#therapy speak

[whereserpentswalk]

I recently apologized to a freind for making them perform emotional labor by texting them durring a panic attack. And they explained to me that that term is for abuse victims who have to regulate their abuser's emotions, and not for people confiding in their freinds.

I hate how cheapened therapy speak has become. I hate how society makes it so asking a freind for help is something you have to apologize for. I hate how every mental health word that dares to go mainstream gets appropriated by abusers as something they can use agaisnt people they want to hurt. I love my freind for rejecting abusive paradigms.

[professionalkinkshaming]

Therapy speak isn't making anyone more selfish, but it is giving the most selfish and inconsiderate of us some really mature sounding and harder-to-refute justifications for the same shitty behaviors they've always had

[pet-shop-of-horror-fan]

Apparently, asking people why they are mad at you is asking them to do emotional labor./S

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Chris Williamson: "Some ways pop psychology lies to you: Everyone you dislike is not a narcissist. Every unpleasant experience is not trauma. Having needs does not make you codependent. Disagreement is not gaslighting. Conflict is not abuse. Taking offence is not being triggered. Everything does not need to be normalised. Speaking like an HR memo is not self-awareness."

One of my favorite posts from you. Are these, sort of the 9 horsemen of psychology?

Seerut Chawla: These are definitely some of them. It's a dialogue around narcissism. It's creating this strange, you know, fan-fiction version of narcissism that only lives on the internet. Anybody you don't like is a narcissist. Any form of abuse or poor treatment is narcissism. Words mean things, especially when it's clinical language. And we've taken this therapy-speak, which is a part of therapy culture, and you use it to inflate every little thing. You're not just offended or you don't like something or you're uncomfortable, you've been triggered. You haven't been triggered. You don't like this so it's cause cognitive dissonance.

-

Pop psychology is not psychology.

• Everyone you dislike is not a narcissist. • Every unpleasant experience is not trauma. • Having needs does not make you codependent. • Disagreement is not gaslighting. • Conflict is not abuse. • Taking offence is not being triggered. • Everything does not need to be normalised. • Speaking like an HR memo is not self-awareness.

==

"Therapy speak" is a great way to figure out who you should simply ignore.

[augmentedpolls]

This poll is referring more to trends that are mainly annoying versus ones that are straight-up harmful such as MRAs

[dykeiism]

whenever i see people talking about the purpose of mental health diagnoses, three reasons usually come up:

to encourage self-understanding

to concisely describe treatment options to professionals

to gain access to resources and accomodations

but it's hard for me to agree with any of these. given the harm associated with diagnosis, especially diagnosis of a personality disorder, i'm finding it increasingly difficult to justify diagnosing any mental disorder at all. below the cut is a breakdown of each of these three reasons, and why i believe that none of them hold up to criticism.

(1) to encourage self-understanding.

diagnostic criteria are so rigid that they discourage self-understanding. they fragment the human experience, categorizing it into easily digestible groups of "symptoms" rather than understanding a person's struggles holistically. this is why we have a phenomenon of people thinking, "well, my anxiety tells me this, but my depression tells me that" and "i'm having an intrusive thought but can't tell if it's coming from my ocd, ptsd, or bpd." diagnosis misleads patients into believing that, much like one might cough due to either pollen in the lungs or a respiratory illness, one might feel anxious due to either their generalized anxiety disorder diagnosis or their post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. a more accurate understanding of the human mind would necessarily involve doing away with the pathology of gad versus ptsd, and instead being able to understand that the anxiety might simply result from a combination of previous negative experiences, a naturally sensitive personality, and underdeveloped emotion regulation skills. a diagnosis is a description of a pattern of thoughts and behaviours; nothing more. my mental health conditions don't cause me to think or behave a certain way. rather, my thoughts and behaviours are similar to the thoughts and behaviours of other people who have also been deemed mentally sick. this makes it possible for doctors to use a certain diagnosis as a shorthand to describe my personality and skills (i refuse to call such things "symptoms") to other doctors. it does not mean that i have a sickness that causes me to think and act in certain way.

why would i want to understand myself through the lens of a psychiatrist, anyways? psychiatry is a deeply individual solution to systemic problems. we're living in a world that evolution could not prepare us for, yet we are told that there's something wrong with our brains if we're unable to adapt to these unprecedented living conditions. i refuse to believe that my brain is sick unless somebody has looked at my brain and can tell me where the sickness is. we must not forget that we're dealing with the discipline that understood homosexuality and hysteria as mental illnesses, and that initially understood autism to be a form of schizophrenia.

