" and like, i want to argue that that's legit. sometimes. but i am not going to do that bc i sound objectively insane and also sometimes it is just not that deep and that will be brought up as an argument and i just don't care enough to explain that it's still an art form even if it's not that deep. is "fun and funky fresh" not a common motivator. if "new interpretations" of works like shakespeare and shit where they plunk the characters into a modern setting and fuck with the phrasing is seen as a viable art form/type of analysis then fanfic is an art form/analysis adjacent to that. not all of it though. some of it is something else that is worse. not that i think that is in itself bad. fanfic is a hobby. can't make a career out of that. but people have made careers out of that by changing the names and setting and publishing books. and that's viable apparently. i just personally am insane and enjoy writing very serious and/or emotionally driven meta on dnd shows. i like themes and motifs and i think that while a quickly written meta post on the tragedy inherent in redemption arcs that hit 50k is absolutely not as academically sound as a cited paper on a similar subject, there's Something To It and there's got to be some kind of potential in it. i like stories. idk if i could make a living out of talking about stories especially from the insane angle that i tend to hit stories at. the possibility of making it a genuine career is driven down below ground after i take into consideration my insanity about modern stories vs my neutrality on older ones. what am i talking abt. bf is yelling for me bye

[edmundhoward]

2, 3, 10, 12, & 13 😈

🔥 choose violence ask game 🔥

2. a compelling argument for why your fave would never top or bottom

katherine howard stands out in basically all of her relationships as dominant/forthright in what she wants, with a sharp turn of phrase that suggests that while flirtations were fun for her, she had a capability to be mean when she willed it. she comes across as genuinely charming and charismatic, with a consistent attentiveness, but she also reliably has an edge to her in her relationships — she was arguably callous with dereham, and criticised culpeper repeatedly while also mocking bess harvey. i don’t generally like the way g.russell talks about her wrt her relationships, but i do like the way he described katherine as proud and proud and enjoying “one-upmanship in her flirtations”. do with that what you will.

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you ve seen on tumblr

not going to screenshot but there are soo many that are frankly baffling. the first to come to mind is the claim that poor henry viii must’ve been so offended by coa and her camp publicly dragging his baby brother’s name through the mud/throwing arthur under the bus. which begs the question: what, exactly, prompted coa to do that, pray tell? i really would love to know! very wilfully obtuse considering she was called to discuss the validity of her first marriage because henry viii disregarded the dispensation from the pope, and (arguably unnecessarily) made consummation a fundamental point of contention in annulling her second. that's on him. frankly, the whole ‘she used arthur’ argument really relies on an assumption that coa was lying about her sexual history when it suited her — as opposed to her being forced to once more defend her honour. (i guess it’s not surprising seeing as i have also seen posts insinuating that she had an inappropriate relationship with her confessor). moreover, why should we care if she was lying, or if she used arthur? atp, everyone involved is bones, and personally, i don’t give a single solitary shit if her defending herself denied henry from having a male heir, because monarchy is actually bullshit ❤️ it’s definitely not the worst but it’s so stupid and so funny to me.

10. worst part of fanon

the white feminism (read as: racism) lol.

this answer is definitely prompted by trastamara fandom’s disregard for poc/iberian muslims, but to bring it back to the tudors (and because i am dedicated to e1 stans catching strays) whatever the fuck certain elizabeth i stans have going on is rancid. the whole argument about whether or not elizabeth i should be held accountable for funding three slaving voyages was a profoundly bleak period in fandom, and seeing someone argue that it was “only three slave ships”… well. i hate it here, i absolutely hate it here.

12. the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

i don’t know if he counts as unpopular, but he’s not popular and the level of vitriol aimed at him relative to actual surviving historical fact makes me want to say henry vii, to be honest? the man was fascinating and generally successful in a way others compared against him (r3, h8) can’t always claim to be. regardless of whether or not people like him, how strongly some people hate him is wild. i’ve seen people claim he “inherited his rapist tendencies from his father” — an insane thing to say, not least because there is no evidence of rape connected to him. it just exposes the terminal brainworms and cringe that ricardians and h8 stans have… sad sad tears of a clown, truly. the fact that pointing out the very real, repeatedly historically recorded trend of calling henry vii ‘y daroganwr’ in multiple awdls got dismissed as “lionising” him… genuinely think people who actively dislike henry vii are stupid, end of discussion.

13. worst blorboficiation

at the moment, eustace chapuys is coming to mind. the tudors making him this sort of paternal figure, and moral crusader fighting for mary (and coa) was well done — but wildly inaccurate. the fact that his misogyny shapes and colours our perception of the tudor court world really must be recognised. if nothing else, i think recognising chapuys as a flawed, inconsistent and hypocritical figure makes him significantly more interesting. this is the man who belligerently called anne boleyn a whore, “concubine”, and the “english messalina”, and dismissed elizabeth as a bastard — to the point of having egregiously violent fantasies about them — whilst having an illegitimate son, himself. it’s very difficult to read his dispatches (many of which are often easily disproven and full of erroneous claims) and not be struck by the constant stream of potent and constant misogyny.

[elcorhamletlive]

I have so much RL shit to do so of course I went on tumblr to procrastinate, but after seeing some hot takes I felt compelled to write a post about "trauma bonding", and why the way fandom uses this expression is so strange and potentially harmful

basically, at its heart, it's a misconception. "trauma bonding" is the term used to describe the relationship that forms between a victim and an abuser. it's not unusual for victims to feel emotionally connected to their abusers, which can make proccessing their abuse for what it is really difficult and painful. it's one of the things that make it hard for victims to leave their abusers in the first place.

in the hellscape of fandom discourse, "trauma bonding" is often employed to describe a completely different situation. people use it to mean "two characters who went through the same/similar trauma and bonded over it". this is typically not phrased as a neutral statement; instead, "it was trauma bonding" seems to be employed as a way to argue against canon romantic relationships, with the intent to diminish them and/or portray them as unhealthy.

the main reason this is bad is that words mean things, and the term you're bastardising for petty fandom drama is actually an important concept for analysis of abusive dynamics in real life. it also demonstrates how shallowness and performativity guides fandom discourse, because people use words they don't know the mean of in order to pathologize any petty fandom shit they don't like, in order to make their opinions seem more righteous or intelligent.

