#they were arguing about nature vs nurture in children and i was like “have one together and figure it out that way”

[mulders-too-large-shirt]

s2 episode 12 thoughts

oh, from the very beginning of this episode, from reading the little plot summary when you click on it, i was seated. and then i was even more seated through all of its twists and turns. a thoroughly enjoyable episode, if outlandish, but that's what we come here for!

so here we are. in a town called aubrey. there's a dog at a police station and the officers are talking about a murder.

we see this guy that looks like j jonah jameson- introduced as brian tillman- and a woman who works there is sad he didn't come home for dinner last night. BUT we also had a very conspicuous pan over his desk to see that there is a photo of his wife, who is NOT the woman he is talking to. affair....???

oh shoot, she's writing something. "i'm pregnant" the note says while he's on the phone with a coroner. AFFAIR BABY!

she's going to meet him at a motel but she can't see straight and is like. moaning in pain. now chat, i don't know much about pregnancy, but to me this is seeming... unusual. so i was confused until she started having a vision, and then she goes to that place where the vision was set, and starts digging up bones. notably, they are bones, so the murder is an old one.

title sequence. back to our agents, who are staring at xrays of teeth. very thoughtfully, mulder announces "i brush after every meal" thank you king of dental hygiene

so this woman- her name is B.J.- is a detective and found remains that match those of an FBI agent that went missing over 50 years ago. that's juicy. but mulder's like, why the hell was she in a field at night? she's lying and we need to go down there.

and also, "i've always been intrigued by women named B.J." <- mulder have you ever tried shutting the fuck up? it could be good for you.

ugh. a man. disgusting. you should be groveling.

so they're at the scene of the exhumation, which i had honestly forgotten the word for, and i almost typed "the bone unboxing", but it came to me in the nick of time. and it's clear she's lying about how she came across this whole thing.

the affair parner to B.J.- brian- is getting really protective while mulder asks if she's a psychic. he should have been a bit more protective a while ago but that's a different story.

autopsy date!!! what if i looked at some bones while you read me the poetic writings on the nature of evil from a long dead FBI agent... well that is what we see scully and mulder doing at this very moment!

scully puts on her glasses as she tries to figure out if the marks on the rib bones have any meaning, and shares this wisdom:

"it's obvious B.J. and tillman are having an affair"

mulder is GAGGED by this revelation. she read the situation for filth. good for her. "a woman knows these things" okaaayyy please use your intuition at parties and figure out everyone's complicated love situations scully it'll be soooo fun!!!

B.J. walks in and starts experiencing visions. typical! she leaves and says she doesn't feel good and scully sighs and follows her. she knows her duty.

allow me to copy verbatim from my notes here, because i was losing my mind:

"OH NO, SCULLY STARTS TALKING ABOUT HAVING FEELINGS FOR PEOPLE SHE'S WORKED WITH.... i'm not unpacking that right now but this B.J. CHARACTER MUST BE MORTIFIED. SCULLY'S DOING HER BEST STOOOOOOP. "you're pregnant aren't you" OH SCULLY PSYCHIC REVEAL?"

now. i was experiencing about a million emotions in a second at this scene, one for scully reading the situation and immediately jumping in to try and comfort B.J., two on the confession that she's had feelings for someone she worked with before, but i skipped all over that to focus on three, B.J. must be sooooo embarrassed she was so easy to read.

but now that i know what happens in the rest of the episode... scully, tell us more about having feelings for someone you are working with. how recently would you say this affliction has plagued you? please feel free to elaborate. i'm imagining like a silly summer job where she's 16 and navigating a crush and at the same time i'm imagining straight up pining over mulder. don't be shy. please share more. no? you just wanted to try and make a stranger in an uncomfortable situation feel better by relating to your personal experience, because you are a deeply empathetic individual? okay that's Fine.

by this point i was cackling, because damn. again. she just got straight to the point about the whole thing. B.J. is like "he'd kill me if anyone knew" and scully proceeds to IMMEDIATELY walk back into the room with mulder and spill the tea. and my laughter increased tenfold at this point. he looked shocked!!!!! she does not give a fuck she is going to tell him the drama!!! and i get it!!!!

anyway poor B.J. seems to know that the markings on the bones spell out "brother" and somehow that's true

this brian tillman fellow seems awful. he's picking up the evidence our agents brought with them from the 1940's crime scene and yelling at B.J. asking why she has sealed evidence from 3 days ago with her. this is because he cannot read that the files are literally from 1942 and that this seems to be some sort of copycat killing.