(2) to concisely describe treatment options to professionals

imagine, if you will, someone with post-traumatic stress disorder. all you know about them is that they have ptsd. now, recommend a treatment method for them!

nobody can give a good treatment recommendation based on that diagnosis alone. more information is needed: is the patient dealing with persistent general anxiety, sudden panic attacks, or a phobia? does the patient have compulsions? is the patient aggressive, anxious, or depressive? depending on the answers, the ideal treatment plan will be quite different.

now let's consider borderline personality disorder. there are 4 types of bpd and there are 256 possible ways to combine the 5 symptoms required for diagnosis (there are 9 symptoms in total). the personalities, cognitive abilities, and struggles of people diagnosed with bpd are quite diverse, and they will all require varying types and degrees of professional intervention. that being said, bpd is almost always treated with dbt and a few medication options including antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and anticonvulsants. there are so many other disorders that are treated with dbt and the same drugs. so why make bpd, bipolar, ptsd, cptsd, and depression their own diagnoses? what reason is there, other than to fragment our struggles and generate stigma?

my wish for the future of psychiatry is that, instead of being diagnosed with a disorder that is simultaneously very specific yet inexplicably vague, patients will be told "your struggles are related to trauma and emotional dysregulation. i recommend that you take an antidepressant and attend dialectical behavioural therapy sessions," or "your struggles are related to catastrophization and unhelpful behaviours, i recommend that you engage in cognitive behavioural therapy."

(3) to gain access to resources and accommodations

there are better ways to do this. i don't think anyone should be turned away from the accommodations that they need. however, if resources are scarce and must be gatekept, then a simple interview or quotient test will be sufficient in determining the level of need.

[i-put-the-ass-into-sass]

Lately I've happened to read a lot of (otherwise excellent) fanfics that do just this and it's so maddening !!! Like, Lin Beifong is not out here telling whoever it is that they should try box breathing and diagnosing them with PTSD!

In any story, I'm not looking for the author to show me the correct way to handle an issue that arises for one of their characters, I'm looking for an exploration of how that issue is handled by the characters as themselves! The characters do not have to be a vessel for the author to relay their knowledge of therapy or whatever, they are allowed to fumble and make mistakes, that's the whole point.

[thepeacefulgarden]

[lesmurples]

I rewatched season 1 of Our Flag Means Death after getting bored with Veilguard, and I was surprised by how many similar character types and themes the two (loosely) share:

Therapy-speak loving mediator as the leader of a ragtag group of mismatched weirdos

A character realizing their nonbinary identity

Background elements of colonialism/imperialism and slavery which our intrepid heroes must resist

Queer found family vibes (tho with DATV the queerness is mostly incidental and does not seem to inform the characterizations much)

Pirates are there

Except while these are some of my favorite aspects of OFMD, I despise how they’re executed in DATV. The overwhelming corporate stink on Veilguard really interferes with the writing’s ability to talk about queer or anti-colonial themes meaningfully.

Comparing the two has actually helped me work through what it is that bothers me about the lackluster character writing of Veilguard and how it could have been better (besides, yaknow, comparing it against the much better-written previous games - they were far from perfect, but god Veilguard makes them look amazing by comparison). To be fair, I’ve yet to finish the game, but I’m privy to like, 50 hours worth of content at this point between playing myself and watching my sister’s playthrough, so if the game finally improves on these points after that long it feels like too little too late.

If you want to read a waaaay too long screed comparing these largely unalike properties, then boy oh boy is this the post for you!

1. The therapy speak:

So uh, the thing about OFMD’s anachronistic, HR-approved managerial therapy speak is that it’s a joke. OFMD is a comedy first and foremost, so this fits right in with the overall tone of the show, and it’s pretty damn funny if I say so myself. Watching Stede - this campy, middle-aged, 18th century theater kid - tell a bunch of hardened pirates to talk through their feelings is hilarious. And really all it does is alienate him most of the cast - the first episode is about his crew planning to mutiny and kill him as a result of his bizarre behavior.