the secondary reason this bothers me, in particular, is that what is suggested by this argument flattens the possibilities of human relationships. the generous perspective of the "it's just trauma bonding" talking point is that the people spouting it mean to say "having the same trauma as someone is not a basis for a romantic relationship". which, in itself, of course is true.

but just because something isn't the sole basis for a relationship, it doesn't mean experiencing it is bad, or that any relationship that can develop from it is automatically unhealthy and toxic. a relationship is composed of multiple elements, there's no "one thing" that can sustain it all. for example, having shared interests/hobbies is also not a basis for a relationship in itself, but it can serve as a jumping off point for the development of something deeper. in a similar vein, finding someone who has experienced similar pain as you, while not enough to sustain a relationship in itself, can be an immensely positive, cathardic, validating experience. support groups exist for a reason. sometimes all you need is to be around someone who understands.

to me the fact that people in fandom don't seem to realise that evidences how shallow this taking point is. what is a found family, if not a group of people who bond over their shared experience of being ostracized? yet you don't see this "trauma bonding" discourse directed towards this trope fandom loves so much. it is only employed in the context of it being weaponised as a serious-sounding buzzword in the service of shipping. and it is used to sustain a weak, blatantly wrong perspective of human relationships.

[nicolemossmer]

The Bourriaud and Gergel readings assigned this week really made me think about ownership and copyright within art and other industries. It became apparent to me that the way that industries view what is considered copyright varies significantly. For example, the Gergel reading discusses Richard Prince, who controversially took screenshots of public account’s Instagram posts and printed them out for profit without their consent or significant alteration to the images. This has been seen as controversial. Yet, in the music industry artists commonly “sample” music from other songs. This is most commonly done in the rap industry. In fact, some sub genres of music within EDM are entirely dedicated to only using prior created music. 

But if we were to compare this to writing this would be an entirely different story. I am writing this post after several other people in my class have already submitted their responses to Tumblr. If I were to copy and paste the response of my classmate, but I changed the font color and added a funny catch phrase at the bottom I would likely be given a stern warning. If I did it again, I might even be sent to the Office of Community Standards and if I continued to do so I could be suspended from the school. But in artistry, there seems to be a gray area for this. From my observations, it appears that the industry tends to favor the “copier” rather than the “original creator.” While some theorists like Bourriaud argue that, “The material they manipulate is no longer primary,” artists like Richard Prince are still able to profit and gain notoriety off of their work (Bourriaud, 7). There are few repercussions within the industry to regulate this. 

Thinking about this more I realized the issue in the art industry. Rap music is able to get away with sampling music because it is done openly and rappers rarely claim a sample as their own. In my example of writing a response above, I could be exempt from any honor code violation if I were to cite my source properly. So long as I do not claim the work to be mine and I correctly name the original creator, then society seems to almost always deem this as okay. I think that this is where art needs to draw the line. Consent and citations are critical for the “reproduction” of art to be ethical. Gergel underscores the former aspect and points out that, “while copyright law concerns the rights of the owner, what about the rights of the subject?” Art has not only offered little protections for creators but also has failed in many ways to protect the rights of the subjects of materials. Issues of this can also be found in Richard Prince’s Instagram artworks.

For my Tumblr share this week I chose to share a comic that discusses plagiarism. In it, the little boy is asking how to cite a source in his paper to an adult who notices that several of the pages of his paper are copied entirely. The adult explains that it is “plagiarism unless you put it in your words,” to which the boy replies, “I did. By coincidence they are exactly the same.” I felt that this comic fits so perfectly into the discussion of whether reproduction of another should be considered not as “plagiarism.” The child’s response to the adult’s concerns feels like the response that many artists would give after being confronted about reproduction in artwork. I think that it points to Bourriaud’s argument that like the boy’s paper, reproduced art forms are no longer “primary” or “original” pieces of art. They are derived and sometimes directly copied from prior work and as such I believe should be cited and give credit to the original creator.  

[spynorth]

I know you and I have discussed this a lot, but for the sake of posterity and for the understanding of your followers, will you talk about what it is you disagree with when it comes to Lucas/John in popular "fanon" and why you disagree?

I've been so lazy that I haven't wanted to do this but I can't think of anything else so here we go. There was a .. movement? what would you call it??.. when series 9 of spooks aired (along with quite a few years after) that was prevalent here on tumblr with the personals where people would have things like i believe in lucas north and lucas north lives and even back then when I had no thoughts whatsoever as to character complexity and how much fun it is to dive into things... it just felt so wrong to me. So basically a hugely popular fanon idea is that the writers intended for Lucas to have a split identity .. and tbh I think that is nothing more than fan attempts to reconcile the idea that this pretty white boy fave of a character is suddenly found out to be a lying, manipulative, terrorist. And I get that emotion behind the discovery and also find it really ironic because I don't know if fans of the show are putting two and two together that the characters that are his colleagues are probably feeling the exact same way? In fact, there's ample evidence that that's the case. But anyways, i guess my unpopular anti-fanon belief (so essentially the essence of what i disagree with when it comes to their ideas) is that Lucas is not excusable. He does not have remorse. He did not forget that he did what he did and sudden have some jekyll and hyde reawakening. He is very much aware. I'm gonna go through each ep in series 9 to bring up the aspects that make me think that, and I'll be sure to include the counter arguments for certain parts too. I'm gonna include links to the episode and timestamps for each point made but I don't think it works in countries outside the us so I apologize for that.

A little disclaimer that I hit the limit so I will have to make a separate post in regards to my evidence from episode 8. i apologize.

Episode 1

This one starts off pretty much like any other. You kind of get the vibe that the whole trauma of harry + ruth is gonna be the main focus but during the last 1:49 vaughn enters the chat and it get so fucking interesting. So if you watch the episode (linked above in the heading) and get to 56:17, the following interactions begins:

Vaughn: It's not really you, is it?

Lucas seems very confused here at first. There's a little indulgent smile and a shake of his head that does give off that vibe of 'who the fuck are you?' so I get why people tend to argue that he doesn't recognize him. But it's important to remember that in the next camera angle we see vaughn step out of the shadows and towards him.

Vaughn: 15 years and you look just the same. Seems terribly unfair. Lucas: Get away from me.

Alright, pause. I mean. could he just be freaked out by a dude who is talking like he knows him and invading his space given his past trauma being incarcerated during an operation? of course. But the way he steps back, that body language, that expression...I don't always believe that RA is the best actor (esp when it comes to voice inflection etc) but he really does sell series 9 of lucas for me with the slight gestures etc and this is where that really begins. During this conversation, Lucas circles around Vaughn, shoulders straight and square. He's ready for a fight. They talk a bit and at mark 56:46, there's the following:

lucas: whatever it is you want, vaughn, you're not getting it from me.