so our agents meet B.J. at a nice little secret picnic table rendezvous, where mulder drops the line "i've often felt that dreams are answers to questions we haven't figured out how to ask" okayyyy poet!!!

she draws a picture of what she sees in her dreams, and mulder immediately identifies it from a postcard in NYC, and announces it is the symbol of the 1939 world's fair... "NERD", i proclaimed to the screen, because it was so strong i needed to verbalize that feeling

brian tillman is back to being the worst, pressuring B.J. to "go through with the appointment", saying that it's not HER choice, it's OUR choice, which it famously isn't. reproductive coercion is NOT gonna slide you hillbilly spiderman hater looking freak.

she's looking at a bunch of criminals from 1940 to try and see if the murderer from her dreams is in there... and she identifies him... it's a man who looks kinda like elvis... elvis from SHEIN... his name is cokely, and he carved "sister" into somebody's chest in 1942... why was he not serving in the war at this time...

so mulder thinks the dude is their number one suspect for the new sister carving murders even though he's 77 now, and his reasoning is that "george foreman won the heavyweight crown at 45". which is so funny. mulder is such a walking encyclopedia but also the writers need to make him seem sort of cool so he just spits out sports facts and it doesn't make him any cooler.

scully's like, well her dad was a cop, maybe he knew about the case and she heard about it as a kid, and the copycat cases are bringing repressed memories back. which gives us this lovely exchange:

"i seem to recall you having some pretty extreme hunches" "i have NEVER!" (mutual smiling)

awwwww.

anyway. to the old man murderer's house.

he has an oxygen tank and he is smoking which i thought wasn't allowed but he probably doesn't care tbh. and he kinda talks like SHEIN elvis as well. he keeps calling scully "little sister" which is sus as hell because the victim carved brother or sister into all the people... but he denies and denies

at this point in my notes i imagined myself in the shoes of B.J.: "imagine if having an affair baby made you the conduit for solving 50 year old murders... girl i'd lose my damn mind"

she wakes up COVERED IN BLOOD with "sister" CARVED INTO HER CHEST and at first it was so horrific- and also, how could someone sleep through such a thing- that i thought it was another hallucination. but no, it is in fact real, and she doesn't worry about the blood, instead running to someone's house and lifting up the floorboards that she saw in another vision. and when brian comes to escort her to the hospital, our intrepid duo lifts up the boards to reveal some bones.

it would really suck to live in a house for a long time and then find some bones, wouldn't it?

scully further solidifies her stance as a real one by bringing what i think is some clothes in a paper bag to B.J., who insists that it was cokely the old murder man/elvis dupe who attacked her... but she insists she saw him as a young man, and he is now, of course, 77, so that's weird

but the blood found at the scene matches some of the genetic markers of cokely's blood, so they go visit his other victim who survived. and oooHHHH mulder sees that symbol from the world's fair on the wall!

mulder knows the victim, now an elderly woman, left the hospital the night of the attack, and returned 9 months later... she says it was complications but he goes for the jugular and asks "what happened to the child?"

now the roles are reversed, and it is scully who is gagged by a pregnancy reveal! the woman says that the child was evil, and he was sent to an adoption agency

new theory time: mulder says what if it was cokely's GRANDSON that did all this? it could explain the resemblance in her report AND that it was a younger suspect AND the blood types

! MULDER LORE REVEAL ! he used to wake up in the middle of the night from terrible nightmares where he was the only person left in the world, until he heard his father cracking sunflowers seeds in his study and realized he wasn't alone

we can and will analyze that. the boy who lost his sister being terrified everyone else in the world will leave too, and it'll be just him left behind, trying to find answers. the man who almost lost scully feeling even more alone than he knew was possible, pulling at any sort of thread to bring her back.

and this is deeply touching, but they frame it as a genetic debate on if he was predisposed to liking sunflower seeds, and then it turns into a nature vs nurture argument with scully, and they're interrupted from discussing the finer points of the theory of genetic memory when they have to call the adoption agency

ULTIMATE GAG REVEAL: the son of cokely is... B.J.'S FATHER!!! SO is SHE DOING THE MURDERS? mulder seems certain, and that she even carved her own chest. scully is like wtf. and i'm like, i don't know if grandpa being a murderer makes you one too, but i don't know anything about genetics