But, as time goes on and Stede and the crew work through hardships and get to know each other a little better, they form a bond of trust and learn how to communicate more effectively. Stede still tries to mediate and resolve conflicts peacefully among the crew, but more directly and with less artifice, while the crew grows more patient with him and realizes the potential benefit of some of his ideas. It’s pretty basic character progression writing overall, but it’s competently executed, which is more than I can say for Veilguard.

In Veilguard, Rook’s youth pastor energy as they mediate every petty squabble between their teammates casts a bland veneer over a deeply bland cast of characters. Disregarding the fact that Rook is the most milquetoast DA protagonist by far, their involvement in every character interaction leaves me feeling like I’m meeting with HR, and not in a funny way. And Rook seems to attract HR-approved pep talks just as much as they dole them out, particularly from Varric but also from Solas and Morrigan of all people. It’s pep talks all the way down!

Where this flavor of therapy speak was used with intention in OFMD to say something about the characters (and to get a laugh), here its purpose just seems to be to nip all interpersonal conflicts in the bud so our cast can be a big happy family. Teamwork! Yay! Except we started with everyone on the team being more-or-less cordial coworkers, and then we end on them being… more cordial? A bit friendlier? There’s no meaningful progression for the audience to enjoy, no real change. Every argument starts bland and it ends bland, and the few that are allowed to continue through companion dialogue are so inconsequential as to be pointless.

The previous DA games had an obvious fix for this: make the characters socially and politically opposed to each other and let them duke it out, all while having to maintain an alliance against a common enemy. The player could get in on this too if they disagreed with someone - twas a grand time. These interpersonal conflicts were a microcosm of the larger political conflicts of the story, and it allowed the characters to explore the influence of their respective cultures upon their current viewpoints. The progression and tension thus hinged on whether the influence of other characters was able to change their perspective, and if it did, what the consequences would be. A somewhat different emphasis when compared to OFMD, but both understand that allowing your characters to come into conflict with each other and resolve it over time is far more engaging than fixing every little issue right off the bat. This isn’t a sitcom where we need to resolve family tensions before the half-hour mark - it’s an 80+ hour game.

(oh god i swear i’ll try not to make every entry this long)

2. The nonbinary identity storyline:

Alright, there is one thing I like about Veilguard (shocking I know), and it’s the option to be trans/nonbinary. I’m nonbinary and have never played an rpg where that was an option before, so that was pretty dope. I think Bioware’s approach to nonbinary and trans inclusion in the character creator was fairly well done and reasonably flexible - definitely better than the trans options in Cyberpunk at any rate. I also like that we have a nonbinary companion, especially since I totally called it when Taash was revealed and felt super smart and vindicated. The execution of Taash’s nonbinary journey though… eh. It’s mostly left me kinda cold.

I won’t be the first to state that the use of modern terminology for nonbinary gender identity is offputting in this setting, and others have explained it far better than I could. It’s a missed opportunity to think through the question of what gender really means in this setting across different cultures (beyond some lip-service to the Qunari being strict about it, which besides being a retcon doesn’t really tell us much), and whether there are existing nonbinary spaces that would potentially align with Taash’s experience of the world, rather than having one transplanted from our modern sensibility. Third genders have existed irl throughout history and are embedded within cultural understandings of gender, and interpreting Taash’s gender through a more historical and/or speculative mode that better fit the setting would feel far less alienating. As it is, Taash’s story just doesn’t seem to fit comfortably in this world, not least because we’re having them discover their identity rather than already have an understanding of it. Their self-discovery story feels out of place in a narrative focused on a high-stakes, end of the world scenario, unless I’m missing something. It reads more like a fanfic that was accidentally tacked onto the source material. (I love fanfic, but the tone just doesn’t mesh here.)