A few things I love about this line as far as what I use to justify my opinion about this arc (is it opinion when its glaringly obvious? idk idk) are that 1) it shows he does in fact know him and 2) the way lucas' voice cracks in a moment of what i can only assume is apprehension and a bit of fear blended with the phrasing ("you're not getting it from me.") really feels like lucas knows exactly whats up. he has one fear in regards to this situation and he's really fucking hoping he's wrong. but. alas. When vaughn claims to be giving up, says he's going to leave him alone, lucas swallows three times. I'm a swallower. in a non dirty way. But when I'm trying to release tension, especially tension in regards to anxiety in relation to a situation that could really bite me in the ass .. I also swallow it down. That's where the phrase swallow your fear came from actually. the physical tendency that people have to do that in situations such as this. But anyways, Lucas is trying to relax, to take control of his discomfiture, but Vaughn delivers some great parting lines and I think Lucas' reactions to those alone negate the whole he didn't know thing, but I'm still gonna go episode by episode because I love research papers.

Vaughn: just tell me one thing. I'm too curious. what's it been like? Lucas: what's what been like? Vaughn: Being lucas north, of course.

THAT IS THE MOST PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE COMMENT. (57:15 if you need specifics) And Lucas looks at him with an expression that I will admit is a bit unreadable. But I think it can be inferred to be like oh please god don't let this go where I think it's going because of his reaction to Vaughn's final parting comment of "Good to see you, john." Lucas isn't confused by that comment. He swallows and closes his eyes and clenches his fist because the one person that can make his carefully constructed lie tighten around his neck has just played his cards and showed that he has no trouble doing so. It's not confusion that crosses Lucas's face. It's sheer fucking panic. You don't have to look wild eyed and sweaty to be in a state of terror. In fact, deer in the headlights is a very real thing and I think we get a great glimpse of that here.

Episode 2.

There is a lot I could say about this episode in regards to his development and the fleshing out of his backstory as far as his canon background with maya goes but I'm keeping this strictly about the things that make me believe he is a fucking manipulative mastermind and not rehashing his whole story. So yeah, if you know the show, I'm leaving things about. but his attempt at rekindling a romantic relationship with her has nothing to do (right now in the series at least) with evidence that is knowingly lying and 100% aware of the bombing of dakar and the part he played etc etc. In short, the only thing I can really say about this episode in regards to proof of what he was doing, is that he uses the idea that he's arguing for beth's reinstatement as a way to tack on asking harry for the level a clearance he needs in order to look into what vaughn might possibly be after. He does have the following conversation with maya (56:49).

lucas: maya, when i was in africa, something happened. i couldn't risk bringing it home to you. i couldn't.

I have a lot i could say about lucas and the unhealthy relationship with maya (in regards to the way he treats her etc) but I don't know if i'll ever waste my time considering she isn't featured on this blog... but if i did..it would be in another post. My main reason for including the above quote is because, though ambiguous, it does give another hint that he is well aware something happened when he was in africa before joining mi5 (pre lucas north, if you will). I said ambiguous because I know there's a vibe of well he didn't know what part he played in it due to forgotten memories via trauma and like .. ok. I'll bite. for now, we'll say it's ambiguous. But I'm including it seeing as how I will refer to it in the future of this post.

Episode 3.

This is a fun episode for me because it really paints a pic of how dedicated Lucas is too painting whatever picture he needs to achieve his goals, and it does it through a scene with him and Maya. Twelve minutes in to the beginning, he gives her a call. Tells her he's ready to come clean. Direct quote is "I want to tell you everything. Tonight." A lot of shit goes down in the episode (i mean, it's a spy show. it cant all be double life rogue agent soap opera stuff, right?) and eventually at the 55:30 mark, we get a scene where maya visits his flat. Soooo Important and I really want to break the whole thing down but I think I'm gonna do the whole transcription first and then attack it point by point.

maya: you lie to me and i swear you will never see me again. lucas: okay. come in. maya: why did you let me believe you were dead? lucas: alright. i went to prison for eight years. Is that good enough? maya: prison? Why, did you kill someone? lucas: no. maya: did you hurt someone, then? lucas: no. maya: I suppose you're innocent? lucas: no. maya: Why did you decide to turn up now? lucas: a photograph of you. all those years I'd spent trying to forget, they just fell away. I had to see you. maya: is that true? lucas: every word.

Alright. *rubs my hands together*. This is so fantastic. And I am coming at this not just as someone who has tried to do research on the whim of his own vibe, but also as someone who knows the strategies for lying, knows the dedication to the tiniest of details that you have to remember. One of the most important strategies in crafting a believable story and wanting to win the other person over, is telling just enough truth to make the lie not a lie. What do I mean? Take the above conversation for example. From the very beginning, maya is straight forward and up front with what she wants of him and Lucas seemingly agrees - but straight out of the gate he is lying by definition of omitting the truth. He did not let her believe he was dead because he was in prison. Lucas was incarcerated while on a mission in Russia for mi5. He had already abandoned maya and essentially played dead but by referencing both the incarceration and the time length with no other details, he allows her to fill in the gaps. We can assume based on her reactions and further questions, that she associates this answer with the one I cited above in episode 2. It would be a logical jump on her part to tie him saying he was in prison for eight years as being related to the thing he told her that he hadn't wanted to bring home to her. Which .. it wasn't. It wasn't at all. so. That's lie 1. He continues to lie by omission as the conversation continues. She asks if he hurt someone or killed them. He answers no. Technically not a lie since being found out during a covert operation wasn't directly related to him killing or harming anyone, but he is allowing his answers to be tied into his prison answer which, as discussed, was not actually why he was gone at all. So, Lies 2 and 3. The fourth and final lie (in this scene anyways) is his declaration that every word is true. Is it? in a way, yes. but only because he knows how to spin it. he knows how to lie without lying. a perfect unraveling of the truth. Oof. Lucas..my boy ... oof.

Episode 4

We start off with a shot of lucas and maya in his bedroom (aw. romance in falsehoods. i love it) and as he begins to get ready for work after mi5 calls him, the following happens:

maya: i don't even know what you do, john. lucas: private security consultant.

