#they are incapable of understanding the concept...etc etc. all these things exist at once

[faaun]

all of my students r autistic n like . all of them have the worst stories abt how they ended up in this situation etc it makes me so so so angry like how and why is the UK system failing autistic kids so much . repeatedly . do u not realise the problem is you and not the children ??

"autism isn't something to glamorise, so many people suffer for it" like yeah ok im sorry that you had horrible experiences as a child bc of your diagnosis . no one is forcing you to like being autistic . but the suffering induced onto autistic people (children especially) is one of the core reasons we need to talk about the good parts of being autistic !! it is so important for autistic people - all of them but especially those with learning disabilities - to know the "autism is essentially an incurable disease" narrative is so so horrible and that their neurotype is actually a wonderful thing. talking about the good aspects of autism also helps lift a lot of the stigma around us. providing an autistic perspective to the world is a wonderful thing do not try to prevent things from getting better !!

[south-sea]

thinking aloud about metal sonic specs and such

on the one hand, i’m not enough of a tech-savvy person to make this stuff up and it still be real-world feasible. on the other hand, there canonically exists an in-universe device that can just zap a badnik’s exterior (and presumably interior circuitry etc) back to pristine condition, so i think i’m allowed a little bit of magic-leaning nonsense.

that said: the best way to describe metal’s data storage capacity/system is to liken it to a walking library. he has petabytes worth of space. he compresses terabytes at a time and files them away not unlike putting a book on a shelf, but unlike zipping things up on a computer, he can still freely access the data without extracting it again.

this constant rearrangement contributes to his occasionally longer processing times and need to regularly defrag his systems. it also lends to why it's so easy to fragment his thoughts/effectively stun-lock him. he's powerful, not perfect; even something at his level is still capable of encountering logic errors and getting caught in a loop.

constantly recording bits of audio/video and storing it too—he’s able to retroactively record up to a minute prior to when he officially starts; not unlike a Switch, for example. i’d argue his margin for retroactively recording is considerably larger, even.

nothing gets deleted. every single person he meets and place he visits gets a profile. any time someone does something unexpected or “out of character” or generally anything he doesn’t understand in the moment, he records it to review later. this is both for the sake of building their profile, and for his own understanding of how and why people, in general, operate. in the case of applying it to individual profiles, his intentions are not always so benign. he’s a manipulative little beast who can and will use little tells like that to his advantage.

it’s likely he already has a full petabyte, mostly of prior missions/battle/individual data. no small portion of another may also be devoted to his past models’ experiences. given eggman designed him, i’d be willing to bet he easily has a 10PB+ capacity. i'd be shocked if eggman didn't have a dedicated drive specifically for metal's backup data.

definitely taking some liberties with this one, but let’s say it wasn’t the material neo was made out of that allowed him to shapeshift, but was instead a fluid or something that imparted the ability, kind of like the metal virus. so, somewhere in him is a holding tank for that fluid. i’d imagine only a small amount is needed, like he unlocks a mechanism to release it, and this tiny amount rapidly coats everything to reenable this ability/capability to assume the neo form again at all. this lock mechanism/tank, like his voice chip, are still physically present since the last neo arc, but he’s unable to access it internally himself.

probably goes without saying, but his capacity to learn is unmatched. it only takes him seeing something once or twice for him to be able to mimic it, and this especially applies to things like sign language. you could feed him a video of every single sign, and he’d come out of it perfectly fluent after a few minutes of processing. gestures are similarly almost entirely learned secondhand; he rarely moves in a wholly "unique" way. battle moves take a little more doing to replicate on the fly, but it certainly all gets stored for him to review and practice later.

he has all that processing power, but things like empathy/theory of mind are, and will mostly continue to be, somewhat beyond him. he learns largely by example, but this kind of thing is different. mathematics are one thing, organic thinking is another. there are some concepts he just struggles to grasp on a personal level.

most importantly, though, that does not mean he’s incapable of experiencing his own emotions. those, even on their own, can be intense. i'd put him somewhere on sage's level when it comes to sentience/sapience/emotional capacity. he just expresses it in different ways, given his heavily limited means of expression.

[bisexualbuckleyy]

eleven’s character development: a stranger things meta

so i love el with my entire heart and i think she’s probably the best developed character on the show so i decided to write an analysis on how she grows as a character because i’m bored and extra

the main thing about el’s development as a character is that her development happens through her connections to other characters. this is shown primarily through two things: her mirroring of other characters and the presence of at least one character each season that provides her with what she needs at that time.

prior to season one, el has no one. she is raised in the lab with very little human contact and is not even treated like a child, but instead like a weapon or an experiment. due to this upbringing, she has very little knowledge of how the world works or how people are even supposed to behave. all she has when she escapes from the lab is trauma and sheer terror.

and then we get to season one. the person this season who is most important to el is (obviously) mike. he provides her with comfort and friendship, something she’s never had before this point and didn’t even have any knowledge of. mike is the first one to treat her like a person and to even see her as a person, so she obviously latches onto him.

el’s mirroring of mike is shown through very physical things: her using the nickname he gave her, her adopting the words or phrases he uses (mouthbreather, friends don’t lie, etc.), him giving her clothes that she wears for the rest of the season, even the eggos that he gives her becoming her favorite food. mike is the first one to give el comfort and any semblance of love, so she takes that and makes it a part of her personality.

el as a character at the end of season one is fundamentally different to how she was at the beginning of season one. she’s not eleven, the hawkins lab experiment. she’s el, mike’s friend. and having the presence of mike ripped away from her as fast as it appeared is what allows her to grow in season two.

in season two, the main person who provides el with what she needs is hopper. what el most desperately needs at this time is protection and safety. hopper gives her a place to live and keeps her safe as best he can.

el’s mirroring of hopper is less obvious than her mirroring of mike, but it’s still definitely there. hopper introduces her to music, teaches her morse code, gives her his clothes to wear, teaches her words, and even tells her what a mother is.

but hopper’s own trauma prevents him from providing el with what she really needs: a family. he never makes it so that the cabin is someplace she’ll be forever—he tells her constantly that it’s just for right now, that she’ll be able to see mike again soon and get to have a normal life. this prevents her from ever being able to feel like she truly has a home or a family. even though hopper views her as a daughter, he never expresses that, and el’s only conception of a father is dr. brenner, so she thinks of hopper as a friend because that’s the only other option for a relationship in her mind.

when hopper lies to her she views that as a violation of their friendship, so she no longer thinks of him as a friend and doesn’t trust him anymore, which leads her to seek out the only other connection she has left: her mother. her mother is physically incapable of providing her with what she needs, and that leads her to the second person who helps her this season: kali.

kali is a completely new discovery for el. she’s not a friend, she’s not a parent, she’s a sister. and she’s also the only one who truly understands how el feels, which leads el to latch pretty hard onto her. kali helps el to grow monumentally as a character, and the transformation is shown physically as well as emotionally.

el mirrors kali pretty heavily: the outfit, the makeup, the hair, the way of speaking (bitchin’), and obviously the way she views her powers. kali helps el to see that her powers can be something good, and that they’re a part of her, not just something that happened to her. kali teaches el how to channel her emotions into her power and use her trauma as a way to regain power and control over her own life. kali helps el to see that there’s another way to live, a way where she can use her powers and still have love and friendship and family.

so the main thing that kali provides el with is perspective. she helps her to see herself and the world in a new light, and shows her another path than the one she’s on. but what prevents el from sticking with kali and choosing this new path is the connections she’s already forged: mike and hopper. it’s seeing them in danger that prompts her to go back, to leave the family she could have and return to her friends.

kali shows el what she could be, and el makes her own choice about who she wants to be, which is an incredible turning point in her character. el has never been able to choose anything for herself, and when she finally has that opportunity, she chooses to protect her friends.

at the end of season two, el knows more about her past and her family, and she understands more about how the world works. she’s grown into more of her own person, but is still fundamentally basing her identity off of her connection to other people, mainly mike and hopper plus the extended party.

and then we get to season three. el at the beginning of season three is still fairly sheltered: she doesn’t really leave the house much, she sees mike every day, and she doesn’t interact with anyone outside of her circle.

and then along comes max, who is the most important person to el this season. max provides el with what she needs most: freedom and independence. mike wanted to control el and still viewed her as the girl he rescued who needs protecting. this is motivated out of love for her, but he still lies to her and tries to force his own beliefs about her identity onto her.

max doesn’t do that because she had no preconceived notion of what el was supposed to be. it’s pretty heavily implied that they didn’t interact much prior to the events of season three, so max probably didn’t know el that well at all. but as soon as they connect, they become best friends.

max helps el find her identity separate from her connections to people, which is something el has never had before. max shows el that she’s her own person and doesn’t need to rely on anyone else to tell her who she is. nobody had ever done this for el before max. el’s entire life, she’s been told who or what she is, what to do, how to live, how to behave, etc., and max never once does that. she encourages el to find who she is and to express that, and to cut people out if they couldn’t accept her.

el mirrors max pretty heavily in the beginning of season 3, primarily with the outfits but also with adopting the words and phrases she uses (dump his ass, give him the medicine, we make our own rules, etc.) but here’s the important thing that happens this season: she only really does that in the beginning. she mimics max for a little while, but then goes back to her normal way of speaking.

this is an indication of how much el has grown as a character, because it shows that she finally has realized that she doesn’t need to mirror other people. she’s grown into herself so much that she has enough to exist without having to make parts of other people part of her personality. what she gets from max is the confidence to realize that, and that’s when she really becomes her own person.

i think it’s going to be really interesting to see el next season removed from everything that she’s used to define herself so far: hopper, mike and the party, and her powers. for the first time in her life she’s going to have the opportunity to really learn and explore who she is as a person, and i honestly can’t wait.

hope y’all enjoyed and let me know if you want me to do any other analyses of stranger things stuff cause i have many thoughts on this show!

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

How do I write a world where non-earth religions (I’m creating them) are both diverse, and also common place to see people participate in multiple religions’ festivities or rituals. One, because there’s distance to actual religion and entering common lifestyle. Example like on earth plenty of non Christians are holding Christmas parties, it’s a common thing and not overtly religious. Two, or why not because of the diversity, religions simply mix together. Like on earth why not have fasting like Muslims do simply become a common lifestyle custom alongside Buddhist meditations also being common lifestyle customs. Three. Like two, but why can’t someone on earth be both Muslim and Buddhist?? Does that even make sense?

I only gave you real life religions as example only, for ease of explaining, not at all what I’ll use.

Also in this kind of world, how would you see religious tolerance? Can it honestly really be in harmony? How about the bigots? There’s still got to be some won’t there? Especially when daily lifestyles, or simply in the architecture and design throw all sorts of religion in their faces they can’t avoid unless they live under a rock.

Feral:

I’m not sure what the question is here. Should some people in your world participate in religious festivals that do not align with their beliefs? It’s certainly possible, and it depends on the religion in question. Christianity is inherently an evangelical religion; “witnessing” is the call of every Christian, so Christian religious activities tend to be geared towards welcoming non-believers with the intent on making them believers. Not to mention nearly all Christian festivals were the festivals of other religions that Christians reshaped into their own. And not to mention the commercialization of Christmas specifically has fundamentally changed how Christmas is viewed by Christians and non-Christians alike; I’ve heard it said, and am inclined to believe more or less, that even Christians in Victorian England really didn’t celebrate Christmas until Charles Dickens wrote “A Christmas Carol.” So, Christmas, for example, is of such mixed ancestry and exists in such a way as to be welcome for outsiders to “celebrate” without already believing in the underlying religion. It’s very important to keep in mind that this happens in culturally Christian regions or where Christmas has been so commercialized that people couldn’t even tell you its religious significance; and a lot of people of minority religions really fucking hate it - it’s insulting to be told that displaying a hanukiah at work is against company policy because you can’t have anything overtly religious on display when you’re surrounded by Christmas trees and listening to Christmas carols like “Oh Holy Night” piped in over the sound system. So you’ll want to keep in mind that some people will view a religious festival that’s “ubiquitously” celebrated as a dominant religion being forced on them at the expense of their own religious identity. You’ll also likely have religions that don’t proselytize and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in non-believers participating in their holy days - they’re holy! They’re meant for the people who already believe.

I’ve already briefly touched on why some religions would have a problem with non-believers crowding in on their holidays, but it’s worth repeating - not all religions are like Christianity. I’d go so far as to say that no other religions are like Christianity in this particular way. As for your examples regarding “Muslim fasting” and “Buddhist meditation”? People do fast. People do meditate. And it has nothing to do with religion. A lot of what makes “Muslim fasting” Muslim is prayer and dedication to Allah; if you’re removing that religious aspect of it, then you’re just fasting. And fasting is part of a number of religions, so it’s really hard to say which religion it comes from once the religion has been stripped away. As for meditation, meditation gained a lot of traction in the West because of the explosion of yoga. Which is a religious practice in Hinduism and Buddhism (and Jainism). It’s just been stripped of the religion, and like with fasting, meditation is found in many religions around the world; it’s just not that unique.

So, Buddhism is quite famous for being adoptable into other religious practices. Like if you had asked “why can’t someone be Muslim and Hindu?” my answer would have to be a run-down of the many fundamental theological reasons why those two religions are incapable of coinciding in a single person’s beliefs; however, Buddhism or Buddhist practices can be practiced alongside most religions. It’s non-theist, so there’s no creator deity that could contradict the beliefs of monotheists, polytheists, and atheists. Buddhism and Christianity have this whole huge long history, and Buddhism and Catholicism specifically dovetail really nicely together. What you’re talking about is syncretic religion, and it’s pretty common worldwide and throughout history.

The answers to all of those questions depend so intimately on how you build your religions and what their specific beliefs are. Some religions are naturally exclusivist, or you might have soft polytheism. It’s your world and your religions; we cannot make these decisions for you. If you want fundamentalism and bigotry to be a part of your world, then you can build your religions in such a way that those things would naturally occur. If you want harmony across religions to be a part of your world, then you can build your religions in such a way that that would naturally occur. You can even have it both ways! A world is a big place, and how people interact with their religion and the religions of others depends largely on where in the world they are and who else is there with them. A cosmopolitan culture where you have everyone brushing elbows with everyone else will have people developing a tolerance and softening their hardline views that would not occur in a more homogenous society where one religion is dominant.

Delta: A note about bigotry and prejudice: In geopolitics on earth, religious intolerance tends to be about one of two things: first, the majority religion (in the western world, Christianity) feeling compelled to force itself on other populations who do not share their beliefs. Examples of this include the Spanish Inquisition and, to some extent, “evangelical aid.” In Christianity, evangelicalism is a very important concept; sharing the religion is almost as important as a person’s personal faith. Off the top of my head, as Feral discussed, I can’t think of another religion with quite the same focus; so, by eliminating this element of religion, a huge amount of conflict could be eliminated if practitioners weren’t compelled to make all their acquaintances agree with them all the time. (Which is not to say all Christians just walk around proselytizing all the time, but it is fairly common in America; though I understand it to be somewhat less common in Europe, which through both culture and law has become more secular; more on this later.)

Second, it’s also about not wanting to concede power or control. A huge motivating factor behind all the Medieval Inquisitions, including the Spanish Inquisition, was the effort to curb what people in power considered religious heresy or just straight-up religious differences. They thought it was their place to dictate a group’s religious beliefs. Spain in particular was trying to stop the spread of Islam through the growing Ottoman Empire, which comes down to Medieval geopolitics as much as it does the religious differences between Islam and Christianity. Modern Islamophobia and religious conflict falls in this category a lot, too. But if your religions weren’t tied to more extensive geopolitical conflicts, you won’t have politicians using them as leverage to take and keep power like we do, so you could reduce religious tolerance that way, too.

Finally, secularism, which doesn’t directly address your question, but I wanted to mention it. In China, the official Communist Party has been somewhat infamously aggressively secular because religion was seen as a potentially rebellious force. Soviet Russia had similar experiences, both particularly with Muslim populations with whom they have political differences with besides, religion in this instance becoming a motivating factor for rebellion.

This is different from someplace like France, which aims to simply be neutral. Europe, overall, does not share the same public religious zeal that places like Israel, America, and Saudi Arabia have, but that doesn’t mean the conflict isn’t there.

Utuabzu: Something worth considering is are these gods real in the world you’re building? If the gods are demonstrably real, religiousness will be a lot more common and people are probably going to be more accepting of those that worship different deities given that any claims about them being false are easily refuted. Another thing to consider is the difference between philosophy and religion. In the West, Christianity fills both slots for many people (Judaism and Islam also do for some). In much of Asia, however, philosophies like Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Yoga (the Hindu philosophical school, one of six major Hindu schools), etc. are practiced in addition to a more localised traditional religion, often comprised of a local pantheon of gods and some degree of ancestor worship. To some degree, even Christianity is sometimes treated like this, see the Chinese Rites controversy for example. It is entirely possible to have people simultaneously believing in local animistic deities (local forest/mountain/river gods), regional major deities (Sun god, moon god, justice god etc.) and one or more universalist philosophies. Add in the possibility of mystery religions (closed faiths that do not publicise their theologies and often don’t accept converts, see Mithraism, the Orphic Mysteries, or for a modern example, Yazidiism) and ethnic religions that don’t seek or don’t accept converts (see Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism), and it is very possible to have a wide variety of beliefs coexisting in a society. If they’ve been coexisting over a long period, one would generally expect most people to be aware of the major festivals, ceremonies, etc. of each, and while some may be open to all and treated by non-believers as more of a cultural festival (probably the animist ones), others may be believers-only, or invitation-only. Some festivals might be shared by several religions, because they either come from the same root, or both revere the same prophet/saint/whatever, or both worship the same deity, or maybe just had similar festivals happening at roughly the same time and though mutual influence ended up doing them at the same time. It really depends how you’ve built these religions and what their stances on non-believers are, how long they’ve been coexisting and how orthodox/orthopraxic (emphasis on believing the right things vs. emphasis on performing rituals correctly) they are.

[peshcel]

Riddle Me This: A Tom Riddle Character Study

[Also posted on Reddit, if you want to comment/share your thoughts!] 

Riddle Me This: A Tom Riddle Character Study

*Warnings: some profanity, spoilers, and puns.