NOOOO. we see the old lady we have previously visited- cokely's victim, now revealed to be B.J.'S grandmother- with an unwelcome visitor in the house!!! AND IT IS A DERANGED B.J.! i was shocked at this point because i did not think she was going to be the killer. but we see her closing in on her, and poor old lady says "you're my grandchild", and then a knife, and then yelling....

she's looking for someone to blame, just like her grandfather did all those years ago....

so she's in cokely's house, doing some slashing, when mulder rolls up, and the score is going sicko mode. the composers were popping off.

she SMACKS mulder in the head (yowch!) and has him pinned down, with the razor to his throat, and he's begging for his life. and scully BURSTS in, her finger about to pull the trigger on B.J., when....

BRIAN bursts in??? affair baby father has entered the chat. he's like "B.J. what is going ON" and he gets her to stop attacking

and then mulder is still laying on the floor, so scully comes over, and CRADLES HIS HEAD. yes you heard me she GENTLY holds his head, looks for any marks, and we fade to the case report

scully's theory is that pregnancy activated the dormant serial killer urges/genetic memories in B.J. and all i'm saying it it's a wild place out there.... if y'all are gonna have affairs, please be safe, perhaps this was a cautionary tale....

this episode was WILDDDD. twist and turn and twist and turn and i was seated! they definitely turned the concept of "someone receiving information on unsolved crimes from beyond the grave" on its head, and i certainly did not see poor B.J. as the killer. was it realistic? NO! but did i enjoy it! YES!

various highlights: scully being kind enough to confess to having feelings for a coworker to make someone she just met feel better, scully clocking the affair and pregnancy, scully immediately spilling the tea to mulder, who looked shocked, mulder nightmare reveal, scully also bringing B.J. clothes in the hospital because she is too good for this world even if she is a little gossipy with the bestie, and mulder nerd evidence- why do you know about the world's fair anyway?

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Y'all wanna know about a gender-non-conforming knight from 13th century France? No? That's okay- I'm fine with talking to myself.

I'm obsessed with gender performativity in early medieval texts- so obviously I had to know everything about Le Roman De Silence.

To preface-

So, long before there was the Marvel Cinematic Universe- there was the interconnected works of the Arthurian Legends. The original superheroes- King Arthur, Merlin, Morganna le Fey, and the rest of the cast. However, one of the lesser known (only arguably canonical) interconnected texts of the Arthurian legend hails from France. People argue over whether or not to include these texts as part of the cannon of King Arthur because it's technically french- and the french-english divide between characterization of all the main players of Arthur's court is remarkably different. Much research on this suggests the discrepancy of characterization is largely due to distance between where the stories originate, and sociopolitical tensions between the French and the English. Either people were too far apart to share stories- thus too far apart to keep characterization uniform, or they fucking hated each other enough to mess up the characterization on purpose. For example, many of the French portrayals of King Arthur paint him to be a rather terrible person, where English portrayals are generally more kind to him.

All that aside- many people will disagree that Le Roman de Silence should even be part of the Arthurian legend canon anyway- because it only mentions Merlin at the end of the poem and because it's a super french poem.

The main storyline is about this character named Silence. From the Old French Poem- Le Roman de Silence.

Gender? No- Never heard of it.

The latter half of the story in this poem is predicated on a complex mediation of Nature vs Nurture. What happens is that a baby is born into a wealthy family, and for sociopolitical reasons, the family decides to raise the girl baby as a boy. They name this child "silence." Silence grows up with full access to an education, as was typical for the boy children of aristocratic medieval families- this education becomes important later as Silence wrestle with where they fit into the larger social structure after maturing into adulthood. Essentially, they find the idea of marriage too boring and would like to be a Knight or Explorer instead. (I love them.) Anyway, it's fascinating to me that the conceptual ideas of nature and nurture are personified into being something like "deities" which are overseeing the growth of Silence through the ages- and so we get these deities commentary.

Silence wants to be a knight- so Nurture brags about being right that gender is more performative than it is biological. Then, later Silence grows up to be remarkably "pretty" and according to the deity of Nature- they brag about being right that biology and gender are intrinsically tied. It's such a thought-provoking mediation on gender as either performance or pure biology that I forget it was written in the 13th century- long before Freud or Lacan or any of the others who became hyper fixated on human presumption of gender as either a social category or a biological necessity.