This is perhaps why the writers felt the need to connect Taash’s gender journey with their bicultural experience, which… hoo boy, that didn’t go well. We have to make a binary choice for which of a nonbinary character’s cultural ties should be discarded? Disregarding the fact that this is not how culture fucking works, why are we making this decision for another person? This is the Cole situation all over again, but worse.

Our Flag Means Death, on the other hand, gives us Jim. Jim has lived most of their life presenting as an AFAB woman, but when the show starts is in hiding as a cis man with a fake nose and beard. After their disguise is revealed, Jim goes through the awkward process of addressing the cis dude-heavy crew’s inane questions about them “being a woman now,” indicating that they’re not really sure if they are one. They tell the rest of the crew to treat them like normal and continue calling them Jim, and that’s that. From then on, they’re referred to with they/them pronouns - maybe they had a talk with everyone about it off-screen, or maybe the show wanted to lean on a sort-of magical realism vibe where everyone just knows Jim goes by those pronouns now. Either way, it fits within the tone of the show and doesn’t need to take up much more space than that. We later see where Jim grew up and learn about their background getting trained by an assassin-nun to murder her family’s killers - we got bigger fish to fry.

Does every queer identity story need to be handled like this? Of course not - there’s space for a range of queer stories, whether the queerness be incidental or integral, discovered or established. In OFMD’s case, they perhaps could have spoken more about Jim’s nonbinary experience and how it fits into the setting, but they didn’t really need to. They established what they wanted to about Jim’s identity, and they decided not to go into the issue of misgendering from that point forward. I personally like how normalized it makes Jim’s presence feel, even if they perhaps could have done more. But OFMD is a limited series about a large ensemble cast of different queer folks, and they chose to be economical about how some of those queer identities were communicated onscreen.

Dragon Age is likewise made up with an ensemble cast, and considering its high stakes end-of-the-world plot line, maybe it should’ve taken a leaf out of OFMD’s book and not spent quite so much time on Taash’s personal gender journey when we could’ve focused on something a bit more outwardly relevant (a big ask for Veilguard’s very personalized, individualistic style of character writing). We could have certainly related their sideplot back to their gender, but there had to be a better middle ground than what we got.

Anyway, while OFMD is fairly comfortable with anachronism, limiting the explanatory dialogue for Jim and other characters’ identities probably also helped to not break immersion. Bioware likely didn’t want to go this route for Taash, but if I might make a suggestion for our consideration: Krem. Krem was a great example of an integrated trans character who talked about his experience through the context of the culture he grew up in. Turns out, it’s very doable, and in a Dragon Age game no less.

(oh god they’re all going to be this long aren’t they, what have i done)

3. Background colonialism/imperialism and slavery:

Something that Veilguard and OFMD have in common is that the wider context of colonization, imperial conquest, and slavery that each story takes place in is more-or-less kept to the background. The characters and plots are certainly informed by this context, but the main storylines don’t often engage with it directly. And herein lies the problem: this is arguably an appropriate approach for OFMD given its comedic tone, while for Dragon Age - considering that its previous installments engaged very directly with these themes - it reeks of erasure and sanitization.

Hell, OFMD engages far more directly and frequently with these themes than Veilguard’s bloated, 80+ hour runtime, and it’s a 2-season long TV show! It’s 20 hours total at most! It explores the heterosexism of settler colonialism that chased a very gay Stede away from home, the racism and classism of the English naval crew they encounter, the power and constant threat of colonial fleets, the fact that colonizers have been slaughtering indigenous peoples, the presence and mistreatment of African slaves, and so on. They do this all while avoiding direct depictions of traumatic colonial violence, but they don’t shy away from its presence.

This has been argued to death by the community at this point, so I’ll try not to go too far into it, but Dragon Age as a series has always been interested in sociopolitical conflict and systemic oppression. It pulls quite a lot of influence from real-life history - one could say too much, perhaps - to create a fantasy world informed predominantly by the sociological forces of hierarchical society.

Past games have struggled to portray DA’s analogies for real-life racism unproblematically, but I don’t think the answer was to cast them aside or minimize their presence in Veilguard. This only trivializes the systemic oppression of this world retroactively; elven enslavement and oppression (especially in Tevinter) and Tal Vashoth and Qunari as otherized minorities are barely a blip on the radar of the game that is a) heavily focused on Solas’s past as a freer of elven slaves and b) set in goddamn Tevinter, where both elven enslavement is widespread and a longstanding war with the Qunari is still ongoing.