‘Twas but a regular Saturday eve when a question of utmost importance grabbed hold of me: ‘Voldemort, why such a You-Know-What?’

You see, while Voldemort appears to be a very classic villain, Tom has proven to be an enigma wrapped in a Riddle (hehe). So, equipped with what I remembered from my BSc in Social Psychology, I also called upon my therapist friend with an MSc in Forensic Psychology to explore what would drive someone like Tom Riddle to become Lord Voldemort.

In this gone-awry Reddit comment, I will drag you along for a deep dive into how our little Dark Lord grew up and discuss concepts like power, control, sense of self, and terror management – all up to the point where Tom Marvolo Riddle introduces his clever anagram ‘Immortal Love Rodd’ ‘I am Lord Voldemort.’

Join me on this character study journey of about 5,500 words (15-30 min) where I try to figure out how Voldemort came to be.

Oh, and be sure to share your thoughts at the end of the ride!

 Baby Lord Voldemort: A Pensive Pensieve Trip

“Voldemort is my past, present, and future.”

 Long before we found out Snake-face Voldemort had barely a soul left, we thought he was the purest form of evil out there. He had done despicable things before his supposed death and had now resurfaced as a gross face on the back of someone’s head, hell-bent on killing this little kid. As we gradually learned, Voldemort was once Tom Riddle: a charming, brilliant, orphaned Wizard with the potential to go on and do great things. But, we also learned many little tidbits about the circumstances before his birth, about how he grew up and how he portrayed himself at Hogwarts, which has given us just enough to come up with our own theories about his personality and how he was shaped.

So, before we continue, let me quickly arm you with some abnormal psych. terminology. Both Riddle and Voldemort really match the three personality traits of (malignant) narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, aptly known as ‘The Dark Triad’. 

Plucked straight from the Wiki, summarized for your convenience:

Narcissism

is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy. 

Malignant narcissism

is when narcissism is combined with antisocial behaviors; the evil side of narcissism. (I stumbled upon

A Study in Evil: Voldemort, the Malignant Narcissist

after writing all of this, but I highly recommend giving it a read if you want a deep dive.)

Machiavellianism

is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, an absence of morality, unemotional callousness, and a higher level of self-interest.

Psychopathy

is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits (CU), and remorselessness. (Better distinguished as ‘primary psychopathy’.)

*Sidenote: the term ‘sociopath’ is quite often used in pop culture, sometimes even interchangeably with ‘psychopath’. The actual diagnostic term is ‘antisocial personality disorder’, as described by the DSM-5. However, there is a difference between sociopathy and psychopathy, a whole slew of them actually. Important to note is that a ‘sociopath’ refers to a person with antisocial tendencies that are ascribed to social or environmental factors, whereas psychopathic traits are thought to be more innate, i.e. genetic causes (x).

We are given facts in the book that suggest psychopathic, antisocial, and (malignant) narcissistic traits are evident in Tom Riddle from early childhood. Using all that information, I want to take you on a ride to see how all these tidbits together shaped Tom Riddle and how that would lead him to become Lord Voldemort (not to be confused with ‘going Full Voldemort’).

  The Interplay of Nature and Nurture, and Magic

Psychopathy is believed to be a complex interworking of mostly nature but also nurture, let’s unpack this in regards to Riddle.

Tom Riddle is born to a Pure-blood mother, Merope Gaunt, and a Muggle father, Tom Riddle Sr. When we are first introduced to the Gaunts, Salazar Slytherin’s last descendants, we meet a violent father and son, and a daughter who takes the brunt of it. We are told that the entire Gaunt line has a history of inbreeding and that they are known to produce individuals with violent and unstable personalities. They live in dire conditions but are incredibly proud people and sneer at the mere existence of Muggles. Merope grows up poor and abused, traumatized, ridiculed for her lack of magic that seems to be more the result of the abuse than the cause for it. Not far from their shack in Little Hangleton lives Tom Riddle Sr.: rich, handsome, somewhat of a prat, and the object of Merope’s affections. Being no great beauty and with little to offer, she “hoodwinks” Tom Riddle Sr. and escapes her dreadful life with her family. Merope is soon with child after their marriage and decides to release Tom Riddle Sr. of whatever spell he’s under, but he leaves her immediately.

Let’s consider the circumstances surrounding the conception of Tom Riddle. J.K. Rowling said that Voldemort could not understand love as he was conceived in a ‘loveless union’. However, she also stated that had Merope decided to live and raise Tom, his life would’ve turned out differently by knowing ‘love’. We could understand the tidbits shared by J.K. to mean that a child born into a loveless union would perhaps grow up in a loveless household, would have no good examples of what love is and would not know or be shown love. While Dumbledore hints that he suspects Merope used a Love Potion to “hoodwink” Tom Riddle Sr., we only know that magic was used. I always understood said ‘loveless union’ to be a magical violation – violation in every sense of the word – and that Tom’s incapability to love was due to magic that tried to correct a balance, i.e. the Laws of Magic™ were violated. Now, I’m no Magical Theorist, but this could mean that actual Magic™ is at play in addition to a genetic predisposition to explain Tom’s psychopathic traits.

Apart from these genetic and magical factors, we could also consider the environmental factors that influenced the biological development of Tom. Merope was left destitute and depressed when Riddle Sr. abandoned her while pregnant. In the dead of winter, with a lot of stressors and suppressed magic, she gave birth to Tom at the orphanage and then died. While we don’t know how her pregnancy developed, this being all guesswork, the prenatal stressors and perhaps a complicated birth due to her suppressed magic could have influenced Tom’s brain development. Brain development or deviating brain structures are linked to psychopathy (x). Simply said, the parts of the brain responsible for empathy and guilt or fear and anxiety don’t work the same for psychopaths, e.g. they don’t experience fear or other affects the way others might. In a psychopathic child, for example, this could mean that they would be hard to socialize because they don’t fear punishment even though they might know that it is a consequence of their behavior. It’s also what makes them great liars (psychopaths can ace a lie detector test like no other). It can also mean being more prone to boredom and seeking thrills as a result (low arousal theory). We could even view all of this in light of ‘Magic™ development’ instead of the Muggle term ‘brain development’.

In addition to taking into account these hereditary, biological and prenatal factors, we'd be remiss not to look at the effect of nurture. Now, we don’t actually know that much about Tom’s early childhood except for what we learn during Dumbledore’s visit to Wool’s Orphanage in 1938. We find out that Tom steals from people, has no qualms about hurting animals, scares and bullies other children, and is a consummate liar ‒ all while having/showing no remorse. Mrs. Cole, the matron of the orphanage, refers to Tom as being a funny boy and odd, that he was a “funny baby, too” and “hardly ever cried”. It is conceivable that the caretakers gave him less attention in response to his lack of showing his needs through crying and that he was picked up and held less often. It could also be a chicken-or-egg situation: perhaps he didn’t cry because he learned his cries would not be responded to, etc. Even if we leave magic out of the equation as to why they would find him ‘funny’, it is likely that he showed general ‘abnormal’ responses and behaviors not appropriate for his developmental stage that were unsettling to others. It is easy to assume that this would lead to people distancing themselves from him and alienating him further. Regardless of cause-effect, there are clear signs here that Tom grows up maladjusted and that his attachment style falls somewhere along the dismissive-avoidant. I think we can assume that the lack of developing a relationship with at least one primary caregiver would really put a damper on having any semblance of a ‘normal’ social and emotional development.

There seems to be a clear interplay here of genetic, biological (magical) and environmental factors as the perfect foundation for dysfunctional personality traits to really come to fruition.

  Power & Control: A Narcissistic Trip 

 “There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it.”

 Strap in as we first take a little detour for a quick exploration of narcissism. As previously stated, we clearly see signs of malignant narcissism in young Tom, characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy, combined with antisocial behaviors. What is particularly applicable in Tom’s case is Kohut’s theory of narcissism. 

The Little Narcissist

 In psychoanalytic theory, primary narcissism in children is part of their development.

It is normal for children to develop self-love and object-love, as Kohut puts it. Entertaining notions of greatness, magical thinking, feeling omnipotent and omniscient and believing to have a certain immunity to the consequences of their actions is all part of this development. It is quite innocent, but it can become pathological. According to Kohut, children are normally gently disillusioned of these grand notions, in a nontraumatic manner, by maturing and becoming part of society. Pathological narcissism, however, develops when the child basically has defective narcissistic structures of the self by having this process disrupted.

This defective structure fits Tom Riddle to a T. In addition, Kohut’s theory of object-love really applies here as well. According to Kohut, either a child has a ‘mother’ to confirm their grandiosity, or they seek an adult to create an ‘idealized parent image’. This means they will seek an adult, someone powerful they can look up to, so they can bask in their reflected glory. For Tom, having neither someone to confirm his grandiosity nor someone to look up to means he creates his own powerful parent. We notice this when Tom explicitly asks Dumbledore about his father being a Wizard, since his mother obviously could not have been; she wouldn’t have died if she was. One can imagine his (narcissistic) rage when this image was shattered later on. His five-year search for the Chamber of Secrets to confirm he’s the Heir of Slytherin is a direct result of Tom’s continued search for a sense of self.

  The Narcissist’s Plight: Need for Control

 One of our main human motivational processes is the desire for control. Actually, it is perceived control that really helps our general sense of well-being. This need exists and is deeply embedded in all of us. However, when people are tried and tested, feel threatened or powerless, a lack of agency can kickstart all kinds of coping mechanisms to maintain the sense of self. So, simply put: the less perceived control you have, the greater the need. 

 When we speak of power, we speak of control. If there is anyone who is desperate for control it’s the narcissist. The narcissist is believed to have such low self-esteem and fragile ego that it will, subconsciously, protect itself from being injured at all costs. Controlling your circumstances and those around you is a means of guarding and protecting the ego. Anything less just won’t do. A threat to that control, that power, is a perceived threat to the sense of self.

Power is a concept that really tickles Riddle/Voldemort’s Niffler as we pretty much learn from the get-go. Consider again, for a moment, where and how Tom grew up. His ability to control came from his magic. Seeing as how Tom grew up in an orphanage, not a penny to his name and very few resources, I think that Tom learned early on that everything could so easily be taken away from him ‒ by someone bigger, older, someone who had more power. While Tom could ‘control’ his circumstances to some degree with his magic, he was still a child. He seemed to have an innate understanding of his powerlessness, i.e. lack of control. Perhaps less helpless than other children, but still a child dependent on others. Not only that, but he was dependent on people he deemed lesser than him, less intelligent, less special. Something a narcissist like Tom would deeply resent. The thing here is that viewing others as beneath you or believing oneself to be superior to others is an ego defense to deal with insecurity, shame, rejection, etc. Tom develops this ego defense but also gets confirmation of his grandiosity through having magical power that actually does set him apart.

 Rejection is another big theme in the life of a narcissist; one that Tom was very familiar with. He was unwanted and fully made aware of it: his mother ‘left’ him by dying, his father never came for him, he was not chosen for adoption, and there were many other children vying for attention. Attention that Tom did not receive but perhaps believed he was owed. Originating from a sense of entitlement, someone like Tom would come to view any sort of rejection as a slight (for he is smarter, better, etc.). While Tom might not have even wanted such attention or even had a particular need to belong – considering he didn’t view anyone as a peer/equal – the fact that it was not automatically given to him was probably construed as insulting. 

  Control Through Controlling Others

 Mrs. Cole told Dumbledore that Tom scared the other children and that it was hard to catch him at any bullying or other malicious acts. With the ability to control his magic at such a young age, along with being highly intelligent, he was quick to figure out how to use this to his advantage. He could fly under the radar when needed, manipulate those in power, and use his skills to control others through fear ‒ ultimately to protect himself and what little he had, but also relishing how he could lord his power over others, establishing his superiority and showing them all how special he was. I believe that Tom honed the art of manipulation at a young age as he couldn’t fathom other ways of tying people to him, of forming relationships ‒ unless there was fear or a sense of owing. His magic gave him the additional tools to control those that didn’t have it.

Then, a defining moment: Tom meets Dumbledore.  Using the same control tactics he has probably used with everyone around, Tom tries to command Dumble to do/say certain things. If you squint, you could even say that Tom was able to put a magical compulsion in his commands. Dumbledore, being who he is, is unmoved and even gently puts Tom in his place, which in Tom’s eyes would be considered a slight.

When Tom learns there is a word for his abilities, he is very eager to show off and be acknowledged for it by someone he could potentially identify with, someone who can show him the path to more knowledge, more power, someone ‘worthy’. For the first time, he encounters someone he wants to impress; he does this by boasting about his abilities. How telling it is that our Little Lord says that he “can make bad things happen to people who annoy me,” – not “mean to me” as the movie had us believe.

Here, Tom seems to have accidentally truly revealed himself – perhaps for the first time, definitely the last time. Out of childlike excitement and eagerness, he has shown his hand, which he immediately regrets when it is not followed by recognition and/or approval from Dumbledore. Dumbledore, quickly catching on to the power dynamics, asks Tom to address him as ‘sir’ or ‘professor’ and immediately establishes his authority. Tom accepts it begrudgingly, “expression hardened”, as he needs Dumbledore to tell him more. Upon Tom’s demand, Dumbledore’s power is then quickly, and casually, displayed when he uses the Flame-Freezing charm on Tom’s wardrobe. If I’m being honest, I always found Dumbledore’s ‘casual’ display of power to be very loaded and quite problematic, ‘destroying’ something of Tom’s where he had stashed his very few possessions. Yet, Tom quickly goes from outrage to “expression greedy” when he realizes Dumbledore was just showing his power and using it to impress, i.e. instill fear (Tom immediately asks Dumbledore where he can get “one of them [wands]”). 

When Dumbledore uses his ‘power’ to then confront Tom with his stealing and bullying, Tom reluctantly concedes that he cannot manipulate Dumbledore and doesn’t deny his actions, knowing that ‘being truthful’ is how he can appease and steer Dumbledore. He even accepts the humiliation of having to return the stolen items and apologize to others.

Honestly, the whole interaction between them is so significant, so amazing and so telling of Tom’s typical interpersonal dynamics and relationships. It’s no wonder he starts to despise and avoid Dumbledore. Tom had made himself the master of his little universe, believing that no other has his special type of power. Not only did Tom lose his cool during the conversation, he showed weakness by being vulnerable. As Tom learns when he joins the Wizarding World, Dumbledore is even more powerful than he thought and holds strong political power to boot. Someone like Dumbledore, for example, is not just threatening because of his power but because he can see behind Tom’s mask. 

  Control in the Wizarding World

 The interaction with Dumbledore seems to set the tone for Tom’s understanding of ‘power’ in the Wizarding World. It is something he further internalizes when he arrives at Hogwarts and gets sorted into Slytherin, a House of mainly Pure-bloods. I wholeheartedly believe that this little Snake immediately understood the blood status dynamics at school and the hierarchy within Slytherin House; things beyond his control. It is not a stretch to believe that the Slytherins, in particular, bullied him, ostracised him—rejected him—for his lack of Wizarding name, lack of status and money, and tried to show and put him in his place, thus fueling his rage. So at the age of 11, Tom had the mental acuity to realize he needed other tactics to become influential, to wield his power. 

Seeing power and status being inherently awarded to Pure-bloods, the very ones who reject him, his own search for a claim to power/his superiority starts off with an obsessive in-depth exploration of his heritage. It is natural to assume that, along with this quest, Tom educated himself on social politics and how to improve himself. He was able to show humility and regard for others, be inhibited and not boastful. We learn from Dumbledore that Tom at Hogwarts showed signs of covert narcissism: no outward signs of arrogance or aggression, seemed polite, quiet, and thirsty for knowledge. He had already learned how to control certain impulses, ingratiate himself, how to hide in plain sight. He just continued to perfect it; he became above reproach by being the perfect student in the eyes of the adults, while fooling his fellow students and building his own following (feeding his ego along the way). He played into Slytherin politics and managed to establish himself as something to behold and to be frightened of, especially when he learned of being a descendent of Salazar Slytherin – a legit claim to power. He now had proof of something he had always believed: I am above them. 

  Loss of Control and Terror Management

 Throughout his time at Hogwarts, Tom managed to perfect his control over others. Despite all his received praise and accolades, his ego remained fragile. I think the fact that he could not escape his blood status, his class – made especially salient when he had to return to the orphanage during the summer – really fueled his obsession to confirm he’s the Heir, i.e. to strengthen his sense of self. 

 Apart from the orphanage, Tom spends the rest of his formative years at Hogwarts, where he is, at most, considered a Half-blood if not a Muggle-born – i.e. lesser than. His fragile ego and sense of self is constantly challenged if not outright attacked. What’s even more confronting is that he also still has to return to the orphanage during summer break in the years 1938-1945 until he is of age. A place where he cannot use his magic; where he cannot sow the merits of his efforts at Hogwarts; a place where he has little to no control. He has to go back to being an orphan, in an orphanage, among Muggles. This having to return to Hogwarts is even more interesting to note when you consider there is both a Muggle war (WW2) and a Wizarding war (Grindelwald) happening.

 That’s why we should also place all of this in the context of when this all took place. Tom experiences both WW2 and the Grindelwald days while he’s a teenager and still at Hogwarts. While he was safe at Hogwarts during most of the year and the winter holidays, he still had to return during the summer. Let me quickly add here that Grindelwald never attacked Britain, but Muggle London was dealing with (the threat of) bombings during those years, with heavy losses in terms of homes, businesses, and lives. Tom just about avoided The Blitz (Sep 7, 1940 – May 11, 1941) and the evacuation of children of Sep 1, 1939 (although, how he managed that, don’t ask). It’s safe to say that times were incredibly tough and unsafe in those days. 

 So on that note, let me introduce you to Terror Management Theory (TMT). It basically means that when faced with ‘terror’, i.e. one’s own mortality, the anxiety that goes with it can make people do some really effed up things. People will start chasing ways to boost their self-esteem, their self-worth, and for ways to confirm that their life has meaning and that they certainly are not insignificant or disposable. That they matter. Mind you, this all takes place without people even realizing that this is driving them. This theory rears its head when we speak of racism as well. In trying to elevate their sense of self, people can attach great importance to the group they identify with. They will then seek out ways to confirm their group is superior to others (well, well, well). 