I argued in a paper, once, that the narrative itself does actually finally end on the note that Gender is a performance, and it is tied into social roles only so the ruling class can have control of the population. That is why the stories ending shifts into horror-genre-esque of Silence marrying into the upper-ruling class.

I also have a strong urge to write a Fanfiction of Silence as a knight- who does not meet a sad fate but rather lives happily as a knight and eventually marries a princess. Okay- Okay? fine I said it. I said it-

Social pressure to marry?

The story takes a dark turn, however- when the King demands Silence to reveal themselves in front of the court. Obviously, even the author of the story was aware that misogynistic social standards would not allow for people to ever really be free of gender stereotypes and roles. So, Silence is then forced out of the adventurous lifestyle of a knight and into a marriage. Also, this is the place in the story where Merlin makes an appearance (I have a theory that Merlin is representative of the devil, and the author really hated that all AFAB people were forced into marriage back in 1200's. So that's why the devil shows up when all the bad shit is happening to Silence).

Inevitability and dismay-

What I find particularly interesting about this poem is the fact that the end, as Silence is forced into marriage and back into "proper" social roles for their assumed biological characteristics, is the fact that it is written like an early attempt at gothic horror!

So, one of the stipulations for something being a "gothic horror" is 1.) old, archaic, twisted buildings. (this blog is indeed named after my fixation with gothic horror elements, it's interplay relation to social reform, as its emphasis on decay as the tonal necessity for social indemnification). Anyway, the other most important aspect of gothic horror- is an overwhelming sense of desolation, isolation, and loneliness.

Sure, Silence is forced into marriage- but even with the forthright writing style of the author, we, as readers, are struck by Silence's loneliness. Thus, the "happily ever after" part of the storyline wherein the characters get married, as it traditional to chivalric romance, is recriminated against in subtext. Now, we have a moment in which the "happily ever after" is a creation of horror rather than peace.

Ending the narrative with marriage as equivalent to a loss of freedom and a sense of evermore-present loneliness, cumulating in the edifice of horror-struck fear in Silence at their own new future, is a remarkably bold social statement coming from a 13th century author.

I just think it's a really interesting text on the thematic points of negotiating Gender identity, in broader terms of performance and social roles, as much as it is a critique on the total social control that the monarchy held over the people of 13th century France.

Edit: I need to add that Silence themselves consistently rejects the idea that they are AFAB and instead only ever refers to themselves as "Silence" or "the knight"

[spaceorphan18]

So, as a comment to my Season 1 meta, @mathgirl24 gave the interesting response of ::

I agree with the Lord Featherington stuff. It seems like he had zero connections to his daughters. In fact, with him and Portia as parents, and her sisters being how they are, Pen must have had a really kind governess as a child because I don't see how else she could have learned any goodness.

Which led to some fascinating thoughts!

It started me thinking -- how did Penelope become 'good'? But even -- is she 'good'? Does the concept of 'good' even matter?

Okay, so I'm prefacing this with -- Penelope Featherington Bridgerton is my FAVORITE character on this ridiculous show, and I adore her. But one of the reasons I adore her is that she can be a morally gray character. (Also, for clarity, I'm talking about show Penelope, and not book Penelope.)

So, let's talk about her parents and her possible, probable upbringing. It's probably to say that Lord Featherington was neglectful at best and possibly humiliating at worst. He never seemed to interact with any of his children (or his wife whenever possible) so I doubt he was much of an influence. If anything -- had it not been for the kindness of other male influences on her life (and I'll get to that in a second), I don't think Penelope would have had many positive thoughts concerning men.

Then there's her mother -- whom we know can be gossipy, catty, manipulative, and sometimes just mean. But... I would argue there's a difference between Portia and, say, Cressida's mother. Portia, despite doing so in the worst way possible, does actually love and care for her children. They (though you should put an asterisk possibly on it that 'they' are tied to status, and Portia does want status) are what she pays the most attention to, because she wants them to have a better life than she does. -- She doesn't believe it'll be through a loving means -- because she didn't find security through a loving means. But she does care enough about her kids, and she's not a doormat to her husband, that she would not do what Cressida's family does.