MAN. Man oh man. I love that we are staying true to that whole tell me the truth and nothing but the truth thing. Granted, granted, I am not a polarizing asshole and I do understand that hes in mi5 and that whole secrecy and lying thing comes with the territory but damn is he good at it. that fucker didn't even hesitate. but anyways, this is a great point to show that he is still a lying liar who lies. Anyways, the show goes on - ooh spy stuff. I forgot this show actually dealt with spy stuff. I've been caught up in the liar liar pants on fire plotine of it all - and at 20:47 (in the middle of an operation. pesky career. getting in the way of everything) vaughn calls lucas on his mobile. he tells him he wants him to retrieve a file (albany) and ends the call with:

vaughn: please. they won't leave me alone. do this for me and i'm gone. forever. you can carry on with whatever life you want.

Lucas understandably has a meltdown after he hangs up (no music, distorted camera, he's grabbing his hair. it's all very bbc one drama of them) but again, we have that declaration of vaughn that i think is so important. with whatever life you want. lucas doesnt question this. he's not like 'yo jorah, what the fuck are you on about? go back to dany." (granted asoiaf was in the future but i mean. let me have this joke). like he doesn't act liek its cryptic at all. he is straight up like ahhhhhh and pulls at his hair until he resembles albert einstein. boy knows.

So then more spy show (whyyyy. i'm trying to watch this character deconstruct at the most base of levels. why must you show me actual spy right now) until we get to a scene at 22:01. Lucas is in the grid's data vault. it's literally big white letters that flash across the screen. Thames House Data Vault. they do not want you to miss it. bbc really went: insert giant gif of waving red flag here. So anyways, king of the boy scouts is in the data vault. it's very data vaulty. lots of flashing lights and giant monitors. just what i've always imagined a data vault to me. he has a moment where hes like .. no .. no .. i cant (i think they missed a chance for a dramatic instrumental here personally) and the show goes on until he returns to the vault at 34:56 and he basically uses the system to rewrite it, bypass some firewalls and grabs albany while using another employee's credentials to make it look like he accessed it instead of lucas. that throne of lies is just getting more ornate. His colleague ruth catches him out as he leaves. That's important later. but the conversation they have at the time is pertaining to their current operation and she doesnt mention the data vault. anyways, he meets vaughn to deliver albany at 42:01 and the following occurs:

vaughn: hope you covered your tracks. did you use a fall guy? course you did. didn't have to do that, of course. you could have taken a risk. talked your way out of it. harry pearce would have believed you. still, better to be safe than sorry. best to set someone up. whose life did you ruin today, john? lucas: look, i did what you asked. I helped you. Now you and I are done. vaughn: you didn't do this for me. you did this for you.

I mean, vaughn is so accurate. In all of this. Lucas could have probably talked to harry. in fact, I think that's what the 'lucas north' people believed he was would have done if he was staying true to the role he had been playing. but he didn't. know why? because taking the gamble of talking your way out of something like this would mean he was taking the gamble of a lot of his secrets coming to light. to a liar who has so carefully constructed a web like his, you don't want to risk a single strand. and the whose life did you ruin today, john? just fucking kills me every time. And that comes back to roost later in the episode when the operation of the day has been wrapped up and an interaction with the team back at home base in the grid happens. ruth asks everyone if they know of a stephen owen from section g who is being accused of stealing files and corrupting the data system. She looks right at Lucas and is like "he's only 22. he'll serve time for that". She knew something was up. Which is proved later, but we'll get to that. anyways, boy george still didn't come clean.

Episode 5

this episode literally has nothing to do with proving lucas is an asshole but the ending of this episode at 57:37 when he goes to visit maya and she mentions that her boyfriend is there AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE VAUGHN MAKES ME LAUGH EVERY FUCKING TIME LIKE WELL PLAYED MY LITTLE CREATURE BLACKMAILER MAN. fuck what a douchebag i love it.

Episode 6

THIS EPISODE IS MY FAVORITE IN REGARDS TO THE LUCAS IS NOT INNOCENT DISPLAYS OF TERMINAL DOUCHEBAGGERY. I'm gonna try to not use capslock during this whole thing. There's so much I want to say about the entire mindfuck that is the last scene I mentioned above but .. deep breath...that's not important. I will admit that I do have a bit of an emotional tug for lucas because god I can feel that terror. I've been there. That feeling of everything falling down, it's becoming too much. Which comes up later in this ep. So anyways, a lot of shit happens (this episode is actually one of my favorites) and it all involves lucas trying to be a douche canoe for vaughn while also doing his job .. which ... mult tasking is clearly not his good point. At one point he stops by the house of a retired colleague to pick up the supposed actual albany file (the location was found using the file that lucas got for vaughn originally). he has an asset with him while it happens named danielle. he leaves her in the car. she knows something shady is up. she snoops. shit once again goes all spy drama on us and we're suddenly at the ending scene with danielle shot in the neck and lucas claiming to get help. This is actually a really emotional scene for me. I don't know why. you know when you get that heavy feeling in your chest because a scene is just so weighted? yeah. i feel that tug every time. But at 47:09, we get this:

lucas: let me see. danielle: it's bad, right? lucas:danielle: hey, look at you. you didn't lie. lucas: yeah, keep the pressure on. really tight. danielle: oh, please don't let me die. please. I won't say anything. I won't tell no one what happened. Just don't let me die. lucas: I'm not gonna let you die. I'm gonna call you an ambulance.

So he gets up and he actually does dial emergency services. But as he is digging for the dead gunman's phone and dialing said emergency services, danielle keeps speaking.

danielle: I.. I promise I won't tell them about the house. About albany....