This theory seems to also fit Tom’s strange, half-assed Heir of Slytherin shenanigans. Same as what happened in the interaction with Dumbledore, Tom’s glee at finding out he’s indeed special makes him impulsive and greedy, disregarding the consequences and acting out of his ‘careful’ character. He has new power within his grasp, new thrills to seek and uncover. In his excitement, he is reckless and gets Myrtle Warren killed. While the rest of his attacks seem very planned and controlled, perhaps to impress his new Knights but most likely to see how far he could push boundaries, it also shows that he either doesn't think or doesn’t care about potential consequences. He is arrogant and unfearing. He could never get caught. Tom only starts caring when his actions become disadvantageous to himself; Hogwarts would close if the attacks continued, meaning he would lose all that he had skilfully and carefully cultivated.

In short, the need for control can drive one to go to really terrible lengths. Straight up tomfoolery, if you will. And if anyone went to great lengths, it was Tom Riddle’s becoming of Lord Voldemort.

  Becoming Lord Voldemort:  The Narcissistic Psychopathic Wizard’s Guide to Ultimate Power

“What I was, even I do not know … I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal – to conquer death.”

 Before we found out the little tidbits about Tom Riddle, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s motives seemed straightforward: Pure-bloods must reign supreme. Knowing what we know now, it would be too simplistic to state that Lord Voldemort was purely driven by hatred for an imagined inferior Other. Namely because at the core of hatred lies fear. A need for control and the deep-seated fear of losing said control would be something Tom would and could never admit to. It would mean acknowledging that something (i.e. fear) had control over him, in effect a weakness.

He is a Half-blood orphan with nothing to his name, a nobody. He has a smidgen of hope when he discovers he is a descendent of Salazar through the Gaunts, but any notion of tangible rewards associated with that is shattered when he finds the Gaunts fallen from grace into obscurity. There is fear of forever being a nobody, unremarkable; entering the world with nothing and leaving the world with nothing ‒ all the while knowing that he is obviously destined for greatness (hello narcissist, my old friend). 

He derived his new sense of self from being a descendant of the great Salazar Slytherin, who ‘rightfully’ detested those of lesser blood. As is typical for the malignant narcissist, Tom really has a ‘transparent’ defense mechanism to protect his fragile ego: projection. His hatred of his own lack of pure blood leads him to distance himself from it, denying whatever undermines his belief of being something special and extraordinary or not being worthy of the name. Distancing himself from that what makes him common and unworthy, he literally takes on a new name and kills off the Riddles. By going to extreme lengths, he can distance himself and 'eradicate' that what he despises most about himself. He is not like those 'filthy' Muggles: the ones he was forced to be dependent on, those lesser beings that deprived him of what he was owed; the ones that left his mother for dead, etc.

His 'great' blood is obviously the reason for his 'greatness', his destiny. Not only was this thought fed by the Pure-bloods around him, but it is the rhetoric that gives him a supply of Pure-bloods fanning at his feet. A thrill in of itself to see the privileged worship him. 

Riddle's actions seem to have always been very self-serving. He never preached what Grindelwald did; it was never for the ‘greater good’. It is quite evident in the vagueness of Voldemort’s politics regarding purity. It was simply a means to an end; just a way to see how far he could go in amassing power. The ‘mission & vision’ he proposed was probably one of the few things that Pure-bloods could get behind and would go to great lengths to achieve/protect. For Tom, it was a way of opening doors. Not only financially and socially, but also in terms of access to knowledge hoarded and guarded by Pure-bloods. Becoming and remaining uncontested in every sense of the word would mean being in control. No longer dependent on what others are willing to ‘grant’ him. No one would ever be able to challenge Him, take anything from Him, ever again: the ultimate power.  

Control of the Uncontrollable

So let’s turn our attention back to power: what would be ultimate power for a Wizard? Something a Wizard has never done and somewhere a Wizard has never gone before: beyond the veils of Death; surpassing mortal constructs ‒ and defeating something as terribly common as 'death'. I think this seed, this fear, was planted in Tom’s mind from a very young age. We see it when he asks Dumbledore whether his father was a wizard, for his mother couldn’t have been “or she wouldn’t have died”. Aptly enough, this fear of death or anxiety induced by the thought of one's one mortality stems from low self-esteem, which a narcissist has in abundance.

It’s also interesting to go back to a psychopath’s psychophysiology. Psychopaths are believed to have low arousal compared to others and are prone to boredom. They could go to lengths to find a ‘thrill’. Discovering the limits, pushing boundaries and going beyond that would be completely on-brand for a Wizard with psychopathic tendencies. Maybe I’ve read too many fanfictions, but a common thought seems to be that the Dark Arts are highly addictive, so someone like Tom would keep pushing it and pushing it, until he could go where no one has gone before. Thus begins his slow decline a la: ‘A Horcrux, you say? Hold my butterbeer, imma make 7.’ 

It’s intriguing that he went for dependence on external objects to safeguard his continued survival. Objects that he either entrusted his most loyal followers with or hid in locations that had meaning to only him. He even had a magical living creature be the container. As we saw over the course of the series, it really wasn’t all that foolproof. But that’s the arrogance of Tom Riddle; he believed that while not many Wizards would even go down the path of creating a Horcrux, none would even conceive creating seven. What’s more, how would anyone even have the smarts to figure out his pattern, his way of thinking – preposterous. If only he had known about the Hallows sooner. Alas.

Granted, there were other ways of circumventing mortality. But ‘cheating’ death by becoming a vampire, for example, would mean being a slave to one's own bloodlust and limitations, dependent on others still to sustain you, i.e. no control, still killable. Another obvious avenue would be using the Philosopher’s Stone as Flamel did, but it would not be anything new. Stealing it or copying it would mean nothing to him. He would be ‘immortal’ but weak and feeble, dependent on a stone, also still killable. So it seems that it’s not necessarily immortality in and of itself, but controlling how and when you die. 

Conclusion: Spiraling out of Control

To summarize the why, Tom Riddle was a narcissistic psychopath with a high IQ, immense magical ability, a chip on his shoulder and something to prove ‒ and a need to be acknowledged for it. The potent mix of nature, magic, and nurture seemed to have really worked their, ehm, magic (sorry). Tom’s ‘abnormal’ behaviors in his childhood were strong predicting factors for the potential to entertain notions of one day being a Dark Lord. However, the odds seem like they were already in that favor before he was even born when we consider his genetic makeup along with the circumstances surrounding his conception and his birth. The Muggle environment he grew up in and the Magical world he was then introduced appear to be the ‘umami’ flavoring for the mix to inevitably lead him down his self-destructive path. 

Tom’s actions and behaviors all seem to boil down to an excessive need for control and the deep-seated fear of losing it. Growing up with Muggles, he used all his talents to exert his control over those weaker, sans Magique. In his peak Riddle days, Tom was quick to figure out he could control people by using his glib charm, his looks, and his extreme intelligence to manipulate everything to his liking. He was able to trick people into ‘wanting’ to give him the things he desires, making people believe that he’s ‘giving’ them something in return. With his psychopathy and narcissism fully taking the wheel, it seems that he no longer cared – or saw the need – to pretend to cater to the wishes of others. Fear became his main tool in the peak Voldemort days; the only thing he deigned to ‘give’ others was allowing them to stay alive, avoid punishment, or allowing them to unleash their darkest fantasies. In chasing evermore control, power, he ends up spiraling. His actions shift from sly, cunning, covert manipulative behaviors to more impulsive, erratic and desperate behaviors, all stemming from a loss of control, of his carefully cultivated power. His mask, literally and figuratively, disappears.

It’s impossible to look past the incredible symbolism and irony of the Horcruxes. In his belief that eliminating and eradicating his weaknesses would make him untouchable, that very pursuit ended up being his undoing. With the killing off of the last vestiges of ‘normality’, he seemed to be completely driven by his impulses (or his Id, as Freud would say). If we add ‘death terror’ to this, it would explain why it went as far as Going Full Voldemort and becoming a mass murderer blindly obsessed with a prophecy that merely hinted at his potential defeat. 

Rowling said that Voldemort's boggart would be his own corpse, and I think that makes sense ‒ for Voldemort, that is. His corpse would signify the fact that he could die and thus be defeated, the ultimate loss in the ultimate battle for ultimate power (say ‘ultimate’ one more time!). I think Tom Riddle's boggart would've been a poor man's grave; not only did he die (ugh, lame), but he died with nothing to show for it. 

With all that being said, being a psychopath does not evil make. However, Tom Riddle’s dire need for a sense of self, immersion in the Dark Arts, and the mutilation of his soul are what really made him turn into an unmitigated You-Know-What. The destruction of his soul left a shell of a man driven by dark base emotions: Full Voldemort.

The end.

[firebirdsdaughter]

What’s hilarious [read: ridiculous] to me…

… Is that Horobi and Yua actually follow a fairly parallel path in their responses to their situations (I had a whole realisation about how Horobi-Fuwa-Naki-Yua are a four way parallel today; Horobi-Fuwa are parallels and Naki-Yua are parallels, but then their actions crisscross parallel). But there’s a massive double standard in how the two characters are reacted to… Despite the fact that Yua is a fully mentally matured and developed human adult and Horobi is an AI that has been hacked and brainwashed for the past decade in a way that forcibly stunted his development.

Yua was in a horrid and toxic work environment w/ an abusive boss. Now, admittedly, Gai kept a large amount of his worse deeds from her and to a point one could justify it as her thinking she’s acting for the greater good… Until we get to the part where it becomes abundantly clear she knows very well that what they’re doing is at the least morally questionable… But doesn’t try to defect at all, even to the point of insisting it’s of her own free will. Yes, she had a chip in her head, too, but given her reactions to him torturing Fuwa, she doesn’t seem to have known he could do that, and she didn’t know about Naki, nor did she have an AI drone in her mind. Now this is not to blame Yua—in fact, the point is that she was a victim in a bad situation. Her struggle to get out of there was fairly realistic given her situation. But she had the experience to know that what they were doing was wrong. That makes it tragic in it’s own way, yes, that she was under extreme stress and very conflicted, but she was aware of that. She was a fully developed adult. She deliberately pursued Izu w/ the intention of destroying her, and would have had Gai not said the wrong thing and set Fuwa off. And Izu was frightened and trying to run away. She resists Fuwa’s repeated attempts to snap her out of it.

Rightly so, people noted Yua’s situation, were upset for her and felt bad for her. When there were jackasses saying she should die, people called it out as bad. People were cheering for her to get away from Gai. People were happy when she did. And this includes me. I blocked people I saw shitting on Yua and saying she should die bc what the fuck, guys, she was in a seriously messed up situation.

Once free of Gai, Yua is uncertain what to do and decides to try and ‘make up’ for something she feels responsible for in a rather questionable way. She ends up helping the Ark rise and wreak havoc. Still people recognise that she couldn’t have known that would happen. Poor Yua’s been through a lot.

Meanwhile, Horobi is hacked and brainwashed by the Ark twelve years ago. She uses him to cause Daybreak. He is an AI being controlled by a larger AI designed to control HumaGear like him. Unlike and adult human being pressured and manipulated, he is literally incapable of thinking outside the Ark’s will. The Ark has complete control. Even if he did have any experience to compare w/ before, the Ark erases it. He has no frame of reference besides the Ark, no development of any kind to evaluate his situation w/. Even when Jin becomes important to him, everything is through the lens of the Ark, the Ark is more than a god to him. The brainwashing is so deep that even when disconnected for a bit, he can’t be anything besides blindly devoted. Talks about how the Ark is absolute. When confronted w/ something that causes uncertainty, he goes into a full on mental breakdown—literally, should have been a first clue that emotions were never going to come easy for him.

Eventually, he does end up w/ enough experience to just start to begin to break free. Manages to act completely on his own for the first time in his life—not an instinct that the Ark swooped in to take advantage of, he gets to go through w/ it on his own. And he’s floored. He literally cannot fathom why his body moved on its own, as far as he can tell. Can’t understand the fact that he wanted to do something. This is recognised as a big deal (one of the only times anyone tries to actually talk him out of things, in fact, unlike Yua, where there was a lot of effort). Horobi begins to wonder about things outside the Ark’s will, about himself, which he’s never considered before… Only to have it turn out his son was plotting to have the Ark possess him and then kill him to kill her. This completely upends any development he had. He’s re-hacked and rendered as largely a drone when not being possessed.

Finally, someone decides to put effort into him (kinda…) again. And, in a situation that heavily parallels Yua, he ends up finding it in him to break free of the Ark. Only… Again, a lot like Yua, it’s not a clean break. He’s still stuck w/ the past, the conditioning, and the effects of what happened. Additionally, as later becomes clear, his struggling w/ feeling emotions, which he has been carefully conditioned to reject and have no experience w/, for the first time. He’s mentally unstable and volatile. Now, in the show, what happens is the result of Azu/the Ark’s manipulations and people making poor decisions (and I do think you can make an argument for the fact that the Ark was intentionally keeping Horobi from feeling/having any experience w/ emotions to make him even more of a wreck later on), and poking a very volatile bear (well, a highly traumatised child soldier AI who has no fucking clue what emotions are to the point it feels like an outside being controlling him somehow), he lashes out, and Izu calmly stands there and deliberately takes a hit she very clearly sees coming. General chaos ensues. From Horobi’s perspective, the thing he’s been trained to think will get rid of the uncertainty and emotions etc. not only doesn’t work, but it makes him feel worse, and bc he has no other way he knows how to respond, he becomes more aggressive in rejecting those feelings. And then Jin dies, and he completely breaks down.

The reaction he gets? People calling him evil and horrible and saying he should die. That e’s choosing to do these things. People who talk about how Yua can’t really be held accountable, how she was coerced, look at a literal brainwash victim and say he choose to do those things.

Now, obviously, there are differences, which resulted in the different out comes—obviously the whole, one is a fully developed human adult and the other one is an AI. One was externally conditioned, the other, again, literally brainwashed. One had someone fighting to convince them to break free of their situation on a regular basis, repeatedly, constantly, the other didn’t. Yua was always going to have an easier break than Horobi, bc she had more mental and emotional maturity, but bc of that, esp in regards to actions done whilst under the ‘control’ of others, she has more responsibility for her actions bc she was capable of identifying them as wrong.

Now, of course, both situations are bad for the people involved. Both of them are victims.

But the issue is that people seem to be all over how Yua was a victim, Yua was mistreated… While attacking Horobi (and being upset about Izu dying is one thing, although, again, the person really responsible for that was Azu/th ark(well, Gai for creating her), Horobi was pretty much used as a weapon there, but this is for stuff he did while mind controlled).

And I used Yua just bc she and Horobi had the most parallel responses to their situations. The same goes for being able to see Fuwa as a victim, or Naki (so if Naki is the one who gave Horobi the ZetsumeRise Keys, does that make them responsible for Operation MaGear, or bc they gave Horobi the ForceRiser and said to use it on Jin, are they responsible for that? Bc that’s the logic of blaming Horobi for Daybreak), or Raiden, or even Aruto for that time he got hijacked via MCH. Any of the hacked HumaGear who were turned into MaGear.

Just… The concept of seeing how all of those people are victims in the situation… But blaming Horobi? Like… Not being interested in Horobi is one thing. Obviously, no on is going to be as madly in love w/ him as I am. It’s the act of not recognising him as being a victim while recognising everyone in similar situations as victims. It’s saying he was responsible for Daybreak, treating him like the Ark’s will was his (I’m literally having flashbacks to comments calling Horobi’s whole death ‘Horobi’s plan,’ even though by that point we literally knew the Ark was an entity that existed). Like… They literally confirmed it in show as not being that. Horobi is a mind control victim. What someone’s personal opinion of the character outside of that is another matter. But the fact is that he was mind controlled by the Ark and that the things he did under her control cannot be objectively called things he chose to do. Whether someone thinks he would have chosen them if he weren’t mind controlled… Esp given how all his actions of own choice were about protecting Jin, I personally disagree. But the show has been very explicit that he was mind controlled, and that he had no clue how to handle emotions (to the point he didn’t even seem to know what they are), so being able to understand that all those other people, esp the ones who went through similar things, are victims… But Horobi’s to blame for what he did? That’s just ridiculous.

And don’t even get me started on how anyone could ever see Gai as being a bigger victim than Horobi.

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the claim that men are oppressed too. We hear that oppressing is oppressive to those who oppress as well as those they oppress. Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised inability to cry. It is tough, we are told, to be masculine. When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word “oppression” is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. We are accused of insensitivity; even of bigotry. For women, such accusation is particularly intimidating, since sensitivity is one of the few virtues that has been assigned to us. If we are found insensitive, we may fear we have no redeeming traits at all and perhaps are not real women. Thus are we silenced before we begin: the name of our situation drained of meaning and our guilt mechanisms tripped. But this is nonsense. Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer.

The root of the word “oppression” is the element “press.” Presses are used to mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them by squeezing out the gases or liquids in them. Something pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing’s motion or mobility. Mold. Immobilize. Reduce.

The mundane experience of the oppressed provides another clue. One of the most characteristic and ubiquitous features of the world as experienced by oppressed people is the double bind – situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation. For example, it is often a requirement upon oppressed people that we smile and be cheerful. If we comply, we signal our docility and our acquiescence in our situation. We need not, then, be taken note of. We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure. On the other hand, anything but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous. This means, at the least, that we may be found “difficult” or unpleasant to work with, which is enough to cost one one’s livelihood; at worst, being seen as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous has been known to result in rape, arrest, beating, and murder. One can only choose to risk one’s preferred form and rate of annihilation.

[…] Women are caught like this, too, by networks of forces and barriers that expose one to penalty, loss or contempt whether one works outside the home or not, is on welfare or not, bears children or not, raises children or not, marries or not, stays married or not, is heterosexual, lesbian, both or neither. Economic necessity; confinement to racial and/or sexual job ghettos; sexual harassment; sex discrimination; pressures of competing expectations and judgements about women, wives and mothers (in the society at large, in racial and ethnic subcultures and in one’s own mind); dependence (full or partial) on husbands, parents or the state; commitment to political ideas; loyalties to racial or ethnic or other “minority” groups; the demands of the self-respect and responsibilities to others. Each of these factors exists in complex tension with every other, penalizing or prohibiting all of the apparently available options. And nipping at one’s heels, always, is the endless pack of little things. If one dresses one way, one is subject to the assumption that one is advertising one’s sexual availability; if one dresses another way, one appears to “not care about oneself” or to be “unfeminine.” If one uses “strong language,” one invites categorization as a “lady” – one too delicately constituted to cope with robust speech or the realities to which it presumably refers.