So here's the thing -- Penelope was mostly neglected by her father and while probably bullied a bit by her mother, was mostly neglected for her sisters from her mother, so Penelope was left to her own devices. (Which -- part of what's at play here is personality, too. She prefers the comfort of her books and her solitude -- and in a positive and warm environment, such as the Bridgertons, she might be like Francesca -- needing to step away and be on her own because sometimes it's too much.)

So, her sisters were raised in the shadow of her mother, and are dumb and sometimes cruel. But you know what Season 3 taught us? That even they could be redeemed. And as broken as their family unit seems to be at times, they do care for each other, and have a stronger sense of family bond than, say, the Cowpers.

My long winded first point is... that there is some family love there (even if you can categorize it as an abusive household) so, Penelope isn't completely devoid of all familial affection. But also -- leads me to, her family is an influence on her, and I think that she's (again) a much more morally gray character than so easily fits into a 'good' or 'bad' characterization.

Okay, so... we know her home life isn't great, how come she isn't as terrible as the rest of her family?

First of all -- her being the one being bullied all the time can push one to either conform (like her sisters did) or retract and go the other direction. On top of that, she recedes into books -- where there is often a more firm sense of right or wrong. Penelope, in a lot of ways, is self taught, and I think she's naturally smart enough to intuit 'good' and 'bad' just by the power of observation.

Secondly, there's always the argument of nature vs nurture -- and I'm of mind that both play a factor. And I do think that Penelope is, by her personality, a kinder person than her mother and her sisters.

But she does have a vicious side... (more on that in a moment.)

Thirdly, I do think there are some formative outside influence. Before I talk about the biggest and most obvious one, let's talk about the staff -- Rae seems to be a nice person. Varley, while I'm sure has a devious side because she's Portia's right hand man, is always kind to Penelope. And yes! I'm sure, there was a kind governess or teacher in her young life that did help teach Penelope what kindness is (at the very least).

Alright, so let's talk about one of the most influential aspects of Penelope's life... the Bridgertons. We don't know when exactly Penelope's family first moved in across the way, but we do know, as Colin puts it, they were literal children. (Unlike the book -- where Pen was 16 when they met -- it's a big difference.) So, Penelope grew up, not only having a BFF who adored her, but having a surrogate family around her, who loved each other and who were good to each other.

But it's also interesting -- Eloise, as her closest friend, is not the 'good' Bridgerton (of the girls, I guess you could say Daphne or maybe even Francesca would be better candidates for that title?). Eloise has her own dark and trouble making sides, and the two of them are nefarious influences on each other.

Also interesting is the thoughts of the Bridgerton boys, all of whom, are nice to her -- (Which, omg, I need to put a pin in the side tangent of all of them represent different forms of good.) Anthony probably would always make sure she got home safely. Benedict would always be charming in her presence. And Colin is a kind soul all on his own. (Also should put a pin in this, too, cause there's another tangent about how a) Colin can have a dark side and b) Pen's corruption is good for him... but that'd be totally digressing.) And even little Gregory, I'm sure thought of her as a fun big sister.

My long winded (again, sorry) point is that the Bridgerton family did show her what 'good' can be -- and since she was a child when she met them, she effectively grew up as one of the family.

But all of this brings me to the point of -- is she 'good'? And does she need to be?

I think one of the most interesting scenes of Season 3 is in Episode 8 where she and her mother kind of come to an understanding. And it's acknowledged that they're more alike than either realizes. I don't think that the conception and execution of Lady Whistledown comes from someone who is fully 'good' (and well adjusted). There's so much morally gray there, and so much of LW that is selfish on Penelope's part. It is her way of dealing with a cruel world, but it's also reflecting some of that cruelty back out on other people.

And she does learn her lesson, and she does try to use it for the greater good (and there are sometimes when I don't think it's bad/evil in the way people sometimes use it to justify her being a /bad/ character).

So, I mean, I think Penelope is a fundamentally kind person, more so than her mother or sisters or even Cressida Cowper. But I don't know that she's 'good' in the way that, say, Francesca is more so a 'good' person all the way around.

But that's really, okay? Because Penelope is interesting, and human, and fascinating as a character. And the fact that she is so well rounded and gets to be messed up and make mistakes and not be good at times makes her all the better. At least in my opinion.