Lucas looks at her, pretty fucking stricken in his expression and as the mobile phone is on speaker, we hear the whole emergency services, which service do you require? hello? and about 30 seconds go by where lucas is watching danielle bleed until he presses the button on the phone (hanging it up) and pretends to give their location. I've seen people argue that he just took it off speaker but at 48:20 he puts the phone right next to her, zoomed in on by the camera, without pressing any other buttons.. and it is entirely too obvious that the fucking thing is not on the line with anyone. And then my fucking heart gets ripped out because someone at bbc got wise in the use of soundtracks and the most emotional music plays while lucas gathers danielle up in his arms and offers to put pressure on her wound for her. The camera zooms in and shows him moving his fingers away, allowing her to bleed out. Besides just destroying my soul emotionally, this scene really cements to me that bubba ain't got no qualms about lying to protect his own ass. just saying.

it ends with ruth admitting to harry that she has put a keystroke intercept on lucas' computer because she doesn't trust him due to him suddenly acting erratically. It cuts back to lucas who is getting a phone call from vaughn saying the albany file he just delivered in this episode is a fake. Now, at 57:38 he goes into the colleague he visited earlier's (now) empty flat and starts rubbing at his neck because he isn't sure where to go or what to do next. he's uncomfortable, clearly. The show also does its first distorted and blurred image of him before showing him lose it and people sort of cite this as some beginning of a jekyll and hyde breakdown? and this seems to be where the beginning of the whole theory comes into play? which. no. false. shut up janice. it's a camera angle meant to show he is LOSING IT in the sense his entire fucking world is threatened. The house of cards is beginning to tumble. the desperation is coming out.

**NOW. THE IMPORTANT EPISODES. THE FINAL COUNTDOWN** A few notes if i can. There is a lot of things I'm going to go over in these two episodes. A lot of misconceptions I will point out and disagree with. Forensic psychology research combined with a good ol' healthy dose of lessons in not taking everything at face value is really helpful here. If you read nothing out of this entire thing, please read these two sections.

episode 7

I'm cutting to scenes because we don't have time for explanations so if you want more context, definitely watch because this and 8 are so good. anyways. There's a scene where beth (another agent) follows lucas to a park where he meets and attempts to kill vaughn. Beth stops him and he points his weapon at herThe following conversation happens (26:55):

beth: you won't kill me. I know you won't. lucas: you don't know anything about me. beth: maybe not. but I've seen you risk your life to save others. And I believe in you. We all do.

this is a fantastic exchange because it brings up a really good point i want to make about pathological liars. the ability allows you to fit into any role. his ability to fully embrace the falsehood that is him being lucas north has created doubt in his colleagues when it comes to believing him capable of horrible things. they are ready to accept his innocence, his explanations... which is shown in the conversation where lucas 'comes clean' (i use the term so loosely here) to harry pearce in a later scene.

It begins at 30:18.

harry: one lucas north in dakar i can accept. two is stretching credibility. who is he, lucas? lucas: listen, harry. I know this looks suspicious. harry: somewhat.

There's a pause while lucas sighs and shakes his head, takes a few deep breaths. Overwhelmed by admitting his guilt? Or is he using that act in the means of buying precious seconds to figure out a plan? your opinion.

harry: let me be clear. the dakar bombing happened on my watch. seventeen people were killed on that day. And for 15 years they've gone without justice. So, you do not leave this room until you explain the full extent of your involvement in that atrocity. Do you understand?

I'm gonna cut in super quick just to say that at this point, Lucas flips over the picture that harry has given him of the real lucas north so that it is no longer face up. guilt? maybe. I also think it can be a way of not having anything that represents the truth staring at him in order to help him pull off his story (which my reasoning for this will be cited a bit further down)

lucas: My name isn't Lucas North. My name's John Bateman. harry: damn you. damn you! God knows I've had my share of betrayals. But not you. lucas: i'm sorry. harry: why were you in dakar? lucas: At university I fell in with a guy that fancied himself as a big time drugs dealer. He was shipping cannabis from dakar to hamburg. he asked me to go with him. harry: which you did. lucas: which i did. of course, idiots that we were, we got caught. luckily, the military police were open to persuasion. they took the drugs, they took everything. I was stranded in Dakar with no ticket home, no passport. I needed to pay my way back and I'd done some croupier work back in the uk, so i got a job in a casino. and thats where i met vaughn edwards. he was a regular. he said he worked in the exports business. he was always lucky. he seemed to have everything, I admit I was impressed.

I'm going to cut in here and add a little note that the quote about being impressed by vaughn ties in nicely to the post i made about john's background (a lot of it is just me fleshing out the faint lines canon gives us) and his desire to feel special which can be found here. Continuing the scene with harry ...

lucas: we met by chance a few times. or at least i thought it was by chance. he took an interest in me. eventually, he told me what he really did. small deniable errands for the british government. he asked me if i wanted in. i said yes. harry: what sort of errands did you run for vaughn? lucas: courier work, mostly. taking briefcases to people, places. I never asked what was in them. it was exciting, at first, and very well paid. harry: and you had no qualms about what you might be doing? lucas: vaughn told me that we were working indirectly for the uk government. i believed him. harry: it suited you to believe him. lucas: yeah, maybe. In those days, my morality was fluid.

I'm gonna stop right here and say - IN THOSE DAYS?? boy you just let a woman die in the previous episode. get the fuck out. So obviously right then and there, we get the vibe (the knowledge? its more than a vibe) that lucas is lying. this whole conversation so far has been a manipulation tactic. he is CLEARLY laying the blame on vaughn and setting himself up as the easily manipulated younger man who thought he was doing the right thing. but anyways. we continue.

lucas: .. but then there was lucas north. he worked in the casino bar. he was the only other Brit on the staff. I think he'd had a tough life, but he was clever, funny. And we became friends. I thought he was just another drifter, but he was in Dakar for a reason. harry: which was? lucas: spies. harry: why? what was the interest? lucas: vaughn. he knew all about vaughn. he knew he was a mercenary, he told me to walk away from him. I didn't want to hear that. harry: you're evading the question. why was he so interested in the intelligence community? lucas: because he was going to join MI5. harry: oh, please tell me this isn't going where I think it's going. lucas: he'd already got through the first round. and all the background checks were cleared. the only thing left was the face-to-face. he really loved his country, you know. I used to laugh at him for that. But he already knew something that it took me 15 years to find out. I'd made more than enough money. I was all ready to come back to the uk. but vaughn asked me to do one more job. it was more money than all the others combined. harry: what was the job? lucas: harry .. harry: what. was. the job. lucas: to take a package. to deliver a package. to the british embassy in dakar.

Alright first off, if you watch the question and answer scene and get to this part, he is fake crying. RA can do a good pretend job of crying in his roles. this is very obvious fake crying. He is making his voice quaver and he is covering his mouth which is a gesture used by people in the midst of lying or trying to convey emotion they might otherwise not be feeling. On top of that, I believe the quiet saying of harry's name when harry questions him on the nature of job is also a move well done on lucas' part. He goes on and talks about the aftermath of the bomb, in very emotional detail. The flashback scene as he tells it shows him leaving a suitcase in the embassy and leaving, quickly cutting to a few minutes later where he appears to be looking on in horror at the aftermath. It leaves it ambiguous and open. Much like harry, we are left to believe that he was manipulated, that he had no idea .. and I think this is one of the biggest instances that fanon latches onto.