The experience of oppressed people is that the living of one’s life is confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction. It is the experience of being caged in: all avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped.

Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would gave trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.

It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced.

The arresting of vision at a microscopic level yields such common confusion as that about the male door-opening ritual. This ritual, which is remarkably widespread across classes and races, puzzles many people, some of whom do and some of whom do not find it offensive. Look at the scene of the two people approaching a door. The male steps slightly ahead and opens the door. The male holds the door open while the female glides through. Then the male goes through. The door closes after them. “Now how,” one innocently asks, “can those crazy womenslibbers say that is oppressive? The guy removed a barrier to the lady’s smooth and unruffled progress.” But each repetition of this ritual has a place in a pattern, in fact in several patterns. One has to shift the level of one’s perception in order to see the whole picture.

The door-opening pretends to be a helpful service, but the helpfulness is false. This can be seen by noting that it will be done whether or not it makes any practical sense. Infirm men and men burdened with packages will open doors for able-bodied women who are free of physical burdens. Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first. The act is not determined by convenience or grace. Furthermore, these very numerous acts of unneeded or even noisome “help” occur in counter-point to a pattern of men not being helpful in many practical ways in which women might welcome help. What women experience is a world in which gallant princes charming commonly make a fuss about being helpful and providing small services when help and services are of little or no use, but in which there are rarely ingenious and adroit princes at hand when substantial assistance is really wanted either in mundane affairs or in situations of threat, assault or terror. There is no help with the (his) laundry; no help typing a report at 4:00 a.m.; no help in mediating disputes among relatives or children.

[…] The gallant gestures have no practical meaning. Their meaning is symbolic. The door-opening and similar services provided are services which really are needed by people who are for one reason or another incapacitated – unwell, burdened with parcels, etc. So the message is that women are incapable. The detachment of the acts from the concrete realities of what women need and do not need is a vehicle for the message that women’s actual needs and interests are unimportant or irrelevant. Finally, these gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women, who are in most respects the servants and caretakers of men. The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women.

One cannot see the meanings of these rituals if one’s focus is riveted upon the individual event in all its particularity, including the particularity of the individual man’s present conscious intentions and motives and the individual woman’s conscious perception of the event in the moment. It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic view and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macroscopically. At any rate, whether it is deliberate or not, people can and do fail to see the oppression of women because they fail to see macroscopically and hence fail to see the various elements of the situation as systematically related in larger schemes.

As the cageness of the birdcage is a macroscopic phenomenon, the oppressiveness of the situations in which women live our various and different lives is a macroscopic phenomenon. Neither can be seen from a microscopic perspective. But when you look macroscopically you can see it – a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live.

[...] It seems to be the human condition that in one degree or another we all suffer frustration and limitation, all encounter unwelcome barriers, and all are damaged and hurt in various ways. Since we are a social species, almost all of our behavior and activities are structured by more than individual inclination and the conditions of the planet and its atmosphere. No human is free of social structures, nor (perhaps) would happiness consist in such freedom. Structure consists of boundaries, limits and barriers; in a structured whole, some motions and changes are possible, and others are not. If one is looking for an excuse to dilute the word ‘oppression’, one can use the fact of social structure as an excuse and say that everyone is oppressed. But if one would rather get clear about what oppression is and is not, one needs to sort out the sufferings, harms and limitations and figure out which are elements of oppression and which are not.From what I have already said here, it is clear that if one wants to determine whether a particular suffering, harm or limitation is part of someone’s being oppressed, one has to look at it in context in order to tell whether it is an element in an oppressive structure: one has to see if it is part of an enclosing structure of forces and barriers which tends to the immobilization and reduction of a group or category of people. One has to look at how the barrier or force fits with others and to whose benefit or detriment it works. As soon as one looks at examples, it becomes obvious that not everything which frustrates or limits a person is oppressive, and not every harm or damage is due to or contributes to oppression.If a rich white playboy who lives off income from his investments in South African diamond mines should break a leg in a skiing accident at Aspen and wait in pain in a blizzard for hours before he is rescued, we may assume that in that period he suffers. But the suffering comes to an end; his leg is repaired by the best surgeon money can buy and he is soon recuperating in a lavish suite, sipping Chivas Regal. Nothing in this picture suggests a structure of barriers and forces. He is a member of several oppressor groups and does not suddenly become oppressed because he is injured and in pain. Even if the accident was caused by someone’s malicious negligence, and hence someone can be blamed for it and morally faulted, that person still has not been an agent of oppression.Consider also the restriction of having to drive one’s vehicle on a certain side of the road. There is no doubt that this restriction is almost unbearably frustrating at times, when one’s lane is not moving and the other lane is clear. There are surely times, even, when abiding by this regulation would have harmful consequences. But the restriction is obviously wholesome for most of us most of the time. The restraint is imposed for our benefit, and does benefit us; its operation tends to encourage our continued motion, not to immobilize us. The limits imposed by traffic regulations are limits most of us would cheerfully impose on ourselves given that we knew others would follow them too. They are part of a structure which shapes our behavior, not to our reduction and immobilization, but rather to the protection of our continued ability to move and act as we will.

Another example: The boundaries of a racial ghetto in an American city serve to some extent to keep white people from going in, as well as to keep ghetto dwellers from going out. A particular white citizen may be frustrated or feel deprived because s/he cannot stroll around there and enjoy the “exotic” aura of a “foreign” culture, or shop for bargains in the ghetto swap shops. In fact, the existence of the ghetto, of racial segregation, does deprive the white person of knowledge and harm her/his character by nurturing unwarranted feelings of superiority. But this does not make the white person in this situation a member of an oppressed race or a person oppressed because of her/his race. One must look at the barrier. It limits the activities and the access of those on both sides of it (though to different degrees). But it is a product of the intention, planning and action of whites for the benefit of whites, to secure and maintain privileges that are available to whites generally, as members of the dominant and privileged group. Though the existence of the barrier has some bad consequences for whites, the barrier does not exist in systematic relationship with other barriers and forces forming a structure oppressive to whites; quite the contrary. It is part of a structure which oppresses the ghetto dwellers and thereby (and by white intention) protects and furthers white interests as dominant white culture understands them. This barrier is not oppressive to whites, even though it is a barrier to whites.Barriers have different meanings to those on opposite sides of them, even though they are barriers to both. The physical walls of a prison no more dissolve to let an outsider in than to let an insider out, but for the insider they are confining and limiting while to the outsider they may mean protection from what s/he takes to be threats posed by insiders-freedom from harm or anxiety. A set of social and economic barriers and forces separating two groups may be felt, even painfully, by members of both groups and yet may mean confinement to one and liberty and enlargement of opportunity to the other.

[…] The boundary that sets apart women’s sphere is maintained and promoted by men generally for the benefit of men generally, and men generally do benefit from its existence, even the man who bumps into it and complains of the inconvenience. That barrier is protecting his classification and status as a male, as superior, as having a right to sexual access to a female or females. It protects a kind of citizenship which is superior to that of females of his class and race, his access to a wider range of better paying and higher status work, and his right to prefer unemployment to the degradation of doing lower status or “women’s” work.If a person’s life or activity is affected by some force or barrier that person encounters, one may not conclude that the person is oppressed simply because the person encounters that barrier or force; nor simply because the encounter is unpleasant, frustrating or painful to that person at that time; nor simply because the existence of the barrier or force, or the processes which maintain or apply it, serve to deprive that person of something of value. One must look at the barrier or force and answer certain questions about it. Who constructs and maintains it? Whose interests are served by its existence? Is it part of a structure which tends to confine, reduce and immobilize some group? Is the individual a member of the confined group? Various forces, barriers and limitations a person may encounter or live with may be part of an oppressive structure or not, and if they are, that person may be on either the oppressed or the oppressor side of it. One cannot tell which by how loudly or how little the person complains.

- Marilyn Frye, Oppression In The Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory (1983, Crossing Press)

[bigskydreaming]

It drives me crazy how in so many 'popular' mlm pairings the bigger/older guy is always the top.

Yeeeeah. 

So like, apologies if you’re here for reasons other than DC fandom and thus don’t care about any of the following, lol, but I keep meaning to write a post about something related to this so might as well do it here. 

Like, my biggest issue with S/ladin isn’t even the age gap (well okay, my BIGGEST issue is shit between Slade and Dick when he’s still Robin and thus underage but ASIDE from that, I mean).....but like, okay so ONE of my issues with S/ladin is the automatic contortion of Slade and Dick’s dynamics to Slade being the big, older, experienced aggressive top in all senses of the relationship dynamic, while Dick is uncertain, inexperienced....like, this thing where Dick’s inevitably shoehorned into being an ‘apprentice style role’ comparative to Slade even in the comics....where let’s be clear, Dick has NEVER been Slade’s apprentice.

People often ask if the Renegade thing actually happened in comics. And it did. But what I feel like most people don’t know....Dick was in no way acting as an apprentice or even subordinate to Slade in that arc. They already had a long established history between them at that point...AS RIVALS and enemies.

And like the thing is, and why it drives me so nuts to see that pairing always relegated to “Slade introduces the nervous, uncertain and out of his depth Dick Grayson to like...life” - is that you can’t be rivals and arch-enemies if you can’t consistently hold your own against the other person!

Dick’s never gone into conflicts with Slade desperately saying Hail Mary’s. The outcome is ALWAYS a 50/50 chance with them. He’s not like...overwhelmed by Slade, in awe or fear of Slade, or anything other than treating him like an equal DESPITE the vast age difference between them. 

And the fact that this so consistently gets ignored or diluted or dismissed....while at the same time this going hand in hand with it being taken for granted that Dick assumes the role of bottom in any and all dynamics between them....like....that’s bringing a LOT of preconceived assumptions into their dynamic, with not a single one of those preconceptions being relevant to either character’s actual interactions with the other.

But back to the Renegade storyline....the way it happened was Dick went undercover in the Society of Supervillains as this alter ego he made up expressly for that purpose: Renegade. And Slade knew exactly who he was from the start, because he knows Dick, he’s studied his movements, techniques, etc. But also, Dick wasn’t even trying to hide who he was from Slade either....he didn’t care that Slade knew, because he knew Slade was more intrigued by trying to figure out what he was after than ratting him out to the rest of the supervillains.

So the whole time, it was really more of this cat and mouse game between them where they BOTH were on the same page about the fact that they were each blatantly trying to use the other for their own agenda, as far as they could take it, while giving the other as little opportunity to use them as possible. 

Part of their interaction at this time was Slade ‘demanded’ Dick train his daughter Rose while they were working together. Then, at one stage of Dick’s big master plan that he was working undercover towards, and in order to convince the Society he was really one of them...he went to Metropolis and stole some Kryptonite for them....being confronted by Superman in the process. Clark of course knew exactly who he was the second he recognized Dick’s voice and heartbeat and all of that...but Dick had been off the grid for awhile, nobody knew what was going on with him, and by all appearances he was now working for the bad guys....and Clark demanded answers, wanted to know what was going on, wanted Dick to give him some reason to believe this wasn’t what it looked like....

And so Dick launched into a series of lies that fit his cover, that made it sound like he’d turned his back on his ideals and really was working with the Society, genuinely.....expecting all the while that Clark would be able to hear from his heartbeat and breathing and the like, that he was lying through his teeth and not to take anything he was saying here at face value.

But instead, Clark was getting more and more agitated and angry and frustrated with him....because what Dick only realized after he escaped from Clark - because he HAD to, Clark wasn’t just going to let him go at that point....

Is that Slade had secretly rigged one of Dick’s gloves ahead of time, with a wireless receiver and transmitter he had the remote for while watching/listening to this encounter via a bug and hacked satellites. Basically, Slade had rigged Dick’s glove to without him knowing, match the sound/rhythms of his heartbeat....and then kinda layer a fake/artificial version of his heartbeat just over the real thing. So Slade was remotely using this transmitter to make it SOUND to Clark’s super-hearing that instead of Dick’s natural body rhythms conveying that he was lying about all the things he was saying....now, it sounded like he was actually being totally honest and sincere. That everything he was saying to Clark was true.

Think about that for a second.

Slade made Clark Kent - CLARK - doubt Dick Grayson.

And you know what Dick did in response to that, once he realized what had happened?

He turned Slade’s own daughter against him.

Like...THAT is the level of one-upsmanship these two characters are constantly operating at. That is the degree of tactical chess they’re engaged in every time they interact, going back to the eighties.

There’s nothing hugely imbalanced about their power dynamic in any of their interactions DESPITE the fact that Slade is much older, much more experienced and a metahuman....because Dick’s own talents and skills have always compensated for all of that. Yes, he loses to Slade sometimes. But Slade just as often loses to him.

Despite all the differences, in terms of one on one....these two have always been consistently portrayed as equals, going back decades.

And like....that’s been utterly erased, even by people who DO know their comic history....because that doesn’t ‘fit’ the preferred dynamic of top/bottom in mlm ships.....which basically demands that Slade - being older, stronger, more aggressive and the villain...obviously must be the top, the initiator, the one holding all the cards in any interactions with Dick....who by contrast, is always the bottom, not just in their sexual positions but in the sense that he’s consistently portrayed in fics as only able to stand side by side with Slade or against him....by Slade’s grace and goodwill. With any time Dick comes out on top with Slade in ANY sense of the word, its only because of luck or chance or Slade making an obvious mistake or in some other way because Slade ‘allows’ it.

And that...there’s a lot to unpack there, is the thing. But it bugs me for two reasons: the first being like...its so dismissive of everything that actually occurs between these two extremely competent and capable characters who are so noteworthy for how much they relate and understand each other DESPITE the vast differences between them and all the things that suggest they SHOULD be incapable of existing on even footing, yet they manage to anyway....

And also, equally, because like....its really bothersome how fandom continually reinforces this idea that there are ‘obvious indicators’ of who is top and bottom in any mlm relationship, that these things are almost always ingrained and resistant to switching it up ever....and also carrying along for the ride a lot of fixed conceptions that borrow heavily from not all that great ideas of gender norms in the first place. Like, there’s a lot that’s not awesome about the assumption that the ‘penetrator’ in mlm sexual encounters is inherently supposed to be ‘stronger’ in at least SOME way and that by related logic....someone being the penetrated in mlm sexual encounters is the more effeminate or subordinate with these things additionally layered to carry the implication that this partner is the weaker of the two, or the one more in need or protection or guidance.

That’s....not great.

Like, ultimately my biggest gripe is that even when immediately visible power imbalances don’t actually exist in a mlm pairing......fandom overall seems to feel a need to then INTRODUCE a visible power imbalance or weighted dynamic anyway. With the uneven dynamic being deemed MORE essential to the ship....than the ACTUAL canon dynamics of the characters that make up that ship.

[amwritingmeta]

14x14: Noah as Representative of Suppression/Repression

Dean, Sam, Cas and Jack are all at a crossroads. How huge that crossroads is and how long they’ll be stood at it, weighing their options, remains to be seen, but Yockey firmly placed them there in this episode and he did it, to my mind, through using Noah as the needed tool to up the stakes, as it were.

I wrote in an ask response about one side to Noah’s representative qualities in the narrative, where I can see his boredom with the same old routine (his fate, as he calls it) to be a reflection of Dean’s boredom with casual sex and subtle exposition of exactly why Dean hasn’t been engaging with it for so long: he craves something more satisfying. (because he’s in love) 

And though Noah is violent, he’s not violent for the sake of violence, the way Michael is shown to be at the end of this very same episode, and as such Noah isn’t, for me, a representative of toxic masculinity. Mostly because Michael so firmly holds onto that title, but also because of Noah’s distaste for having to cook humans for supper. He’d rather not, but nature left him the choice of this or death. And he’s not going to sacrifice himself, which, as far as the natural order goes, is fairly understandable.

(he’s not a human eating other humans) (he’s a demigod requiring humans for sustenance) (there’s a crude but real difference to the two concepts)

The fact that Noah isn’t a toxic masculinity representative, though, is extremely significant to me.

So, in this post I’d like to outline my thoughts on the second side to Noah’s representative qualities, as I see them, and talk a bit about the deeply ingrained patterns of suppression/repression that exists in each of our main characters.

Definitions -->

Suppression is a psychological term for when we consciously push down unwanted thoughts or urges. Used healthily this is where self-control lies, but when an unwanted emotion or urge is ignored out of fear, this suppression tactic can turn into a pattern of behaviour that may lead to unhealthy coping mechanisms (like drinking, casual sex, violent outbursts, addiction to danger etc) *side eye Dean Winchester* and irrational behaviour and lack of self-control due to lack of self-awareness.

Repression is a psychological term for when we push down unwanted thoughts, urges or very often memories into our unconscious, where our conscious mind is protected from having to deal with these particulars, because our conscious mind is kept wholly unaware that these particulars are a part of us. However, these repressed thoughts, urges or memories will push to be recognised, because anything we try to simply forget, that is deeply affecting, will never stay forgotten, and being unable to confront these buried thoughts, urges or memories may result in unhealthy outlets, such as the coping mechanisms and irrational behaviour mentioned above.

Noah

Though what exactly the gorgon represents truly is up for interpretation, the simple facts are:

Noah the gorgon in and of himself is a snake symbol, and per the ouroboros of the title, the snake symbolism in 14x14 might be leaning towards renewal, rebirth and a conjoining of opposites rather than, you know, the snake that brought knowledge to mankind and helped us rebel........ Yeah, kinda good either way you look at it, no?

Noah also Biblically brought the flood, which is a mighty symbol of rebirth, so he’s this double-edged sword where both edges spell renewal

Noah looks at you, assesses you and sees the truth of you, established with the truck driver, his note to Dean and with Jack - a bit of a narrative tie to Michael in 14x01, who blasted onto the scene reading the truth of people’s motivations left and right, and subtle foreshadowing of how Michael will shed Dean, and go looking for a new skin *shudder’

Noah enjoys both men and women (yes indeed bisexual symbol and nope I am not the first to point this out of course)

That’s the basic makeup of Noah’s demigod character, yeah?