Yes, these story elements been handled poorly in the past, particularly with how elves mirror both African enslavement and Indigenous oppression in a way that creates unfortunate connotations when written carelessly, and how the Qunari have orientalist, Islamophobic undertones. They should not be portrayed through violent, traumatic scenes or within the same problematic scope as previous games, but they should not have been minimized to the extent that they were. It’s a structural writing issue if nothing else - the foundations of Dragon Age’s worldbuilding rely so heavily upon these forms of systemic oppression that removing and minimizing them makes the story incoherent. These elements cannot be written out of the story without completely transforming it, and because they were not willing to do that with Veilguard, we’re left with a gutted husk of a story missing most of its core elements.

Couldn’t we have just, you know, hired some sensitivity readers? Or - god forbid - BIPOC writers? Christ.

4. Queer found family vibes:

This one is bit of a stretch since the characters of Veilguard are not brought together through shared experiences of queerness; rather, they are collected randomly like Pokemon from all over the globe for their dubious skills. However, I do believe the writers are clumsily implementing found family tropes whenever you gather your team together, and they are all queer by default so that Rook can fuck them no matter what. At least that Dragon Age staple was respected if nothing else - The Characters Must Be Fuckable.

But I do think this is why we’ve been saddled with all this corporate HR team-building therapy-speak throughout the game: someone on the writing team thought this is how you write that found family thing the kids these days are so crazy about. Everyone’s super supportive all the time, no one fights too much, and when they do your character steps in to correct them (you do not get a choice in this - all of your dialogue options as Rook are effectively the same mediating bullshit). They’re all growing into a happy little family, and isn’t that sweet. Except that none of these characters are fully fleshed out because that would require giving them backgrounds that connect to the story’s wider lore and worldbuilding, and the writing team were either unwilling to do this or incapable because of production restraints. So it’s really just a bland group of pretty people being blandly nice or blandly rude to each other all throughout this bland, bloated game.

All that said, maybe we could’ve had a (queer) found family at the center of this game and actually made it work. There’s no law that says there have to be people on your Dragon Age team who will never get along or are too politically opposed to ever see eye to eye (even though I vastly prefer that in a DA story and think it reflects the series’ themes better *cough*). Absolution did a decent job of it from what I remember, though I think there were still a few conflicts between the members of that team that were used to communicate worldbuilding to us - that’s what character conflicts in Dragon Age mostly do. That is the narrative function they serve, and it’s not surprising to me that in a game with minimized companion conflicts, we likewise find minimized overall worldbuilding with respect to the various cultures of the current setting.

Anyway.

To be fair to Veilguard, I do not think we needed everyone’s entire life story in order to successfully execute the found family trope. Take Our Flag Means Death - the only character we really get much backstory for is Stede, with Jim coming in second at my estimation, and Blackbeard third. You don’t really find out that much about their histories overall, and you learn barely anything about the rest of the crew. For example, we know Lucius used to lie to his mother that he liked girls and was a bit of a pickpocket, which was not cute - and that’s all we get for him. We can infer that he was probably upper crust to a degree since he’s literate (and just from his overall vibe), but that’s about it, and the other characters are much the same.

The thing is, while I would welcome more information about the OFMD crew, I don’t actually need it. The characters are portrayed in such a way that you can infer most of what you need to know about them through the actor’s overall performance. OFMD was blessed with a wonderful cast who do an excellent job acting both scripted lines and the heavy amount of improv that was encouraged on set. Their character voices are finely honed and well-delivered, and so I’m able to get a strong sense of who these characters are, what motivates them, and how they relate with each other through their well-executed sense of voice.

Veilguard struggles quite heavily with character voice. The companions as written have some distinct qualities, but they never really have much life behind them. Davrin comes the closest to having a naturalistic voice, and I think it’s because he’s a self-serious straight man (comedically, not heterosexually). The rest of the cast relies on much more exaggerated and whimsical character tropes - a noir detective, a quirky gadget whizz, a perky necromancer, etc. - and the character writing just cannot summon level of energy these characters would usually have. We’re given a few fluff scenes with them that are sweet, but outside of that, none of these characters actually have much personality. Taash comes close with their moody teen affect, but it never quite sits well within their character arc, so it often feels incongruous.