He goes on and describes a panicked horror caused by the trauma of being involved in such a thing, which is believable, yes. He explains that when the real lucas confronted him about the bombing, vaughn shot him dead and urged lucas to hurry and grab the other man's passport. that they needed to leave the country asap.

Again, I'm reiterating that I believe this to be a ploy by a liar out to save his own skin. I will explain a bit further in a few minutes. He ends the conversation with harry in a fit of ethos and pathos style arguments. He appeals to the older man as the false colleague and friend that he thought he knew. relies on that camarderie that's been built up over the years to pull him through. I will give the specific quotes I am talking about without worrying about harry's comments between.

lucas: come on, what do you want me to say harry? i'm trying to be honest with you. yes, i'd like to tell you that i felt something as normal as anger. That some sudden surge of nobility meant that i didn't take that passport, I didn't go to the docks and I didn't run for my miserable life. I'd like to say anything that would take that look of utter contempt out of your eyes. so, please, don't tempt me.

lucas: all you have to do is trust that I want to get out of this mess. and this is my only chance. By finding Vaughn. now, this may not mean much, but you know that i've put my life on the line for this country, you know that. i tried to do all the good that lucas would have done if he'd lived. That's never been a lie. that's the deal that i make with him every single day.

that irritates me so much because it is such obvious BS but anyways. harry does allow lucas to leave and he ends up finding vaughn. They have the following conversation before Vaughn's death. (50:10)

lucas: i told them. vaughn: you told them? lucas: everything. vaughn: oh, i doubt that. I doubt that very much. what did you tell them, john?

So it once more shows flashbacks as similar to the conversation with harry, but this time we are shown that lucas knew the suitcase he took to the embassy was a bomb. He was shown how it worked along with how to detonate it.

vaughn: did you tell them that you didn't know? oh, no. no, i know what you did. you told them it was me. didn't you?

Again, we build the throne of lies ever higher because the memory sequence now shows lucas strangling the real lucas north. it wasn't vaughn at all. And I'd like to reiterate for a moment the fact that strangling takes so much effort and dedication. lucas struggled against john, he fought. John had to hold on while his friend fought for his life. he could have stopped at any time, could have let the struggles appeal to some humanity inside him - but no. he didn't. he was determined to save himself.

vaughn: I wonder if you can even remember the truth of what you were? you're a killer john. who fell asleep, dreamed he was a hero. but, now its time to wake up and remember the truth. the dream is over now. and the killer .. is awake.

alright, so. This paragraph right here is the one everybody uses to sort of build up this repressed trauma memory theory and argue that theres a fracture in his psyche and this battle between lucas vs john comes into play. I get it, I do. memories repressed because of trauma are a very real thing and so is fractured identity in regards to ptsd but I'm immediately throwing that out because the only way to possibly have a fractured identity that results in two personas is through DID. and lucas does not have that and if he did, the show would have handled it poorly. i'm not even fucking touching that. I want to start with the first line of this quote. I wonder if you can even remember the truth of what you were? I don't personally believe that the metaphor of falling asleep and dreaming is referring to actually repressing anything?? It is my belief that this is referring to a very real thing that happens when you build your existence around a multitude of lies. I've said it in a few posts already, but I've lived the alternate life to hide from things. I've gone that route. Obviously not to the murdered my friend and stole his identity sense, but I have crafted a fake life that totally had people going for 16 years until i finally said fuck it and told my parents the truth. There's a thing about constructing those lives. You have to convince your brain that certain things are real. You know they are lies, you never forget it .. but at some point you begin to doubt yourself. You add details to the lies, little nuances to make them more complex and suddenly you can't remember if thats how it happened or not. It is easy to lie to yourself about the truth and I think that is what vaughn is referring to. not that lucas actually forgot. and I personally believe that the dreaming metaphor has more to do with pretending, with the fact that lucas found sanctuary in this new life but now everything has been found out. And the killer is awake is a nice punctuation mark to the fact that once again lucas north is acting out the events of dakar. he kills vaughn, the only link to the truth, much like he killed the original lucas. he is a liar. this is his true personality, his nature. its not a dr jekyll mr hyde thing.

there is a quote that goes around a lot from richard armitage which bugs the fuck out of me because people use it out of context but the one fans of lucas love to use is the following:

 "Suddenly, it’s like an awakening and … it’s like John Bateman starts to kind of wake up and say, “Hang on, what about me?”

I just. this makes me want to pull my fucking hair out. it's not literal. richard has even said that its not literal but i think people like to plug their fingers into their ears and sing their white boy apologist theme songs. But anyways, this quote, in my opinion, is a reference to what happens when that exterior you put on for other people starts to give way to the base instinct that is the core of your own individual personality. I am a friendly person. Most people on this site I'm fairly certain would agree with that. I'm easy to get along with, I'm charismatic, I'm chill...and I've learned how to use those qualities to my advantage over the years off tumblr. I can be a horribly mean person. We all can, i think. but the base character of my personality is an arrogant egoist with extreme narcissistic tendencies. extreme. I work at it. I don't let that be all that i am. I go to therapy. I have a support system that helps me realize when I'm doing wrong. But my base personlity - the john bateman to my lucas north, if you will - is an asshole. and that will always be my instinct. and when something sets me off, my killer wakes up too.

[faustocosgrove]

Lawn People

i think i’ve read this book before, but i also remember thinking that last time i read this book, so either this is the third time i’ve read this book or else i’ve got echoing deja vu.