Now, there’s a lot of moments in this episode that, to me, highlight the suppression/repression tendencies in TFW 2.0 and push for the much needed confrontation these moments lead into with Noah, as well as the repercussions that follow this very confrontation, culminating in the deaths at the bunker and Jack’s standoff with Michael.

Self-deception, thy collective face is Three Men and I’m Not a Baby -->

Sam

Darling Sam. He is so deep in his suppression of his superficial fear of how everything is not at all fine or okay, as well as in his deeply repressed fears that go back years and are a part of his identity makeup, that he can’t even stand a fair questioning from someone who knows a great deal about exactly the situation he’s putting himself in, as she later even points out in dialogue.

Sam leans heavily on the belief that everything will work out in the end, as long as they think it will, and his behaviour is, to me, a very sharp critique of the blinding power of the codependency, because the innate fears (repressed fear of failure and loss of identity) that has kept the codependency at the heart of how Sam and Dean relate themselves to each other is what is making Sam incapable of taking a step back and assessing their situation with any clarity. 

Instead, he recites the age old belief system and shuts himself off from questioning it in any way:

Dean will be okay, because Dean has to be okay. 

Jack is fine, because Jack has to be fine.

Sam’s loyalty to Dean is what makes Sam insist on Dean coming home after Sam talks Dean out of getting in that box, and then that same loyalty makes Sam insist on them acting as though everything is normal, thinking this is the only way he can support Dean, because this is how Dean has always handled every situation. 

But Sam in a leader position should think of the safety of those following him, he should see the very real threat of Michael getting free, and should take steps to protect the innocent people who end up dying at the hands of Michael.

I’m not saying their deaths are Sam’s fault, because Sam didn’t tell Michael to kill them, but their deaths are a narrative punishment for Sam’s inability to see past old patterns and learn from old mistakes.

Sam takes a huge risk bringing Dean back to the bunker, especially after he’s knocked out cold in this episode and even Cas can’t see what the hell is going on in his head, and if Sam wasn’t blinded by the patterns of the codependency, he might not have made that executive decision to begin with.

Btw, I’m also not prescribing the brothers shouldn’t have each other’s backs or should look at every dangerous situation with cold calculation, but when the lives of a group of innocent people are at stake, taking that step back and seeing the bigger picture might be preferable for everyone involved. 

Sam’s suppression/repression of his fears, and his inability to confront the fact that his fear of failure is keeping him tethered to his brother (because he’s using Dean’s presence as a security blanket, even when Sam’s the one in the leader position) is manifested through the fact that Sam can’t stop Noah, representative of suppression/repression.

Noah tosses Sam across the room like he’s made out of tissue paper because Noah represents all those things that are continually kicking Sam’s ass and making him run from taking real responsibility. 

And the way for Sam to shoulder individual responsibility and move towards his true identity, an identity that in no way is defined by his relationship to Dean? 

Well, to my mind, Sam needs to dare to believe that he’s a good and strong leader in his own right.

Sam has a default attitude of We Can Fix This Together, which is good, but that attitude without sound leadership and realistic risk assessment is bad. 

He’s the born leader. Once he’s balanced and begins to realise that teamwork still requires a strong team leader, he’ll be fucking golden.

*so Sam stating in 14x15 that he has to stop running made my heart sing* *hoping it sticks*

Dean

Dean, Dean, Dean. This episode made it very clear that he’s still very much not believing at all that there’s any way Sam and Cas can find a way to defeat Michael. He says to Cas that he promised to give them time, meaning Dean’s not part of this taking time deal. This is weighty af, because of course he’s the only one who can actually find another way, if he only dared try.

But he doesn’t dare to, because he’s completely ruled by his fear of failure, just like Sam is, only for Dean, it’s always all on him. 

If Michael gets free on his watch, it’s his fault, and he’d rather just go drop himself in the ocean than work as a team with people who might, and to his mind most likely will, get hurt in the process.

Dean’s risk assessment is always on red alert and there’s rarely any hope or trust in him - at least not on an unconscious, deeper level - that the outcome won’t be the worst case scenario, especially not now, with Michael pounding against his frontal lobe. 

Dean walks around not with a death wish, but with an acknowledgement that he’ll die on the job and with the conviction that what he wants is to go down swinging, and this conscious, defeatist attitude goes against his unconscious, true wish: to live a long and happy life.

His suppressed/repressed fears make even the thought of an actual future impossible.

His suppressed/repressed fears that are tied to his toxic masculinity armour and manifested in the toxic masculinity representative of Michael, ie Dean’s shadow-self.

And in this episode we have Dean incapable of facing his shadow-self for fear of what facing his shadow-self will mean for his ego, ie his conscious view of himself and his understanding of his own identity. 

So instead of facing his shadow-self and engaging in what Carl Jung calls shadow work, Dean has locked his shadow-self away and is, basically, holding onto Plan B, which is the equivalent of him running from the need to own up to fears that have been informing his way of relating himself to the world for far too long, and they’ve done so because rather than risk his long-held idea of who he is and who he’s been taught he needs to be (in order to keep Sam and the world safe), he’s going to put himself in a (societal) box and symbolically drown even the hope of finding internal balance.

This absolute and continued refusal to commit to change, to let go of his suppression as well as his repression of fears that have ruled him from much too young an age, lands him in a moment when facing off with the representative for that suppression/repression - Noah - brings about the narrative punishment of Dean’s worst fears coming to pass: losing his control and Michael breaking free because of it.

This punishment comes about because of the fact that Dean hasn’t been able to internally engage in shadow work, and the suppression/repression he’s engaged with instead now doing what it’s always done, which is take away Dean’s control and allow for his shadow-self to not only break free, but to actually manifest externally and wreak havoc.

But that’s not all. Oh, no.

I’ll talk about Jack a little further down.

Cas

Oh, Cas. At this point his identity confusion reaches a never before seen peak.

I mean, holy fuck, this moment is the moment when his rejection of his angel heritage is put in proper dialogue, but this rejection combined with the impossibility for him to explore what would make him truly happy means that he is stuck in identity limbo.

Not angel, not man, but a thing.

*it’s heartbreaking and stupidly exciting*

Cas is suppressing his longing for more because of his repressed fear of failure (among other fears), and this because his fear of failure is what’s crept up on him over the course of his individual arc, where he’s kept trying to help, and at every turn has faced a bigger and bigger failure, until it became impossible for him to see himself having any other use than to act the sacrificial lamb and constantly throw himself in the path of danger, without even thinking to ask himself if it was what he truly wanted for himself. 

In S4 Cas stated to Dean that he wasn’t just a hammer, but over the course of his individual arc, Cas has slowly made himself into the weapon, this when deep down he’s always been the shield, and he is innately the protector. 

Moving away from Heaven’s doctrine is essential for Cas’ character progression, and the slow nudging over the course of the last two seasons has been rather fantastic to behold, but for all his progress, Cas is now giving into his repressed fear of failure and allowing it to rule him.

Cas is choosing to maintain the status quo, and it’s gloriously frustrating to watch him simply accept the fact that he can’t ever be happy, when what he should be doing is engage in shadow work and question the validity of his shadow-self running the show.

Questioning his shadow-self and facing all those suppressed and deeply repressed fears, though, means the same as it does for Dean: answering the questions Who am I? and Who do I want to be? honestly, and for himself, and the prospect of his idea of himself having to evolve is a scary one, so no wonder he allows his shadow-self to dictate the terms.

Cas comes face to face with Noah and lo and behold, what happens is quite intriguing as Noah slaps Cas twice on each cheek, almost as if to chastise him for sleepwalking through his life, and then Noah kisses Cas on the cheek, effectively paralysing him.

It comes across as a rather marvellous visual manifestation of how Cas’ suppression/repression of his own true wants and needs is paralysing him, leaving him complacent to a fate that he believes is inevitable.

But...

Jack

So then. Jack. This formidable knitting point. This gorgeous narrative tool. This amazing mirror for all of TFW, full of expositional prowess and symbolic value.

Aw Jack.

His fear has always been reflective of Sam, Dean and Cas, because even though he’s his own brand of innocent, he is meant to be a combination of the character traits of TFW, allowing him that expositional prowess, because his character evolution sheds light on the needed evolution of TFW.

*mh mh good*

Jack’s greatest fear is to bring suffering, but in this fear is the fear of failure, yes, that old fear, that’s so overwhelming in all of TFW. Jack wants to do good, and he tries so hard that we’ve seen how it’s sometimes difficult for him to separate good choices from bad ones.

In 12x19 he rejected Dagon and he rejected his father, choosing Cas as his protector and doing everything in his baby Nephi powers to protect his mother. Kelly’s motherly love shaped Jack into the caring and innocent being that he came into the world as, where that moment of his father reaching out to him, at the beginning of S13, frightened him, and where he continuously rejected Lucifer’s influence. 

What 14x14 so gorgeously sets up for us is underlining what Jack’s weakness at this point in his individual arc is: his refusal to acknowledge how he doesn’t know who he is yet. 

I’m not a child. I’m the son of Lucifer. I’m a hunter. I’m a Winchester.

The identity confusion in this statement is pretty amazing, to my mind, because where he’s spent so much time rejecting his father and the heritage of Lucifer, he’s now suddenly embracing it in dialogue and, even more than that, he’s using it as his first identity marker. Clearly he’s seeing himself moving into adulthood, his identity statement after all beginning with him telling us how he considers his childhood over.

And let’s note that his last identity marker is that he’s a Winchester.

Yeah, as 14x15 is already telling us, this probably doesn’t bode well, but I also believe it doesn’t bode well for now. 

The fact that he claims the Winchester name for his is also a very good thing for later, obviously, and one that will most likely be crucial when it comes to the resolution of what is most likely going to be his dark arc. It may last a few episodes or it may build to the end of the season, we shall see, but it seems fairly evident that it’s rapidly approaching.

In a sense, him taking Michael’s grace into himself is him moving from child to teenager, in another sense Jack declaring that he’s not a child is ironic, seeing how he truly needs guidance, now more than ever before.

I mean, he’s literally swallowed down the essence of the thing that’s tripped Dean up his whole life and, by proxy, Sam and ultimately Cas as well: toxic masculinity. 

This is no way to grow up, Jack.

And, of course -->

Jack losing his soul - even though it’s not all of it yet - is a callback to Sam being soulless in S6, where Sam had to confront the side to him that is able to distance itself and look at a situation through a wholly mercenary perspective, fuelling his sense of dependency as he suddenly had to question his own judgement, something that hampers him as a leader as well, hollowing out his sense of self-worth, making it wholly easier to follow than to lead

the possible setting up for Jack trying to help and managing to do the opposite, his growing powers possible sending him off the beaten track, might prove a strong callback to Cas for most of his arc, where his first mistake of becoming Godstiel paved the way for choices that led hollowed out Cas sense of self-worth, leading him into depression

the possible setting up for Jack’s shadow-self to rule him because of Jack swallowing down toxic masculinity is a callback to the MoC arc for Dean, where his lack of self-worth led him to become a demon, the scenario being his shadow-self manifesting his worst nightmare as Dean lost himself in careless, selfish, mindless coping behaviours, dominated by violence

As ever, we shall see how the writers choose to go, but I’m damned stoked.

This whole season has been saturated with the MoC arc of S10 and the MoC arc was all about pushing Dean to change and to evolve out of old, worn patterns. It was all about forcing a new perspective of himself on him, and a new understanding of what he wants for himself. (a long and happy life with the man he loves) And here we now are, with all of these characters facing their suppression/repression as well as the narrative consequences for none of them having properly grown up and grown into their true identities. 

The fact that they can still deceive themselves like this is shown to not be okay, as they’re all hit with equal punishment, all of which now rather neatly knots itself into the fate of Jack.

My hope?

That Jack’s choice to burn off his soul to protect the people he loves and swallowing Michael’s grace and beginning to feel different and possibly starting to go off the rails is the awaited push necessary for Sam, Dean and Cas to reach the point in their progression that it’s necessary they reach if they’re going to be able to get through to Jack, and ultimately guide him or, at the very least, be the role models he truly needs.

Because right now, not a single one of them is anywhere near that point. Well, possibly Sam, as per 14x15, if he’s the first one of them to stop running.

Let’s remember that Jack was the one to chop off Noah’s head as well as put an end to Michael’s new world order: symbolically pretty heavy duty on the probable importance to the actual internal balance being reached for our three main characters, right?

Jack cut the head off two symbolical snakes in one episode.

Both of which were tied to the unhealthy habits of Sam, Dean and Cas.

It’s beautifully setup, whatever happens, and I can’t wait to see what we get!

[mittensmorgul]

Hi, Mittens! I’m very confused now. From all this things about Chuck creating one world after another that Michael said in 14.10 it follows that there’s only one Chuck, right? Then it’s logical that there’s only one Amara. So in AU world there shouldn’t be any Mark and Lucifer hasn’t been supposed to spoil, right? Sorry if it’s silly question, but i am really not good in thoughts about realities and spaces.

Hi there! It might be silly, but you’re not the only one thinking these sorts of thoughts. This has been in my inbox since last week:

Okay, so, if Death existed with God at the beginning of time, how come there’s an AU Death but there’s no AU God?

And I’ll start with the disclaimer that I’m no Stephen Hawking or whatever, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about Supernatural…

(I sound like a Holiday Inn commercial… which probably conveys the degree of ??? associated with how everyone should treat this post, especially considering the degree of handwavery probably underlying the big map of the universe the Supernatural writers work with…)

I think, going back first to Death’s statements to Dean in 5.21:

Death: As old as God. Maybe older. Neither of us can remember anymore. Life, death, chicken, egg. Regardless – at the end, I’ll reap him, too.Dean: God? You’ll reap God?Death: Oh, yes. God will die, too, Dean.Dean: Well, this is way above my pay grade.Death: Just a bit.

which seems to directly contradict his statements in 10.23:

Death: Before there was light, before there was God and the archangels there wasn’t nothing, there was the Darkness. A horribly destructive amoral force that was beaten back by God and his archangels in a terrible war. God locked the Darkness away where it could do no harm, and he created a Mark that would serve as both lock and key, which he entrusted to his most valued lieutenant, Lucifer. But the Mark began to assert its own will, revealed itself as a curse and began to corrupt. Lucifer became jealous of Man, God banished Lucifer to Hell, Lucifer passed the Mark to Cain. Who passed the Mark to you, the proverbial finger in the dyke.

But since then, we’ve actually learned things that OG Death apparently did not know. We learn in s11 that God and the Darkness existed in tandem, in opposition to one another– light and dark– before all things were created. Unlike Death’s previous understanding that this was the only universe, I think we gain a better understanding, a fuller understanding, after she’s released. I mean, it wasn’t just HER that was locked away, but the TRUTH about her and Chuck.

Which is also why, along a parallel tangent, I found it FASCINATING that in order for Amara to be freed, Death had to die. Almost as if Death had only been a stand-in for the balance of powers Amara had provided for Chuck before Creation was left to unroll. Then, once balance was restored between Chuck and Amara, the Mantle of Death’s powers was able to “resurrect” itself into our Universe, falling upon the first reaper to “die” after Amara and Chuck retired to their former stasis.

And here’s where we move to the portion of the program that consists of Mittens unraveling. This is just how I hold the universe together in my own head to keep it from exploding, you know? This isn’t Concrete Canon Fact, but simply how I personally fit all the puzzle pieces we DO have together.

Before all things, there was Light and Dark, aka Chuck and Amara, respectively, for the purposes of this post. Chuck said in 11.20 that “I am being, she’s nothingness.” The two of them were locked in stasis– connected, balanced, and yet fundamentally opposite to one another. Chuck had a need to create, Amara had a need to destroy. As soon as Chuck created something, Amara would come along and end it. Alpha and Omega.

Who knows how long they existed in that state, until Chuck’s need to create, his need to do more than just begin before having his creation torn apart, grew too strong, but Amara couldn’t stop being what she was. She destroyed. So… Chuck locked her away and unbridled creation began.

I mean, even back in 6.15 when we first found out about the a canonical alternate universe that existed without angels, demons, or apparently any magic at all, the notion that other universes exist became canon. We didn’t have any further explanation for how or why that universe existed until much, much later.

We know now that as Chuck pushed the Go Button on each new universe, those universes all needed to continue to obey the laws of creation– that all things created must eventually come to an end. But with Amara locked up, a new force sprang up in each new universe.

As Michael said in 14.10, in his universe they “locked Death away and enslaved the reapers.” So that was… clearly not Billie, and not OG Death. Not OUR universe’s Death. Because OUR Universe’s Death was bound to Lucifer back in 5.10, and oddly enough, freed from that servitude by Dean. But Dean didn’t exist in the AU to save Death from that fate.

So while I believe that Chuck is the primary force that created the universe, now reunited with Amara and returned to their original state of balance, allowing the multiverse to continue as it is, I think that in the creation of each new universe along the way (with the possible exception of the AU from 6.15 since there was no magic in that world at all, and all of this balance was simply built in to nature, the cycle of birth and death, beginnings and endings, etc.) a Force manifested to counter unbridled creation and usher all things into their eventual ending. We call that force Death. So in that respect, yeah, universe by universe, there’s a largely-absent “God” figure who initiated Creation, which was an act that by the laws of physics would generate its own opposite force when the potential of Creation was manifested into reality, you know? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The concept of Creator, therefore, would be inherently evident to each new universe’s concept of Destroyer, but that seemed to have been the extent of OG Death’s understanding of the cosmic order, of existence in this singular universe being the totality of all creation, you know? Because that was his genesis, and his sole reason for existing.

Think of it on a larger scale but a direct parallel to how Chuck Kilgore Trout’ed himself into our universe in 4.18. Chuck-as-overarching-creative-force-of-the-multiverse… Kilgore Trout’ed himself into the being that Death knew as “God.” He wrote HIMSELF into the universe, in a way he simply hadn’t written himself into the 6.15 AU– the world that had no literal Divine Figure or Angels or Demons… no magic at all. Just as back in s4-5 Chuck successfully passed himself off as a mere prophet and only eventually revealed himself as God in 11.20, I think he pulled an even longer impersonation of a lesser force than his True Being, as equal to the force of Death in each universe (or at least each universe where he inserted himself in this way as God, Death sprung up in that universe as the natural, necessary balance to his power).