And this brings me to my most damning criticism of the game: it is not funny. At all. Okay, maybe that’s not fair - it got a few small chuckles out of me within the 50 or so hours I’ve seen/played, but not more than like, 3 times. These characters just aren’t funny. Taash is kinda funny at first, but it dries up pretty quick. The script is just not capable of consistently good comedy. The only real humor I experienced was from Ghilan’nain acting like a goddamn Looney Toon, which was completely unintentional. Like everything else in Veilguard, the humor is bland, bland, bland.

Previous DA companions are brimming with humor, and it’s a huge part of what makes them so enjoyable. Comedy does a lot of work endearing you to a character, and you can use it in a variety of ways - it can highlight their cleverness, or reveal vulnerabilities and undercut them, or create chemistry or tension between multiple characters, all while giving the audience a sense of surprised pleasure that opens them up to connect with the characters emotionally. With a story as busy and occasionally dark as Dragon Age, using humor helps to quickly endear the audience to your characters and encourage engagement in their stories, while also releasing tension after harsher story beats.

It also works the other way around - when tragedy comes or characters are made to suffer, it can hit that much harder because you’ve become so endeared to them. When the Grey Wardens fail to halt the blight at Ostagar in Origins and are all but wiped out, the sense of loss is best communicated through Alistair, who up until this point has been a friendly, wise-cracking presence at your side. Seeing his grief and sense of despair in contrast to his usual good humor signals what’s been lost better than just being told, and because we are (assumedly) endeared to Alistair through his humorous attitude, we can empathize with his struggle and feel the weight of this story beat more effectively. It’s also shockingly, darkly funny when Morrigan is completely unsympathetic and later calls him a whiny pissbaby for missing all his dead friends. This helps to transition us out of the previous scene’s lower mood, and it tells us a lot about her character and her dynamic with Alistair.

And humor is an extremely valuable tool in executing the (queer) found family trope. Humor not only does a lot of work for characterization (especially with a larger ensemble cast), but it can also signal comfort and trust between characters, as well as highlight tensions without fully compromising the feeling of security offered by the found family. If tragedy strikes, it then offers a contrast against the usual comedic tone that can emphasize a scene’s drama to good effect. Humor isn’t absolutely necessary to pull this off, but it’s highly effective at establishing characters and their relationships quickly and enjoyably, and so it can be a valuable tool for large casts and plot-heavy stories where you have limited time to spend learning about each character.

Comedy is subjective, and so maybe Veilguard’s humor works for you in a way it doesn’t for me. Likewise, maybe the humor of the previous games and even OFMD don’t work for you the way they do for me. However, my main sense of Veilguard is that less investment was put into any comedy writing as versus the previous games. Less time is given for jokes, both in character dialogue and in the outer world, from what I’ve seen of it (I cannot imagine anything like the Golden Nug merchant in Orlais happening in this game). At best we get sorta sarcastic comments from Rook, but even Rook’s “funny” dialogue option only prompts any kind of humorous or sarcastic response like, maybe half the time. The writing staff just did not prioritize humor in this game seemingly at all, either by choice or necessity.

Add to this the lack of character depth and detail with all your companions, and they just have nothing for you to grab onto. They have so much potential with their quirky, surface-level descriptions, but no one did the work to flesh them out or make them engaging. Good humor or a strong character voice could have saved them even with the lack of detail and dimension, but it’s just not there. And because there is no real depth, detail, or good humor to unite the characters with each other, the found family trope falls flat and every interaction just feels like an office event.

If you like queer found family feels and haven’t seen Our Flag Means Death, check it out - highly recommend it. That show nails found family like a fuckin pro, doesn’t even break a sweat. And it’s gay as fuck.

5. Pirates:

Both have pirates. I vastly prefer the OFMD pirates over the Lords of Fortune tho. In case you were wondering.