Of all the “science books written for the general public” I’ve cracked open this is the driest. It’s also got the least amount of new information. i mean, compared to the tumblr anti lawn post that i got this book recommended from the book does in fact have like, data. but there’s just so much reiteration of like, things anyone who has to interact with lawns would know. and like that makes sense because it’s written scientifically, but the intended audience is people who have to interact with lawns. like there’s no camaraderie between the author as a lawn person and the audience as lawn people.

okay, this is going to be a really really bad comparison, but in the introduction of Braiding Sweetgrass Robin Wall Kimmerer shares a story of her teaching and all the white kids in her class were unable to come up with a positive interaction between humans and nature. and me, as a white person, also could not come up with a positive interaction between humans and nature. and then Kimmerer spends the rest of the book essentially teaching the audience A) some positive interactions between humans and nature in like a factual rote memorization level but also B) smacking the idea of “humans are evil and only hurt the environment” out of your noggin to make space for the mindset that positive interactions are possible and and active thing you can like go do.

i don’t think immersion is the right word but like i feel like i was a part of the world which is a phrase normally reserved for fantasy writing and i mean Kimmerer is literally writing about reality - Earth, the planet i’m currently sitting my butt on. but Lawn People takes the scientific sterile approach and it’s kind of asking you, the reader to take yourself out of your own lawn mindset and just look at the data. But like, Lawn People is also kind of arguing that the ideal “American Lawn” has negative consequences, but the ideal “American Lawn” is something that people only do in like the suburbs or those city people who move to the country and cosplay as cowboys and drive shiny pick up trucks. So there’s a class element and I am not part of that class. But it also doesn’t argue any effective way for me as a non “American Lawn” person to smack some sense into someone who dumps chemicals on their lawn for fear of a dandelion. Heck, it doesn’t really make much of an argument to people who live in suburbs who are currently dumping chemicals for how to get out of the chemical loop, since the book acknowledges that lawn chemical appliers statistically know more about the health hazards of lawn chemicals than a non “American Lawn” haver.

[beamloaddirective]

B01: Why I Write

Title: Why I Write Author: George Orwell History: Found at a library sale in October

If my piece on Chuck Klosterman’s “The Nineties” from last year indicates anything, it is that I have little sense of how to write about books in a non-academic essay sense. I am not in the habit of reading book reviews outside of those published in journals (maybe that’s a habit I should get into. Come to think of it, I’m not in the habit of reading reviews of any medium at the moment. Maybe that’s another habit I should get into.) Forgive me if I’m shaky to start out with here.

Orwell is a writer with whom I have limited experience. I wasn’t in the classes that read 1984 and did the whole accompanying ‘Big Brother is Watching’ game in high school, and I know that I own a copy of and at least at some point started reading a collection of his essays (it’s in my huge stack of books in the profile picture) sometime since the start of college, mainly because I read his essay on being in boarding school in a narrative essay collection I was assigned for one of my creative nonfiction classes back in college. I was struck then by how much weight and complexity he could infuse into the emotional experience surrounding wetting oneself as a youth, and that’s been my primary memory of his work as a writer and a thinker to this point, a fact which I’m sure he’d be happy to know.

This collection features a few essays written in the 1940s, mostly discursive/argumentative essays about England’s cultural existence, England’s place in World War II and Europe, socialism, and patriotism. 

Orwell is refreshingly straightforward. He dictates in the collection’s last essay, “Politics and the English Language,” that he values precision highly, and it’s reflected in each of these. We might call him “brutally honest” nowadays, or more accurately ten years ago we might’ve called him that, back when that tendency was seen as a genuine virtue and not an annoying front for callousness, i.e. back when we used that phrase without scare quotes. He’s so adept at stating or defining something precisely in a single sentence and building off of it. It makes me miss teaching, I want to use his essays to illustrate the value of a good thesis statement. A great example was in Part II of “The Lion and the Unicorn” – 

What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism – that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit – does not work.

Which is gorgeous as a thesis statement. Orwell states his argument and defines the main term of the argument precisely before elaborating. He states this, he states the claims which build up the argument, the reader can agree, disagree, be enlightened, be disgusted, whatever, but there’s no kvetching to it. Especially in comparison to so much editorial writing I’ve read recently, I liked reading a man confidently (and competently) state his argument the way that Orwell did here. I couldn’t immediately think of who Orwell’s writing is contrasted with in my mind here, but as I write this reflection, I keep thinking of reading The Athletic’s college football columns during the first half of this season before I realized I hated each of the primary columnists, and I might even be thinking of lengthy Tumblr and Reddit posts by non-professional writers. That is probably the answer: I don’t seek out enough good writers to begin with. It’s my own fault that I dislike so much of the writing I read. I know where I can find good writing, or at least I know where I keep finding the type of writing that makes me want to grind my knuckles into the desk in front of me until I hit the bone, and yet I often choose the latter.

Orwell’s opinions do not align so neatly into modern defined scaffolding. He’s a socialist and an imperialist and he values patriotism. Through modern eyes these immediately struck me as contradictory opinions, but he argues precisely and thoroughly. His argument about England continuing to occupy India reminded me of contemporary arguments on the American presence in the Middle East, but I came around to his argument on patriotism’s role in getting a mass of people on board with a broader mission. The one thing I envy about him writing in that era (and I mean the one thing. I don’t envy him writing that with airstrikes landing in the streets around him) is that achieving his ideological mission seemed much simpler and more feasible in his era. In a much less connected world, the list of simple steps he lays out for his socialist vision struck me as feasible, and some of those steps around state ownership seemed to have come to fruition in the UK. I don’t envy the modern socialist rhetorician, as a pragmatic approach like Orwell lays out feels difficult in such a complex and interconnected world. 

I should clarify that the depth of my knowledge around these topics during Orwell’s era is limited if that isn’t already clear.

I appreciated Orwell’s criticisms of his contemporaries, even if I didn’t know who he was specifically criticizing. There was something fun about reading criticisms that I could imagine a modern writer like Freddie DeBoer or Max Read making towards similar groups in a Substack post – The middle and upper management classes are built on nepotism and are fundamentally incompetent. The intellectuals are annoying and so stuck in idealism that they’re functionally useless. I read criticisms like this all the time from modern cultural critics. That was maybe the most interesting aspect of reading this book: How many of his criticisms have reflections in the modern day. 

I’ll end on my favorite section (fitting given my profession), “Politics and the English Language.” I like that he succinctly lays out his main criticisms with contemporary writing: “The first is staleness of imagery: the other is lack of precision.” His complaints on staleness touched on something that frustrates me about modern writing as well. I think of my frustrations with reading Defector, a site whose mission as a sports-based subscriber-funded cooperative I admire but whose writers I dislike reading because of these sort of rhetorical handrails they hold on to, so many of them adopted from old tweets (‘it’s good, actually’ or ‘you can have a little whatever, as a treat’ or ‘types of guys’), which were grating to me initially (and clearly aren’t to their reader-base) and only grew annoying as time and language has progressed. It’s a champagne problem that the people on my side politically write in a way I find annoying, but it’s pushed me to try to write differently myself. Orwell credits this to an innate issue with writing under any orthodoxy. 