Now we understand a larger picture. Chuck didn’t just make ONE universe while Amara was locked away. He continued creating universe after universe, unchallenged, and then just sat back and watched all of them evolve. We saw universes such as The Bad Place, that now have a strange feeling of “a more primordial” form of creation. Like Chuck tweaked the recipe after each new universe, experimenting with a different combination of ingredients, a different set of instructions. And each of these experiments had just a slightly different result, gradually progressing to the universe we know from Supernatural. After all, this was the universe that “worked.” This was the universe that sprouted Winchesters.

This was the only universe where Free Will won, where Sam and Dean existed (along with help from Cas) to tear up the ending and take over writing the Grand Story.

This was the universe that began having its “Great Levers” pulled, as Metatron described it in 8.21. It’s entirely possible that this was the ONLY universe that manifested the Mark of Cain that locked away the Darkness was hidden in current time, you know? As Chuck moved on to create each new universe in turn, its theoretically possible that only this “final” iteration of creation before Chuck was reunited with Amara, where he was able to show her the “proof” of the value of his creation in the form of Dean Winchester (in 11.22), that the Mark moved with him. That every universe up to that point was perhaps abandoned– not as “failed draft,” as Michael suggested, but as a story that failed to reunite him with his ending, you know?

I’m personally LOVING this metaphorical parallel between the universe and the Author of the Universe. Because Chuck has always struggled with Endings, you know? Because he’s fundamentally incapable of actually writing one. That was Amara’s job. Each universe in turn was left to write their own “ending,” and so far, the universe that contains Sam and Dean Winchester is the only one that became self-aware enough to implement Free Will to wrangle the original story from Chuck’s hands and begin writing itself. I don’t think that’s something that’s ever happened in any of Chuck’s other universes. This universe truly was different…

But back to the original question above, I’m not sure if the Mark had existed in some form in each of the other universes created before this one, but it seems plausible that at the point where each of those other universes initiated the equivalent of The Apocalypse– which I see as a sort of self-destruct button built into each creation– that Chuck picked up the Mark and moved on to the next cycle of creation, beginning again with a new set of beings he created for that purpose.

But it seems equally plausible that “our Lucifer” was indeed the first to bear that Mark. Chuck said in 11.21 that the Mark didn’t “turn Lucifer,” it only magnified what he already was. Like in Michael’s universe, the Lucifer he was able to successfully kill didn’t ever bear the Mark. I mean, he wouldn’t have died in the first place if that had been the case. The Mark would’ve endured, and likely Lucifer would’ve then slain AU Michael in turn. The things that happened in Michael’s world would’ve been rendered impossible if the Mark had existed there in the same form it did in our world.

I’m not sure if it truly matters, considering the wibbly-wobbliness of even the concept of a multiverse. I don’t think that the concept of linear time necessarily applies to the creation of successive universes, either, you know? Like, from the point of view of Chuck and Amara, standing outside of space and time (a concept touched upon in a smaller scale with the example of the Soul Eater in 11.16), that we actually need to consider the possibility that from that perspective, Chuck created ALL the universes simultaneously, with the standard Supernatural universe as a sort of “Ur Universe” that was the one specifically chosen to bear the Mark, the lock and key, the Alpha and Omega. Both the first and last, metaphysically.

A conceptual ouroboros, if you will.

It’s not necessarily the “ultimate” universe in that respect, just the one that had all the necessary ingredients to function as lock and key.

And in Michael’s limited perspective, from a “nearly complete” universe, he was inherently incapable of grasping the larger picture, from outside all universes. He thought of himself as equal to God, or at least the next best thing to God in his own universe, but he can only conceptualize this within the confines of the particular version of creation that he arose in, and is fundamentally incapable of stepping out of that perspective and into the “God As Author” viewpoint. Like OG Death who thought of himself as the balance to a God, who sprung together from the Primordial Darkness. He wasn’t wrong, from an in-universe perspective, but he was fundamentally able to see the bigger picture from his place inside that universe. From Michael’s perspective, God abandoned his universe and then moved on to create others. But from God’s perspective, it’s possible that all universes sprung up at once.

It’s… brain-hurty a lil bit to try and conceptualize it. I feel like every prophet ever, or maybe like everyone who ever had a psychic vision in the show:

But I hope this at least offers a sort of general overview that might help. This is how I generally justify everything, based on what we know in current canon as of 14.11. All of this may change, or we may be given further insight into how all of this works that could invalidate all or part of what I wrote above, but at least for the time being, I think this is at the very least, a decent jumping off point for understanding the structure of the Supernatural universe.

Oh, and one last thing… What unites all of this? What eventually had the power to restore the original balance? To heal the divide that touched off the creation of the multiverse?

Love.

Okay. I think that’s it for now. I’m gonna go lie down for a while.

[stuartledrew]

The Meaning of Life - The Real One.

Currently we view Space-Time in terms of a “Big Bang”, with three dimensional matter being woven together with its fourth dimension, time. As we all know, this view is replete with problems.

This may seem long, but it's well worth the read.

How did it happen in the absence of time?

How did it just happen to be Space-Time?

Is there a multiverse?

What are dark energy and dark matter?

Why does light behave like both a particle and a wave?

If there is a multiverse of all possible universes and a universe that is not part of a multiverse is possible...How can there be a multiverse?

Where did it all come from?

Etc:

Now if we take a page out of the quantum book as it were...

The Universe could have just popped out of the ether. That is to say that the singularity just was, and then “Banged”. The Universe, and the dimension of time that it was in, just appeared together instantaneously. However; this theory does create mathematical problems...

How can matter and time come into existence simultaneously?

Surely, for anything to happen requires the presence of a time dimension, within which it can happen. Happening takes time. Hartle and Hawking proposed a mathematical model of the “Big Bang”, in which it took place in “Imaginary-Time”. Not “Imaginary” in the sense of being nonexistent, but rather in terms of what in mathematics, are referred to as imaginary numbers...

“An imaginary number is a complex number that can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit i,[note 1] which is defined by its property i2 = −1.[1] The square of an imaginary number bi is −b2. For example, 5i is an imaginary number, and its square is −25. Zero is considered to be both real and imaginary.” - Wikipedia

This idea, because it was just an idea, not a theory, cleared up all of the messy math associated with the “Big Bang” event. For some reason, this idea just lay there, casually tossed aside. Probably because it couldn't be proven, probably ever.

“If I know that I cannot prove it, why bother looking into it? And besides...”, type thing.

However; if we take this very interesting idea, couple it with the fact that “in a block-universe, all time is present all of the time”, and look more closely...

If the singularity popped out of the ether of Imaginary-Time, it could then “Bang”. The nice thing about this idea is that it allows for multiple “Big Bangs” as long as each resultant universe collapses back in upon itself. In which case, one could suppose that all resultant universes are incapable of escaping the “Big Crunch”. Or, the first time a universe “Bangs” that does not then “Crunch”...The process ends, and our probability of existence becomes very low once more.

Let's just open our minds to a seemingly “bizarre concept”...That in a block-universe, all time being present, all of the time, actually means what it says (I know right?). Stupid to even have to type that in, but I do have to. You'll see as soon as someone responds to this.

“That's not what that means...You're failing to understand the concept. Are you even a physicist?”

Essentially, it's the only argument against this theory, that anyone anywhere, can come up with. And I've taken it all over! As it were. It is genuinely BIZZARE just how “closed-minded” people can be.

As a preemptive strike, I ask the following...

If Space-Time lasts 100 billion years...

Is all time is present all of the time?

How about if it lasts 1 billion years?

Twenty minutes?

One Planck-Time?

'All time is present all of the time', either means 'all of the time' or the statement is pure nonsense. Pick one.

Pick the right one?

If so continue on.

If not don't bother wasting your time, you'll only continue on with your closed-mind, and end up right where you started (blinded by science – taught at school).

This is were things start to get very interesting indeed.

If twinned Time-Dimensions popped out of the ether we now have three dimensions of time...

Real-time – The time dimension within which the ether existed.

Imaginary-Time – The time dimension within which the “Big Bang” took place.

Space-Time – The resultant “Big Bang” universe.

Three-dimensional time.

With three-dimensional time, all else becomes possible. The infinite becomes real, because we have now become everything and nothing. Matter itself has become theoretical, it doesn't need to exist, it just needs the potential to exist. Because Time itself, can take care of literally everything else.

How?

If Space-Time “Banged”, for example: All of Space-Time's time, could be contained within a single Planck-Time. There would be no reason for more time. I already covered this area in another post (link below).

Anyway, if we make matter 'theoretical' (exists – but may just as well not), and time three-dimensional, we can put matter into any time and place using nothing but time coordinates.

The flow of time is an illusion specific to the observer.

Have an “observer”?

Pop the matter in where relevant.

If the observer can only see for one mile...

If they buy a telescope...

All automatic in a mirrored, open-ended, block-universe within three-dimensional time.

Now if you make the twinned time-dimensions, sentient...

The Reason For The Whole Thing:

https://physicshelpforum.com/threads/time-itself-is-three-dimensional.15594/

https://www.thephysicsforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-hypothesis/6973-impossible-possible.html

Time Singularity:

https://www.thephysicsforum.com/miscellaneous/6977-instant-expansion-question.html

You may think me mad, but let me just say this... There are “BIG COINCIDENCES” and just coincidences. Trust me, you wouldn't/couldn't believe me if I tried...

It really is real.

Wait and see.

[oc-rehab-centre]

How To Make An Ackerman OC

(Artist: Xue Lian Yue) 

How To Make An Ackerman OC

The Ackerman Family is a very iconic bloodline, exclusive to the Shingeki No Kyojin Universe. A byproduct of titan engineering, the Ackermans possess unimaginable strength once reaching an “awakened” state, through which their strength is triggered. Levi and Mikasa Ackerman are arguably some of the manga’s icons and are well known by many members of other fandoms.

With such an interesting and enigmatic aura to the Ackerman Family - it is understandable that many people in the OC Fandom might take interest in having an Ackerman of their own. While typically - we would advise you here to avoid having fanmade characters be related to canon characters, here - we are going to try and discuss the tropes and cliches of Ackerman OCs. We will tell you what to avoid - and perhaps give you some pointers on how to improve upon your OC. As usual, what you read will be based merely off of personal opinions.

More may be added into to in the future! If you have any suggestions or tropes you would like us to add, send us a message and we’ll add how we best believe could correct that trope/problem!

Trope 1 - Tragic Ackerpast

Sad backstories are not an uncommon thing in Attack on Titan. A majority of the show’s main characters have tragic pasts, and the Ackermans are no different. Of the two childhoods we have seen, Levi’s mother passed away while he was still young and he only learned enough to survive in the Underground District before being left by Kenny.

Despite being from a bloodline that is actively trying to be suppressed - does not mean they need to have a tragic backstory to validate their Ackerman heritage. 

Perhaps your OC grew up a little rough around the edges - but their entire nuclear family does not have to be slaughtered - nor do they have to be adopted or fostered by some abusive parents or the perfect, rich parents for their own protection. While this may help your OC better “correlate” with the canon Ackermans in the series, OC critics will be picky of details and certainly pounce on you for this. Just because they are an Ackerman OC does not mean they need an “edgy” backstory. 

Note: This fact/tip of OC creation does not just apply to Ackerman OCs! Shingeki No Kyojin, as gruesome as it is - not every character has a tragic past, filled with murder, melancholy and abuse. While tragic pasts can add to certain fanmade characters, it can detract from others. Be sure to do it well, if you decide a tragic past would suit your character, and try to avoid the common tropes/cliches.

Another thing worth mentioning - people seem to dub Kenny as an abusive relative. That man is caring and sweet in his own kind of way. Regardless of the fact that he is a killer, he is very human. 

Trope 2 - Forms of Levi Connection

There are various thing that never fail to annoy me about the Ackerman OCs and their relationships to Levi, but I shall only explain and resolve a few of these pet peeves - because they go against the known canon. I’ll list them below - and then you can read about them.

Levi is the Father/Brother/Uncle/etc.

The Thug “Quartet”

Being a Scout

1. Levi is the Father/Brother/Uncle/etc.

A majority of the Ackerman OCs I have seen are in one way or another, connected to Levi. After browsing a few of the Ackerman OCs via Google and looking through their biographies to discover their Ackerman heritage - Levi was almost always the father. And, if not the father - he tended to be either the older brother of the OC.

While there is nothing to confirm the fact that Levi does not have any siblings, I would just like to say - it is unlikely that any of Levi’s fanmade siblings, would be Ackermans. Kuchel, after having Levi - would likely not bear any more children after him - considering the fact that she was presumably sickly even before her son’s birth. (Idea: Remember, Levi has a father, even though he is never seen or named. If Levi’s illegitimate father was a player and enjoyed screwing with lots of prostitutes, you can theoretically have an OC to Levi who isn’t an Ackerman!)

I got a little carried away in that last statement, but I feel personally like it is a realistic idea, far more realistic than Levi having any siblings younger than himself.  Levi having older siblings is an idea I am honestly less opposed to, on the condition that they are done well, of course.

What is even better than having your Ackerman OC related to Levi, remember that Levi, Kenny and Kuchel only make up one side, hell, perhaps even just one branch of the Ackerman Family. In comparison to Levi, Mikasa’s side of the Ackerman family is practically estranged from Ackerman OCs. It is always a matter of being related to Levi, rather than Mikasa. 

Perhaps you can propose that Mr. Ackerman (Mikasa’s father) has brothers or sisters who have Ackerman children of their own. You are free to be crafty with OCs - as long as they make logical sense!! You have the opportunity to fill in gaps which Hajime Isayama never filled in himself with your own headcanons and plot ideas. Perhaps that man has a stat of 11/10 mystery for a reason you can fill in!

Now to move away from siblings of Levi is concerning a majority of Ackerman OCs - the children of Levi. Many children of Levi tend to be the product of either common pairings (Levihan, Rivetra, Ereri, etc.) or of a canon x oc couple. While these OCs are very prevalent in the fandom, it is quite annoying. Many OC critics argue that children of Levi are instantaneously Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus because their very existence breaks canon and they will advise you to rethink your consideration of making your OC an Ackerman. 

Common themes in Levi being the father are typically not believable. Many creators fail to consider the fact that Levi’s age when making their OCs, the product of canon ships or canon x oc pairs. Many people often forget that Levi did not join the Scouts until 844, a year before the Fall of Wall Maria - yet (this is only an example), he has a child who is 15 years old and a member of the 104th Trainees Squadron by 847. I have seen very many Ackerman OCs whose aging does not fit at all into the timeline of the Attack on Titan, so be cautious and take a few minutes to make sure the dates make sense. Just use a calculator or some mental math skills - and make sure it is passable.

2. The Thug Quartet

Moving on - often times, if the OC grew up in the Underground, they are a fourth member of the Thug Trio - composed of Levi, Isabel Magnolia and Farlan Church.

In relation to the question regarding the insertion of an OC in the Thug Trio - I would personally advise OC creators to avoid this. One of the most unoriginal things you can do, which can potentially destroy a fan character is plopping them straight into the series and rewriting the canonical timeline to accommodate your character. This just takes so much originality out of a fan character, and much of the fun out of creating one as well.

A good fan character FITS into a storyline. The canon story should not have to be altered for them to fit into the series. If you are altering canonical events in the story so that it bends to the personal history/timeline of your own character, I’m sorry to tell you this, but stop. For the sake of having a good OC, just stop.

If you want your OC to also live in the Underground District, certainly, they can still be an Ackerman and not be part of Levi’s Thug Trio to, uh, still be a thug - if you’re dead set on your character being a thug. 

3. Being A Scout

Let’s be honest. A majority of the OCs in this fandom are soldiers and members of the Scouting Legion. There is nothing wrong with being in the Scouting Legion, Hell - most of my own OCs are in the Scouting Legion. Now allow me to explain why this peeves me. 

In connection to the idea of the “Thug Quartet”, a few Ackerman OCs (and also many OCs in general) I have seen have been exploited for their strength and are pretty much Levi, regurgitated in a much smaller, female form. The fact that many Ackerman OCs are asked by Erwin to join the Scouting Legion, rather than joining by their own free will. 

*inhale* Just a little bit of salt - people seem to forget Erwin wasn’t the Commander until 845. I’m very nitpicky when it comes to the dates, warning to all the future OCs I will review! 

The Scouting Legion is not a first choice for most sane individuals, especially prior to the year 847, when Eren convinced a sizable portion of the main cast to join the Scouts with his teenage, hormonal military propaganda. It was/is a death wish to be part of the Scouting Legion - punishment, depending on how you look at it. Refrain from having your Ackerman Oc (or any OC) be convinced to join the Scouts in the same manner as Levi, Isabel and Farlan - it makes for a very unoriginal concept.

Trope 3: The Ackerman Archetypes 

If you ask people to describe Levi and Mikasa Ackerman, the answers you will get will be pretty simple and basic. They are badass, reserved, and powerful. In this section - we’re gonna discuss what OC creators forget to keep in mind when making their Ackerman OC, and these are basically the stereotypes. 

Personality 

Physical Appearance

Strength

1. Personality 

A common misconception about members of the Ackerman Family is that they are all cold and stoic characters who are not overly expressive, often seen frowning subtly in a detached, mysterious manner. GOD. This is an incredibly annoying thing to see in Ackerman OCs - personalities are not genetic and furthermore, the Ackermans are not soulless beings incapable of emotions, just because their badass levels are OVER 9000!!

It’s a common misconception as well that the Ackermans are all stone-faced individuals, but God.. Isayama and WIT Studio have done a lot better in recent chapters/episodes to show both Levi and Mikasa with expressions other than, y’know: 

That. 

Just because they are an Ackerman does not mean they have to be exactly like Levi or Mikasa - they are free to have their own original personalities. 

2. Physical Appearance

Another very common trait of Ackerman OCs is their appearance. In a majority of Ackerman OCs - they will have jet-black hair, light pigmented eyes which if blue, will more often than not be described as “ice blue”. (lol) 

This is admittedly a rather justified trait. We see that many of the Ackermans from Levi’s known side of the family possess dark hair and light eye. (with the exception of Grandpa Ackerman, but we can assume he had darker hair in his youth, unless it was a trait from Grandma Ackerman.) It can be argued that dark hair and light eyes are dominant genetic traits, but not every canon Ackerman is dark haired.