OKAY. This insanely long post must end. It started as a thought experiment to see what we could learn from OFMD’s successes and if they could be applied to Veilguard, and then it turned into me giving unsolicited writing advice. All I can really add is to tell you that any time I’m playing or watching Veilguard, I’d rather be watching Our Flag Means Death.

Or playing the other DA games. They were pretty good. Yes, even Inquisition - at least Inquisition was funny.

[whereserpentswalk]

Ttrpg safety tools and the dog test

A quick rundown of what safety tools are: tools for setting boundaries in ttrpgs. Can be useful to some people, but often used really wrongly, and often seem overly gamey to me personally. It's like therapy speak for rpgs. And is similary used by the people it was meant to be used against.

One of the most common examples of these is the X card. The X card is a card with the letter X written on it. It sounds like a good idea if you've never interacted with people before. The X card is a boundary where one of the rules is you can't talk about the boundary. It's very useful for anyone who want to weaponize it, and not very useful for asserting actual boundaries.

There is also a type of chud who dislikes the the idea of safety tools because they think they're "woke". The only way to have a productive conversation around safety tools is to ignore them. Bad faith questions don't deserve good faith answers.

Now, a lot of people would think that its easier for a player to step out then deleate a scene. But a lot the culture around safety tools is based on this toxic highschool mindset around ttrpgs where someone feels like they both have a right, and a duty to be at every single momment of every session, and everyone else does to. So every single safety tool you'll see will assume the of lack the option of leaving the table at all. Being able to leave at any time is the ultimate boundary in ttrpgs and many other safety tools are attempting the impossible task of establishing boundaries without it. People compare them to safe words in bdsm. But it's like trying to create a safe word system but you have to cum and can't take breaks.

See part of the problem is 4chan and reddit have cultures of rpg horror stories. Which are useally lies. I'm not going to say fiction because that implies a relationship with the audience that they don't have. And these lies almost always have queer people, ND people, leftists, and anyone you'd see called a degenerate or weirdo as villains. While the type of nerd that Scott Pilgrim was the first book makes himself out to be a hero. And reddit also happens to be where the concept of safety tools was popularized.

It's this problem where people aren't trying to deal with actual triggers, they're trying to police content they morally condemn. R/rpg horror stories is the home of people who consider themselves outcasts for liking star wars and then have a deep fear of a marginalized person or someone from a slightly less mainstream subculture showing up at their table. And when they're the ones defining what a boundary conflict in rpg space looks like it's useally pretty bad. When a lot of safety tools go bad it's the case of weapons made to catch monsters being bad at dealing with humans.

And beyond all that. Beyond the specifics of rpg horror stories and it's influence. The way people talk about safety tools is mostly about removing content they deem objectionable from ttrpgs. When people talk about the X card and things like it, they're useally afraid someone will talk about something taboo and the table, and want a way to stop them, with the assumption that the rest of the party agrees. The extreme nature of how much someone has the power to censor, is brought with the assumption that what will be censored won't just violate their personal boundaries, but a community sense of morals.

They don't just want their triggers removed, they want things they deem immoral to be removed (not everyone who uses safety tools of course, but the hoard of bearded cishet white men who play 5e who dominate the conversation on them). That's just what a lot of the conversation around safety tools always comes down to. When somebody says they want safety tools to remove torture scenes or sex scenes from their table, it's not their personal triggers, its that they don't believe these things belong in the medium at all. They don't imagine what it would be like to be the only person in the room with their trigger, because the narrative they've created with problem players and safety tools, has made it so they assume the majority of the room shares their boundaries. Safety tools as they exist and are talked about are not built for a minority of players to be able to assert boundaries agaisnt the majority of players.

The dog test: so basically, while safety tools in ttrpgs have good reasons to exist, a lot of the time they're weapons players use to remove content they deem immoral. So often every discussion around things like the X card comes with a lot of moral condemnation, and assumptions about what content can ever be triggering vs what is ok. And this culture of moral condemnations can make safety tools especially dangerous for queer people and ND people, or just members of certain subcultures.