The conflict between he and I (and my central criticism of my own writing at the moment, though I have so much fun doing it that I don’t want to stop it) comes from an inability to be precise and direct in much of my work. I’ve worked on it in this post, I don’t know if it’s come through. Precision, in political writing, or even just in basic argumentative writing, has significant benefits, but I’m fine as it stands with my creative essays leaning purple. Once I get the final Football Hell essay published, I might try to take these lessons into account.

What I want to take from this work comes from this passage:

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

I hope to make asking these questions into a habit going forward.

[hua-fei-hua]

the main reason i don’t take “i’m a native speaker of the source language” as the be-all, end-all for translation arguments in fandom specifically (as in, between fans who are not professional or even hobbyist translators) is bc, well. sometimes.......... native speakers............ are bad at their own language, too.

[rayshippouuchiha]

Ray, sorry for dropping in, but you gotta hear this bullshit I got to "enjoy" on my first day off.

A while ago, I made a post about asexuality and how it impacts people like me (aroace) in the real world and in online spaces (general stuff, no we are not fancy straight and no we are not straight spies sent into queer spaces to infiltrate and no we are not molested or traumatized and no, fucking us does not turn us "normal"). Just, you know, phrased better.

And this whole ass CHILD went up in my DM's to argue with me. Normally, I don't care, but the real kicker? They have "bisexual" (and their age, thats how I knew they are a child) written right there in their blog yet they PROUDLY regurgitated biphobic rhetoric to my face by simply changing the "bi" into "ace" and thought they did something! As if I don't know biphobic talking points when I see them with my own damn eyes! The "basically straight" and "you can pass as straight" was a very "nice" touch to the whole shitshow. Then they proudly finished up the whole tirade with "and I know you're not lgbt because you called yourself queer, no gay does that 🙄"

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH BULLSHIT BEFORE IN MY LIFE

I though shit like this only happened in like homophobic facebook groups, not to my own damn face and unprovoked on TUMBLR DOT COM. Some children should NOT be on the internet and it fucking shows. I swear if they came here from that damn bird app, I will fucking lose it.

Nevermind that, had to vent and I trust you, you are a very cool and kind person. How has your day been?

Oh trust me darling I completely understand the need to vent after something like that.

At the risk of sounding like an internet old, it has been buck ass wild to watch so much of the younger generations just willfully ignore not only long established internet/fandom decorum but to just willfully ignore the realities of social issues like queer history because it doesn't fit into whatever social media sanitized version of queerness they think is reality.

And, to be honest, it's not even the ignorance itself that bothers me. Because we were all young and misinformed and raw in some way or another once upon a time. We had the passion but not the nuance, the drive but not the vocabulary, etc etc.

What bothers me is this deep trend I've been seeing where there's just this absolute unwillingness to learn.

I'm seeing it in queer spaces and I'm seeing it in fandom spaces and in the numerous ways those things cross over.

Kids who think they get to define what queerness is for everyone including their elders, who think they can come into clearly marked adult-only spaces and expect to be catered to, etc etc.

It's honestly sad and frustrating because I'm having to watch these kids dig up arguments that were already settled, argue things that were just considered unwritten law, and spout so many conservative/TERF/purity culture/homo-bi-ace-etc-phobic talking points while not even realizing that they are only arguing for their own oppression.

It's frightening in a lot of ways and it's one of the reasons why I push so hard to police my own corner of the internet and not put up with any of it in my spaces.

[kelleah-meah]

Someone posted this image on Pinterest ...

... as someone who follows a lot of bohemia-focused accounts on Tumblr and Instagram ... I like it, aesthetically speaking. It doesn't match me perfectly because my hair isn't long and straight, I would never wear boots with heels that thick, and I don't wear sleeveless anything without a jacket or cardigan. But I liked it, so I saved it to one of my boards.

The person who created/originally posted it seems to appreciate the hippie life, past and present, and I can understand and respect that. Hippie culture is problematic as much as any other (sub)culture, but it has its merits.

But what caught my eye was the comments responding to the image, including one where someone posted an "improved" version of the image with the Black Lives Matter banner removed.

Now, I have made a New Year's Resolution to spend less of my energy arguing or debating with folks online, and instead use that energy to create something that brings me joy or a sense of accomplishment. But I first saw this Pinterest post last year, so I hadn't arrived at that decision yet.

When I tried to call out the not-so-subtle way in which white supremacists try to sneak their dogma into every conversation or online interaction, Pinterest refused to post my comment. So I tried editing it to remove the phrase "white supremacist" assuming they flag that phrase as unacceptable in any context. Pinterest still wouldn't post it.

So I decided to post a more subtle, less obvious criticism of why the comments are toxic. Pinterest allowed it.

Fast forward to today, and I see this image offered on my homepage based on my interests ...

And once again, the comments are ... unfortunate. There are accusations ranging from the label "POC edition" being problematic to someone insisting that the moodboard is promoting segregation.

I'm not sure how that person landed at the idea that acknowledging that Dark Academia has an unfortunate pro-Eurocentric bias is the same as promoting segregation. It kind of reminds me of how racist people often accuse anyone who addresses the issue of racism of being racist.

It's not a "POC edition" in that only POC are meant to engage in it. It's simply recognizing that a divide exists within the aesthetic, and then attempts to suggest ways in which people can close that divide. (Granted, it could've been a little better like recommend specific books, films, artists, teas, coffees, musicians, etc. and branch out of Asia/Middle East more.)

But to accuse the creator of being divisive ignores the fact that there are countless memes that recommend the same Eurocentric and Euro-American literature, music, films, art, etc. for this aesthetic. Recognizing something doesn't create separation.

No one is saying only POC should partake in the above. It's simply acknowledging that POC contribute to this aesthetic as well, and here are just a few ways you can incorporate those contributions into your life.

Well, apparently Pinterest didn't like that statement either. I wasn't being combative or argumentative, but Pinterest wouldn't let me post. Apparently it's OK for others to criticize anything that focuses on addressing racial and ethnic inequality, but Pinterest doesn't like it when you respond to those criticisms.

But that's OK. It makes me question whether I'll continue using my Pinterest account after this year, but that's OK. I have plenty of places I can express myself, and maybe, just maybe joy and a sense of accomplishment will come with it.