Going back to Mr. Ackerman, we know that he has light hair - and therefore proves that not all Ackermans have dark hair. Black hair does not have to be the only colour that exists in Ackermans. Brunette, blonde, fawn - please! I’d love to see some Ackerman OCs who do not have astoundingly light/bright coloured eyes or black hair! It would actually be refreshing to see an Ackerman OC who does not look like a carbon copy of fem! Levi. It will certainly help your character seem more original, despite being an Ackerman!

3. Strength (+ Ackerbond Concept)

Out of all of the archetypes seem in Ackerman OCs - what pisses me off the most is a lack of understanding of the Ackerman’s strength and its origin. There are countless Ackerman OCs who have stats that surpass Levi’s. This not only breaks canon - but seeing Ackerman OCs with stats that say “Battle Skill: 12/10″ and such of that sort, but in their bio, there is never anything stated about a traumatic/changing event that sparked that fire, just makes OC critics wonder if you have really done your homework on how the Ackermans work.

For those who don’t understand what the Hell I’m trying to say here, news flash - the Ackermans are not born as ripe, killing machines. Their strength is often dormant, only awakening in response to an event which causes them to feel threatened, endangered or simply so god damn sh00k that their physiology alters drastically, giving them superhuman strength. 

In a flashback episode from Season 1 of Attack on Titan, back when the scenes of the manga were animated accurately and at a reasonable pace - (*cough* Season 3 *cough cough*) we see firsthand how Mikasa’s strength is unlocked. 

As a result of trauma and developing what the fandom commonly calls an “Ackerbond” to Eren Jaeger, it is only here when Mikasa is able to find the drive to fight and her ability to do so nearly flawlessly. An “Ackerbond” can be defined as a special and unbreakable bond formed between an Ackerman who they fiercely devote themselves to. Known Ackerbonds that exist are the bonds between: Uri Reiss/Kenny Ackerman, Eren Jaeger/Mikasa Ackerman and Levi Ackerman/Erwin Smith. 

Some Ackermans, like Mr. Ackerman - never awaken their Acker-strength, and live just like ordinary people, not possessing Ackerbonds or many of the defining traits of the Ackerman bloodline.

Out of the many Ackerman OC bios I have read, a majority completely gloss over the fact that Ackermans are not born as natural warriors - but it is instead something that must be awoken. They often fail to describe HOW their OC came to unlock their power - and even fewer detail the concepts of Ackerbonds between their OC and another character. Hell. Wait. I’ve never even seen an Ackerman OC with an Ackerbond - they just tend to be in love with someone, but that doesn’t count as an Ackerbond.

I would strongly advise, if your OC is an “awoken” Ackerman with stats that exceed 10/10, that you include details about how they achieved their superhuman strength and who they are Ackerbonded to. Additionally, having an Ackerman OC who is not “awoken” and is just your average Joe is also fine, perhaps even better, in some cases! 

But in all cases, DO NOT go putting your OC as “Humanities Strongest”, surpassing Levi Ackerman, Mike Zacharius or Mikasa Ackerman! Just... Just don’t, why should be self explanatory. 

Assorted Tropes + Pet Peeves

Age and Profession: A majority of the Ackerman OCs appear to be no older than 20 by the year 850. Teenaged OCs are common and cliched in this fandom, and being graduates of the 104th Trainees Squadron is another overly used concept. It would be nice to see some Ackerman OCs who are not soldiers or teenagers/young adults. 

Too Many Canon-Breaking Qualities: Some of the most canon-breaking tropes among OCs would be things like canon x OC shipping. Now - I personally have nothing against canon x OC shipping, it does not bother me at all when it is done right. But, having an Ackerman OC is special enough. To keep from getting negative attention and commentaries - try to limit the amount of special qualities you give your OC. This does not apply to only Ackerman OCs, but to OCs in general! Giving your character too many special qualities - like the canon shipping and a spot in Levi’s squadron breaks the canon, and will detract from your character rather than add to it!

Summary of Main Points

Avoid giving your Ackerman OC too many traits that make them overly characteristic and put stress on the canon like: incredibly tragic pasts, canon x oc shipping, being part Asian or from another iconic family, being a member of  the 104th Squadron, being part of the Special Ops. Squadron, etc. Try keeping your OC’s life lowkey and avoid making them too special.

Your character does not have to be directly related to Levi, Mikasa or Kenny to be an Ackerman. There is such freedom to expand the family tree - so take advantage of the plotholes!

Make sure your character FITS into the canon - rather than the canon having to change to accommodate their personal storyline. Try to avoid plopping your character straight into the canonverse - you have the freedom to be creative and give them a story of their own!

Try not to use the Ackerman stereotypes - like the certain personality, appearance and strength without delving deeper to explain why they are the way they are! 

If they have stats over 10/10 - please, remember to explain why! Ackermans often don’t have their full strength unless their strength is triggered or awoken - often because of a traumatic event or when they discover the person they are Ackerbonded to!! If your OC has high stats and is an Ackerman, find a character for them to be Ackerbonded to!

This is all for now! Thank you for tuning in. I hope you enjoyed reading this and I hope it helped~!

[warcrafttimemd]

Thoughts On The Criticism of AU!Draenei Direction

As the fallout from the revelations of the Mag’har Allied Race scenario continues to spread through the fanbase, I’ve seen plenty of good reasons why the decision to turn the AU!Draenor Draenei evil was a terrible one: it’s illogical, it invalidates the entirety of the Warlords of Draenor storyline, it’s a weak-ass excuse to set the Mag’har against a threat they need help with that they couldn’t get from the AU!Draenei that also completely ignores all the other nonsense going on like the crazy plants in Gorgrond, it’s the latest in the increasingly shameful exhibit of how Blizzard doesn’t know how to write female characters, it’s a pathetically lazy attempt to peddle the ‘both sides are evil’ narrative even though the AU@Draenei are not and have never actually been part of the Alliance, it’s just bad fucking writing, etc. It is an awful decision for all those reasons listed.

I have seen one that doesn’t work, though, and it’s been written a number of different ways:

“Draenei don’t/can’t work as oppressors because they’ve always been oppressed.”

“Draenei are victim-coded, so making them evil is wrong.”

“I can’t/don’t feel sorry for the Mag’har because they treated the Draenei so horribly in the past.”

It all basically boils down to this: Draenei, as villains, are impossible. Frankly, I don’t buy it.

“Draenei don’t/can’t work as oppressors because they’ve always been oppressed.”

Being oppressed or conquered in the past, whether as an individual or a group, doesn’t prevent an individual or a group from being oppressors or conquerors in the future. There’s no Ron Swanson-style card they get to hold up that says “I can do what I want.” What it does mean is that, having been treated in this awful way, they should know better than to turn around and do it to someone else. Unfortunately, you can look at the entire history of Azeroth to see how that lesson’s taken hold in others - or hasn’t, in most cases.

To the more severe version of the idea, that Draenei can’t be oppressors - that they are physically and morally incapable of the act on an objective scale, no matter the actual results of their actions - because of how they’ve been treated in the past, I also say bollocks. The ability to dominate and conquer is directly related to the power wielded by a person/faction; when we left AU!Draenor at the end of Warlords, the AU!Draenei were still on the back-foot (back-hoof?), but when we come back to AU!Draenor, even though we don’t have exact specifics yet, we can infer that they’ve grown in size and strength enough not just to challenge the Mag’har, but to become the dominant species/faction on the planet.

Whatever power of the Mag’har/Iron Horde wielded in the past, it’s now passed to the AU!Draenei. They have the power, and they’re happily using it to convert, enslave, and wipe out the Mag’har. When a faction starts outnumbering and enslaving other races, they don’t get to hold onto that ‘oppressed’ title. As Garrosh Hellscream himself said:

“Draenei are victim-coded, so making them evil is wrong.” 

This variation holds the most water for me, although I’d still argue it’s inaccurate. Is turning the AU!Draenei ‘evil’ morally wrong? No. Is it distasteful? Arguably. Is it a poor idea at this point in World of Warcraft’s story? Absolutely.

To a certain extent, I think I see what Blizzard is attempting to do: they’re pulling an ‘Arthas,’ showcasing how dire a threat is by showing that even the best and brightest can be turned into moustache-twirling villains by its influence. I think that Blizzard hopes that in doing so, not only will they add a huge amount of weight to Xe’ra’s actions in Legion, they’ll also be adding a huge amount of weight to the concept that the Light can be just as dangerous as the Void, which has, up until the Xe’ra stuff, seemed more like trite ‘all things in moderation’ philosophy than something concrete.

Xe’ra’s extremist approach was easy enough to pass off as a fluke for a number of reasons: because of existing in a fragmented state for so long, her sanity was questionable (wow, another insane female character, real original Blizz), she was ancient beyond reckoning, coming from a time and place far divorced from Azeroth (and Azerothian ideas about good and evil), etc. Xe’ra was really the first true instance of a Light-aligned character doing some really questionable stuff in the name of the Light; there have been other characters in similar circumstances (Arthas, the Scarlet Crusade, etc.) but all of those were shown to be ultimately under the control or direction of more nefarious forces. There’s no question what Xe’ra is up to. Xe’ra can’t be discounted as a rogue agent anymore. She isn’t the exception, she’s the harbinger, and the AU!Draenei (and potentially more characters in the future) are what she is heralding.

As to whether turning a ‘victim-coded’ race into conquerors is ‘wrong’...I guess I don’t even really understand that concept, that once a race/faction has been established as more likely to give ground than hold or take, then they’ll never, ever do anything but that, and that changing or reversing that behavior is morally incorrect on the behalf of the writers. Honestly, I addressed most of that in the first section. Yes, the Draenei have been shown to be naturally peaceful, and retreating from a fight or attempting to negotiate is their first instinct. However, they’ve also been shown to be easily swayed to drastic action when their faith is appealed to, something both Sargeras and K’ure took advantage of in the past, though for different reasons. A running theme in the Warcraft games is how absolute power corrupts, and there’s no good reason why any faction should be immune from that, no matter what they’ve been through. Dealing with shit in the past earns you nothing on a cosmic scale, which the World of Warcraft writers seem to enjoy reminding us a lot of lately.

That still doesn’t make the decision to have the AU!Draenei go Crusades on Draenor any better. It’s certainly in poor taste. The people of AU!Draenor got about as happy an ending as World of Warcraft affords: the bad guys were defeated, and everybody was pledged to a brighter future because, down at brass tacks, that’s what they all wanted. Then we come back years later - from the clues in the broadcast text, I’m assuming the Mag’har scenario takes place about 20-30 years after the events of Warlords - and find that literally everything is ruined. Nothing the players did really mattered at all; even though the Legion is no longer in the picture, Draenor is still in the hands of tyrants, it’s just religious fanatics instead of savage warriors this time. Who knows what’s happened to the Arakkoa. They were probably first on the AU!Draenei’s ‘to-smite’ list. It’s such an absolutely bitter pill that it almost defies belief. I joked about it in a post a while back, but Blizzard really did make Warlords somehow worse.

“I can’t/don’t feel sorry for the Mag’har because they treated the Draenei so horribly in the past.”

I call this the ‘Killmonger problem,’ because the folks who feel this way don’t assign an intrinsic negative value to certain actions/practices, but rather base their approval of those actions/practices purely on who’s performing them. In other words, they don’t have a problem with objectively evil actions like conquering and/or enslaving, but only as long as they’re the ones doing it or it’s happening to someone they don’t like.

Because the Mag’har were awful to the AU!Draenei in the past, there’s a tacit approval on some of the players’ parts of the idea that now the AU!Draenei should be able to be as awful as they want to the Mag’har. That’s not a perspective concerned with justice, but with vengeance, with ‘getting even.’ I’m not denying that the Iron Horde did some heinous things in the past, but visiting those horrors back on them does nothing but continue the cycle of violence.

Look, if the writers fail to elicit sympathy for the Mag’har, that’s partially on them. The way they’ve botched this entire thing, I’m not surprised. I’m having a hard time myself, although I suspect that’s mostly because I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the AU!Draenei could’ve possibly gone this bad in the first place. But I think the whole scenario also challenges us as an audience to look at this once completely sympathetic faction and what they’re doing now, and ask ourselves “Am I okay/not okay with this, and why? Am I getting a vicarious thrill out of seeing Draenei finally beat some Orc ass after years and years of oppression?” If the answer is yes, then own it, but don’t pretend like you’ve got the moral high ground to criticize story direction when you’re the one condoning or at least complicit with the faction that’s killing people for worshiping the wrong god. Glass houses and all that.

There is one more variation I’ve seen - not listed above - that explicitly has to do with how certain races in World of Warcraft are tied to real world equivalents, but that’s a complete can of worms that’s not really ever worth opening. Once we start talking about how certain factions are (insert race/religion)-coded, we project biases and opinions from the real world onto situations and people in completely different contexts, and we start debating about both as if they’re one, and they’re really not. Every race and faction in WoW is a mishmash of influences from multiple cultures, and trying to superimpose real world history over a fictional universe that exists as such leads directly to The Yawning, Dark Cavern That Nothing Good Ever Comes Out Of.

Sorry if this entire post has come off as completely bonkers. I’ve been drafting and rewriting it over the course of a couple of days, so I know it’s not the most coherent thing in the world, but, for whatever reason, whenever I saw justifications like this for hating on the Mag’har scenario, it just really ground my gears. Don’t get me wrong, I hate the direction that Blizzard has chosen to go with AU!Draenei, but I also feel pretty strongly that there are valid, logical reasons for disliking something, and then there’s just pseudo-socio-political nonsense. Feels kind of like people giving a politician a hard time about his/her looks or clothing choices when they're an abhorrent human being with no morals and terrible politics. If you're gonna go after a problem, go after it for the right reasons.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Not sure if ya’ll have noticed but talks about representation in superhero comics has been ever so slightly popular these days.

 Sarcasm deactivated.

 In all seriousness, yes there should be more though I have problems with certain approaches adopted by Marvel and to a lesser extent DC in recent years and the way a lot of fans have handled the situation on both sides.

 Like saying Miles Morales shouldn’t exist is not okay but nor is saying Peter Parker should be shelved for his sake. Writing Titania in Jane Foster’s book as having solidarity with Jane because she’s a woman stepping into the role of a male hero is not okay (because seriously, Titania’s main enemy is goddam She Hulk and she despises her) but nor is saying sexist shit about Jane (who lest we forget was awesome long before she became Thor, arguably moreso).

 But most of the time I personally feel disabled and mentally ill characters don’t get talked about as much whenever discussions like this pop up. Representing women, black people, gay people, etc, etc happens all the time but not so much with disabled and mentally ill characters.

 What’s even stranger though is that on the occasions where those types of characters are discussed people seem to not recognize a lot of the ones among the classic established heroes. 

 Oracle, Daredevil and Xavier get brought up a fair amount but Tony Stark had a heart condition that early in his series required him to hide a great big metal chest plate under his clothes which then compromized his former playboy lifestyle. Among the truly mainstream and major Marvel/DC heroes Tony Stark genuinely was the first physically handicapped hero (unless I’m getting my dates mixed up and X-Men preceded him, even then though Xaiver was a mentor more than the lead). 

 As for mentally ill characters, whilst people will cite Deadpool and Harley Quinn as mentally ill protagonists within the Big Two (and you could arguably put Wolverine in there too due to his legitimate anger issues, though they are contextualized as part of his bad ass appeal so...maybe not) both those characters are fun, wacky, violent former villains who even when they aren’t on the side of evil still do amoral things. They’re mental illnesses are rarely treated with too much gravitas. In fairness their core concepts is for them to be wacky and fun (at least nowdays) so it would be possible in a debate to argue there is a certain amount of justification for not going too deep with their problems and touching them lightly.

 Meanwhile you have Tony Stark and Carol Danvers who are both alcoholics. And if you know anything about that illness (and it IS an illness) you know it’s not one you really cure so much as manage. 

However multiple runs of Iron Man since the iconic Demon in a Bottle storyline have at best touched upon it rather or else avoided it altogether. From what I’ve seen of Bendis’ run it’s mentioned but off handily and wasn’t a focus before Tony died. Maybe creatively you could justify that too but technically speaking Tony is a mentally illl hero due to that illness so if you want representation viola it’s right there if writers bothered to make use of it outside of showing him relapse or something. 

 The same is true of Carol Danvers except in her case it’s worse because you could be forgiven for simply being wholesale unaware Carol was ever an alcoholic since multiple runs don’t even bring it up (I suspect because people legitimately forgot). Nevertheless the female hero Marvel is most keen to promote and who will be getting her own movie soon enough is canonically mentally ill. That should be brought up more but I can see why people who ARE aware of it might not want to count her because like I said it’s hardly touched upon.

 Which is why the next character I’m going to talk about is so important.

 He’s never been a legitimate villain.

 His mental illness(es) are integral to his character and impossible to ignore because of that fact.

 He’s got a history of physical and emotional abuse which led to his illnesses and isn’t thrown out as cheap backstory or motivations for his character.

 His illnesses have been showcased to ostracize him from wider society who often fear, hate and hound him either out of a desire to exploit him or else because they simply do not understand him. Which sadely echoes the experiences of a lot of mentally ill people.

 He’s portrayed sympathetically with the hardships and tragedy of coping with mental illnesses showcased routinely (albeit often on a metaphorical and not strictly accurate level).

 And most importantly he’s been repeatedly showcased as a truely heroic and caring figure in spite of his illnesses, even using them for the benefit of society as a whole when given the opportunity and right help.

 I am in fact referring to...the Hulk.

 Bruce Banner canonically was physically and emotionally abused by his father and developed serious anger issues and issues of self-worth because of that treatment. All of which led to him eventually developing Dissociative Identity Disorder, also known as Multiple Personality Disorder or more commonly referred to as having a ‘split personality’; and INCORRECTLY referred to as schizophrenia.

  That’s not me interpreting anything or extrapolating either. That is an objective in-universe canonical FACT about the character. In fact he first ‘hulked out’ when he got mad and attacked his father...BEFORE he encountered any gamma bombs. In one iconic issue he even tried to resolve his problems via therapy where the different sides to his personality were integrated together.