So I've developed the dog test. The dog test, is an example used to test if a safety tool (or more commonly someone talking about them) wants boundaries or wants moral policing. The dog test is simply to see how the safety tool is viewed if it's used to remove dogs from a game. Basically taking the commonly used examples like blood, or sex, and replacing them with the existence of dogs. Perhaps to add to it let's say the only case this hypothetical person will be ok with dogs is if they're killable enemies. This isn't unrealistic, a lot of people have trauma from dog bites, it's probably more likely to be a good faith trauma than a lot of the examples.

If they person is as willing to work with the needs of a player who has trauma around dogs as they are more sympathetic triggers than they've passed the dog test.

Disclaimer. A lot of these thoughts were developed in a discord conversation with @dragonpurrs and a lot of these words were originally things I said to it.

[shewhotellsstories]

A downside of therapy becoming mainstream is that people think they can apply words that mean very specific things to anything they don't like. Not every person you have a negative encounter with is a narcissistic abuser. Words mean things.

[smolfangirl]

"Therapy speak" is so stupid it's almost funny if it wasn't actually harmful

Gaslighting the way it's used online isn't true to what it actually means in a clinical context. Narcissists aren't as common as social media makes you believe they are. People can be not good for you and/or assholes without being close to what a narcissist personality disorder actually means.

A boundary is "if you aren't ready on time, I will leave without you", not "you can't ever bring up anything I did that you didn't like or else I will call you toxic".

Saying something like "I appreciated our season of friendship" is not a natural way to talk for most people, and it shouldn't be implied that this is A Healthy Way to talk to someone else. Human relationships aren't a letter from HR. A good therapist will help you find your own words to express your feelings and thoughts and wants.

TL/DR: "Therapy speak" doesn't necessarily mean the phrases and expressions are used correctly or even used at all in clinical settings

[knifegrrrl1312]

is cognitive behavioural therapy just a fancy term for gaslighting??? Watch this:

>i'm angry because people are forced into homelessness and poverty and i will have to endlessly work for a living to even live and it makes me depressed and angry that i feel like im forced to live this way to endlessly make profits for evil people at the expense of my and everyone else's health

>you need to try mindfullness! and change the way you're thinking! You need to learn coping mechanisms for when youre angry and depressed! Theres nothing you can do about the worlds problems so just focus on healing! :)

>i'm depressed about people being racist and fascist and ignorant on purpose because it obviously benefits them and i'm angry all the time just by being surrounded by fascist settlers

>You need to stop hyperfixating on politics and making everyone around you uncomfortable! You are ruminating and making yourself depressed by focusing on other people disagreeing with you, people disagreeing with you is part of life! If you continue to be this way you will become more radical and start thinking others are bad people just because they are racist!

btw this is all advice i constantly get told and i am constantly feeling like im being gaslighted out of doing something meaningful and keep getting told "if you keep up this whole sense of justice thing and dont let go of it soon it will be bad for your health" making it like its my fault for the fascist world which is actually whats badly affecting my health but therapy and people who give you advice based off what they heard in therapy (specifically cognitive behavioral therapy) will str8 up just gaslight you.

My mom got a book for her depression and adhd that gave you cognitive behavioral therapy methods to deal with feeling depressed and am i just insane? or does this shit keep people passive? Is therapy just a tool to make everyone start "changing their thinking habits" so they arent threatening the status quo? Bc alot of therapy is literally just ignoring the status quo as a factor in the first place. But whatever maybe im just crazy!!

[anarchywoofwoof]

i can’t stress this enough because i feel like therapy speak has tainted the word “boundaries”

you are completely and totally entitled to the right of setting healthy, safe and effective boundaries in your relationships with other people, platonic or otherwise.

however, if you fail to make an attempt to articulate those boundaries or you neglect to do so entirely, you take at least part of the responsibility if someone violates those boundaries, especially on multiple occasions.

people cannot read your mind. everyone’s experience is drastically different. your experiences have forged your beliefs and feelings and therefore the boundaries you set are going to be a reflection of that.

you have every right to ensure that your feelings are properly considered and your boundaries are respected. and some things are just common sense: consent and respect chief among them.

but you cannot expect people to automatically be in tune with your personal boundaries. that is why they are your boundaries. they are your expectations on how you want and need to be treated in order to feel comfortable and fulfilled in a relationship.