 Whilst it involved superheroics and super powers and happened after ONE session that is the real life goal when it comes to helping most people who have DID/MPD.

 Whilst there is so much to talk about with canon Hulk let’s just use the MCU as a microcosm of the Hulk’s character.

 Bruce Banner in the MCU is so depressed over his condition (which involved being incapable of physical intimacy and constantly monitoring his stress levels) that he tried to commit suicide...only to discover he was physically incapable of doing so due to the Hulk’s healing factor.

 As Banner he wants to find a cure for himself and as Hulk he wants nothing but peace and solitude. But he gets neither because representatives of the government seek to exploit him and neutralize him as a threat as opposed to trying to HELP him. And the guy spearheading things is straight up an old guy who doesn’t want Banner ‘consorting with his daughter’.

 At any given time for reasons beyond his control Banner can become dangerous to those around him despite not wanting to truly hurt anybody, and yet he has been shown to be capable of managing his illness for altruistic ends, such as defeating the Abomination.

 When given help and support from the Avengers (who with his CONSENT employ mental exercises and when NECESARRY use non-lethal equipment to keep him under control) he’s been shown to be an invaluable force for good. His brains help resolve dilemmas and provide vital intelligence and as Hulk he is the Avengers’ biggest gun against physical threats.

 Which is why Age of Ultron was so heartbreaking. Once more he got exploited and hurt people without meaning to, looked upon in fear and scorn as a monster by those who just don’t understand him. So distraught was he that he opted to just go back into isolation.

 Of course Banner’s condition doesn’t realistically line up with real people who have MPD but when understood the character exists for drama and also deals with anger issues the character is actually an incredibly (heh) well constructed character and the legitimate (though relative) representation he provides should be celebrated.

 In fact I would argue it’s actually MORE important than the Asian representation Amadeus Cho provides because there are definitely more Asian protagonist characters than mentally ill ones. And also, though this sounds harsh...being Asian isn’t as compromising to your day-to-day quality of life as the kinds of illnesses that Banner/Hulk are analogous too.

 Of course that isn’t saying we shouldn’t have more of both but...taking away one character who represents an even more marginalized group who frankly suffers in worse ways (even if wider pop culture fails to appropriately recognize him as representing those people) for the sake of a group that comparatively speaking has it better is not a good thing. It’s made worse when you consider the shitty way Hulk was treated just before and during Civil War II.

 Bottom line: Let’s celebrate the old characters who represent mentally ill and disabled people more than we do and not throw them under the bus for other characters...especially the Hulk.

[thuhlia]

Disability in LGBTQIA

1. Introduction

https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2015/07/29/lgbt-health-care-what-to-consider In this blog I will open up the dialogue addressing the issues within a specific LGBTQIA community that have lacked in recognition their queer community in addition to the rest of society. The topic in this blog is based on not having enough resources for disabled folks including others alike and elaborating on the issue of the Queer and overall community not making resources widely accessible to all types of disabled individuals. There is a lack of acknowledgement and discussion about the multiple obstacles LGBTQIA individuals face other than already being a part of the Queer community, which is the case we studied in this class. The most important step to progression on this issue is acknowledgement. To learn and address the concept that this population exists will open up the idea to be more inclusive, aware, and understanding. In willful ignorance, disability in our society has been pushed to the backburner of the fundamental rights of human life. Disability has developed into various layers that numerous people do not try to fully understand including the concept of  individuality within that community  in terms of sexuality, unequal representation, the combination of being a disabled queer individual, and being disabled, queer, and additionally, a person of color.

2. Sexuality is taboo

https://www.scope.org.uk/awkward/a-z

When society thinks of the LGBTQIA community, they think of sex and intimacy. When society thinks of the disabled folk, they strictly reminded of their incapabilities and certainly do not bother to consider that they may also share sexual desires just like any other human being. Whether they are straight or queer, the concept around sexuality and sexual lifestyle is ignored and denied when considering people with disabilities. The subject of sexuality as either a want or a need are seen as a taboo subject to the rest of society that should be untouched and forgotten about. Their sexuality and the act on pleasure of this particular group is ignored in all communities of sexuality and gender. (Tepper). There is a stigma that people with disabilities face in regards to sexuality and pleasure that once you become a part of the disabled medical category, that they must not desire or act upon sexual behaviors. Several institutions in our society “have adopted the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy of sexual education,” which already sets the community of the LGBTQIA group and in addition, leaving out the extra resources and recognition people with disabilities may need in this topic of discussion (Tepper, 284). The meat of this issue is briefly explained as Mitchell S. Tepper states, “The discussion of pleasure in populations such as women, older Americans, large sized people, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals, and children is also underrepresented in the medical or scientific research literature. This is equally true for people with disabilities” (285). Just as much as sexual behaviors and aspects of the LGBTQIA community  is ignored by society and the medical field, one can only imagine the lack of consideration and research people with disabilities within the LGBTQIA community receive. In the film, Sins Invalid: An Unshamed Claim to Beauty, a particular group of individuals with disabilities express the importance of free-expression and recognition of the medically disabled community. Whether they were gay or straight, they want to also be considered and recognized as a norm to the rest of society because although they may have a physical or mental incapability, they do not want to be considered as incapable of being human beings and performing activities of human life (2013). 

Class Source: Sins Invalid: An Unabashed Claim to Beauty. Dir. Patricia Berne. Kanopy. New Day Films. 2013. DVD.

Class Source: Tepper, Mitchell S. “Sexuality and Disability: The Missing Discourse of Pleasure.” Sexuality and Disability 18.4 (2000): 283-290. EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete. PDF.

3. Unequal representation in resources meant for all Queer folk

https://www.advocate.com/sites/advocate.com/files/2015/05/15/Op-ed--We-Must-Protect-Disabled-LGBT-Adults-From-Conversion-TherapyX400.jpg Many have this perception that a person with a disability is represented by a wheelchair when there are so many other signs and symptoms of various disabilities that may not be as apparent as a physical disability. Sylvia Rivera, a Latina, transgender woman and activist fought for a long time to help the community she felt she was a part of in a number of their needs. In her article, “Bitch on Wheels,” she describes the hardships that many of the youth in her city have had to face for a long time and no one was there to help them so she took initiative and fought for their rights as homeless, queer, and disadvantaged misfits of society (Rivera 2001). When our society hears the word “disabled”, an image of a person on a wheelchair appears. The reality is that disability comes in all shapes and forms. There is no staple image that represents what that may be. Disability doesn’t always have to be medical. One thing that Rivera and her efforts represented is that homelessness is a disability of overall life as well. Being homeless means you don’t have medical insurance, you most likely don’t have a job to support your personal needs and as a result you probably don’t have money to help you gain access to transportation to various resources that could help a person in many ways.   On the other hand, there are statistics stating that “the number of persons with disabilities who are homeless is higher than the number of people who are living in poverty - something that tells everyone that people with disabilities are having a difficult time finding a place to live, or a landlord who is willing to rent them” (Weiss, 2009). This is a perfect representation that not only people with disabilities are being discriminated against but the homeless community, including Rivera, are also being discriminated against for being queer and in that way, they have been categorized as disabled. The underrepresentation of the barriers that these groups are being forced to face is a reflection of the lack of resources that should be helping non-medically disabled queer folk. On a side note, fortunately, Rivera was that resource for many during her time.

Class Source: Rivera, Sylvia. “Bitch on Wheels.” Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries: Survival, Revolt, and Queer Antagonist Struggle.Untorelli Press, 2013. 32-39. PDF.

Article: Weiss, Thomas C. “People with Disabilities and Homelessness.” Disabled World, Disabled World, 14 Apr. 2017, www.disabled-world.com/editorials/political/disability-homeless.php.

4. Double Discrimination (disabled/queer)

were-all-queer-here.tumblr.com/image/165032080253 Source: were-all-queer-here tumblr profile         Based on the post above, this is a segway to the topic of double discrimination faced by queer disabled individuals. To quickly explain what this means, I found a testimony posted by Ashley Burnside called, “5 Intersections of Being Queer and Disabled.” She explains the intersectionality of the two marginalized identities that she personally identified with into five categories based on her experiences: Isolation, Dating, Fashion, Coming Out/Disclosing, and Pride and Acceptance (2017). A common theme in all of these categories that many other Queer individuals with disabilities may also experience is the pressure of being critiqued for not only being one or the other--queer or disabled, but it is also judged because of the combination of living with both identities (2017). An example of a level of discrimination among many is explained by Nancy J. Hirschmann in her article, “Queer/Fear: Disability, Sexuality, and The Other.” Based on the concept that both the LGBTQ community and people with disabilities are viewed as a more inferior version of human existence according to those who negatively judge them, Hirschmann states, “More pedestrian similarities, parallels, and intersections between disability and queerness abound, of course, such as the feminization of disability such that a disabled man is perceived as weak and helpless, regardless of what any disabled man or woman (or nondisabled man or woman for that matter) could actually achieve; much as gay men are feminized and denigrated by being labeled women—a term that is supposedly neutral in everyday discourse but which becomes a mark of contempt when used to refer to men” (141). Identifying as both disabled and queer means you are subject to discrimination and being valued less.

Article: Burnside, Ashley. “5 Intersections of Being Queer and Disabled.” The Mighty, 5 Apr. 2017, themighty.com/2017/04/intersections-of-being-queer-and-disabled/.

Scholarly: Hirschmann, Nancy J. “Queer/Fear: Disability, Sexuality, and The Other.” Springer Science+Business Media New York, 8 Mar. 2013.

5. Triple Discrimination (disabled/queer/poc)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-06-20-1466447965-4709255-DTWPic2-thumb.jpg http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-06-20-1466447385-2856280-DTWPic1.jpg https://tallerdeteoriaqueer.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/queer-chicana-discapacitada-3/ One of the most underrepresented issue surrounding the disabled community is not only discrimination against queer folk but being a person of color as well. It’s a triple threat that goes unnoticed going through life as a disabled queer person of color. Race is in effect. Although there are some LGBTQIA disability resources, the representation of disabled queer individuals has often been all too white. Walking into spaces around this supposed progressive society, one cannot deviate from racism as it sadly continues to exist. Discrimination takes many titles such as: racism, homophobia, etc. People carrying the identities, as a queer person of color with a disability is a triple threat that many aren’t prepared for. In the article, “Inhospitable Healthcare Spaces: Why Diversity Training on LGBTQIA Issues Is Not Enough” written by Megan A. Dean, Elizabeth Victor, and Laura Guidry Grimes, they describe the interpersonal interactions suggested as micro aggressions towards members of the LGBTQIA community are many times conveyed through interactions between hospital staff and patients (2016). Being a person with a disability going to the doctor with their partner while also identifying as queer and representing as a person of color can a lot of times inevitably call attention to those who choose to be close-minded about such a community, whether they be homophobic or racist. This would also mean a change in treatment. That kind of staff may not treat their patients as fairly as they would to a cis, white individual. That’s why this article that I mentioned is important in understanding the negative effects of a lack of understanding and training in healthcare spaces. They describe that the “healthcare providers’ reactions to patients’ disclosure of LGBTQ status can include micro aggressions of this sort” (Dean et al. 561). No space is truly safe from discrimination, especially for an individual with this triple threat identity.

Scholarly: Dean, Megan A., Elizabeth Victor, and Laura Guidry Grimes. N.P.: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2016. PDF. https://linkspringer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11673-016-9738-9.pdf

6. Conclusion:

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/assets/md5images/ab05c5954f4afb3aca1298a4dd7fe578.gif Disability in our society has evolved and is identified in a large range of different communities such as queer folk and people of color as mentioned in this blog. Disability in every group, culture and society has been deemphasized and devalued as there continues to be barriers that individuals with disabilities are forced to face without the establishment of proper or enough resources to support against those barriers. There is a lack of acknowledgement and conversation about the multiple obstacles LGBTQIA individuals face other than already being a part of the Queer community. As mentioned above, there are multiple obstacles that comes with being one, both, and all three identities: queer, disabled, and POC. After all, we are all human and we all deserve a chance at opportunities and resources free of judgment.

[karatestick45-blog]

Exactly how Do I Find a Supplier?

How Do I Find a Manufacturer?

It is actually a little a challenge concerning how do I discover a maker? Suppose you're brand-new to golf, and you wish to make certain that your nightclub is heading to accommodate your swing and provide you the results that you are trying to find? Then you must most likely to your local area golf pro outlet as well as ask if they have any golf nightclubs in their store. In this particular write-up I are going to explain a number of things that you can easily anticipate to find if you select to explore all of them.

A golf tools store will definitely have many possibilities available to you, they are going to usually have a department dedicated to one form of golf tools, including putters, irons, blocks, etc. A quality golf pro store will certainly additionally supply golf lessons as well as general guideline on golf. A good golf pro shop will definitely additionally offer customer support and will likely carry various other forms of sporting products also, such as eyeglasses, sporting activities apparel, and so on. Take a look at all the teams and see to it that you manage to locate what you need before you make your investment.

Just how perform I discover a maker? - Many pro outlets will definitely have a couple of different makers that they are loyal to. In many cases they are going to additionally give different types of club sets, coming from newbies to pro's. So how do you know which ones to decide on?

The primary thing that you must search for when trying to find a producer is actually pricing. If a pro outlet is willing to ask for a superior rate for a specific company and form of nightclub then possibilities are they are the best deal about. The next point that you need to seek is actually a manufacturer's warranty. A pro outlet should give a manufacturer's warranty that approaches that of an establishment like Amazon.com. Then compare the manufacturer's warranty to the costs provided due to the others in the very same form of outlet.

Exactly how do I discover a manufacturer? - Once you have acquired a club established you can easily search for out if the golf pro outlet that you purchased it coming from is still selling the collection or not. If you believe that you are actually acquiring duped after that it may be opportunity to go in another place. A golf pro store are going to perhaps possess a back order for some clubs, if you happen to discover one in inventory then it might be actually an excellent suggestion to purchase it prior to the back purchase ends.

Just how do I locate a manufacturer? - Yet another factor that you may utilize to your conveniences is actually the World wide web. There are actually a lot of websites that may aid you find a supplier for any kind of sort of golf devices that you are actually looking for.

Just how do I find a manufacturer? - Do you require an unique golf nightclub ray? Then, only input your inquiry right into Google and you will definitely receive 1000s of pinch hit how perform I discover a producer for shafts.

How perform I find a maker? - There are actually several golf equipment produces around, so you can select the one that you believe you will more than happy with. You can easily even hunt for golf devices producers that make one specific kind of nightclub and find what they need to give.

Do you understand just how perform I discover a producer? - If you search in Google.com or your preferred search engine for "how do I locate a manufacturer" you will definitely discover a lot of information.

If you are not sure regarding where to begin looking for a maker, all you have to do is actually input "how do I discover a producer" and you will certainly get a bunch of details that will aid you find the greatest one for your demands. Before you obtain any kind of kind of golf devices, it is an excellent concept to investigation a little to be sure that you are acquiring a deal.

In some cases, golf groups and also other showing off goods was available in sets and also you may get your clubs and also various other accessories all together. If this holds true you will definitely wish to ensure that you check out at the online brochures to ensure that you may find exactly what you are going to be acquiring. as the description may not be extremely specified.

Ideally this write-up was useful in answering the inquiry exactly how perform I discover a producer? You must right now have the capacity to figure out if a local pro shop possesses the product that you are looking for.

An Example of a Production Business

A manufacturing firm is actually an important company that involves a considerable amount of profits. Actually, folks doing work in this business are actually regularly looking for other tasks because of the terrific incomes they obtain. This is actually why it is necessary for them to know what is actually an example of a manufacturing business.

An example of a manufacturing provider is actually one that includes the creation of various items that people need to have. These items could be helped make by various business depending on their financial condition.

The earnings of a producing business is going to depend on a lot of variables. These factors include the competitors that exists in the marketplace. Yet another variable that may affect the profits of a making company is the type of items it generates.

The exact same thing administers when it relates to examples of a manufacturing provider. Various other elements that may influence the earnings of a creating firm consist of the location where it is located and also the accessibility of excellent information for raw materials. Other variables that can easily affect the profits of a producing company feature the degree of competitors and the amount of trained workers that are worked with in the manufacturing system.

An instance of a making firm is actually one that is in charge of producing different products. These products could be made by different companies. For instance, if the producer sells branded items, at that point it is very important for it to make sure that it possesses the most ideal high quality items that are available. This suggests that it must seek the greatest raw materials.

The quality of the products need to also be guaranteed to ensure that they can easily market all of them to consumers. Customers can merely buy items that possess the most effective top quality feasible. This implies that the maker must make certain that its raw materials do it to make use of.

An example of a manufacturing business is one that is in charge of selling its own items to different consumers. Its items could be created through any type of business that exists out there. These products are offered via reps. http://fightkendo88.iktogo.com/post/whats-the-stage-of-the-b2b-marketplace-online needs to make certain that it has the ideal kind of basic materials that are actually required to manufacture these items.

The supplier has to have the capacity to help any sort of company attain success by means of reliable company. It must as a result guarantee that it sells its items to clients that can utilize the item to make sure that it comes to be prosperous. It ought to additionally guarantee that these items are generated due to the ideal basic materials available.

A few of the raw products may be offered coming from the producer on its own. Having said that, the maker might be actually incapable to perform this at some time over time because of the attribute of its organisation. Nevertheless, the provider has to see to it that it seeks vendors that may provide it with the products that it needs for the development of its own items.

On top of that, the maker additionally has to seek the most ideal resources that may be used for the manufacturing of its items. The raw products used in the manufacturing process could be secured coming from the supplier of the supplier. Nevertheless, the manufacturer has to have the ability to verify that the distributor of the maker is utilizing great raw materials. The producer must therefore make use of several devices to find out about the integrity of the distributor.

An example of a creating provider is actually one that is searching for the very best raw materials to become made use of in the production process. The company is looking for the best basic materials to ensure that it can make sure that it may make great items that can be sold to consumers. The maker is actually looking for the most ideal basic materials to ensure that it may make products that are actually of good quality.

The maker is actually also trying to find the best product that may be produced through it. It is one that can produce great profits.