So yeah, idk if this stream of consciousness made a whole lot of sense, lol! But I just liked the thought of -- well, how did Penelope turn out the way she did. :)

[paradoxcase]

@cornon-thekopp:

I think you're right that the masquerade doesn't have a consistent set of beliefs on the "nature vs nurture" thing, but I think that's very accurate to how real life colonial empires worked too

You have a wide variety of differing views that might even bitterly oppose each other's methods while also being equally devoted to the propogation of the empire at the end of the day. A "white man's burden" vs a "blanqueamiento" type of policy (you can look those up as they were both real colonial policies with large scale adoption).

That's true, but like, I don't think our colonial empires really based their whole identities around a particular belief system about nature versus nurture, and most of the inconsistencies arose from different people in the empire having differing opinions, like as a society, western colonial powers have been arguing among themselves about nature versus nurture for centuries. But in this case, it seems to be a party line that genetics predetermine almost all of your behavior, and it doesn't really seem like it would be permitted to argue against that or hold a differing opinion

On the topic of Lao and the "sanitation teacher" considering that theyre all children in a colonial school heavily modeled off the residential school model, it's very likely that Diline doesn't know or care if Lao is actually gay or not and just wants an excuse to rape someone who can't fight back

I totally believe that that's Diline's perspective as well, and would also believe that Farrier supporting him is just him going "well, I like Diline, so he can rape these children if he wants to", but Aminata also believes that this "treatment" was necessary and is effective, and Aminata was opposed to rape and even helped Baru get Diline removed when she thought he was a rapist. But when it turns out that he was trying to "cure" tribidism, this is now suddenly ok for her. So this must be an actual thing that a lot of people in the Masquerade really believe in

And on the topic of disease that's also got a lot of parallels with irl colonialism across the americas (smallpox blankets and other diseases that were used in genociding native populations)

Oh, yeah, I get that it was supposed to invoke smallpox, but the thing is that the Masquerade has a vaccine for this plague, and no one had a vaccine for smallpox when that was getting spread to native populations. I think that makes it kind of a different thing. Like, I genuinely believe that the Europeans actually had no idea, at least the first time, that smallpox would be so deadly to the natives, because their experience of it wasn't like that, and even when they did know, they didn't have a way of stopping that from happening (other than, you know, going home, which obviously the people in charge were not willing to do). Whereas here, the Masquerade is fully aware that this happens every time they conquer some new place, they have vaccines that they could just give everyone preemptively so they don't all die, they clearly understand the necessity and effectiveness of the vaccines, and they just don't grant the adult population access to them and intentionally let them die in order to weaken resistance

(also don't worry Baru doesn't get stabbed in the crotch, although she does sustain various other injuries in the series)

Thanks, that is very good to hear

@unendingengine:

oh i see what you mean now. the masquerade's treatment of sexual 'misconjugation' in adults will be elaborated on slightly in chapter 5

Ok, cool, I will look forward to finding out more, in that case

[mehumiljonaari]

Netflix’s new true crime drama DAHMER, which focuses on the life and crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer is really strange tonally. Before I watched any of it, I said it seems like it’s very deliberate that they cast Evan Peters, known tumblr sexy man of the alt girls, in it, and after seeing 3 episodes, and how much time the camera spent panning across glistening muscles, I think I can say I was right. Like I get that the fact that Dahmer worked out a lot was deliberate but there was no reason for the show to have Evan Peters do it shirtless and then zoom in on his sweaty torso. No reason.

I actually only watched three episodes, and I feel like that was enough. I only really gave it a try cause I was interested in the tone it would adopt AND I had already heard some bad things about it.

I wasn’t surprised to hear the narrative does all it can to paint him in a sympathetic light and focuses on his childhood trauma and him ”accepting himself” as a gay man, that was always gonna be par for the course for a true crime spectacle like this. People are interested in the nature vs. nurture theory, and want to try to make sense of why any individual would do something so horrendous to their kin.

I do find it odd though that Dahmer’s childhood fascination with dissecting small animals was portrayed in such a light manner. Usually I would expect those scenes to be much darker cause it’s macabre, and knowing his story, an omen of what’s to come. Hurting animals is also usually included in a list of warning signs of psycopathy in children — I’m not sure how scientifically accurate it is, but it is a theory and a ”fact” that gets passed around a lot. Of course, a lot of children go through a phase where they are curious like that, especially if they’re around things like parents gutting fish they caught etc, but when it’s a show about a serial killer who applied that same ”curiosity” to his victims, I would expect there to be some type of tonal shift during these scenes.

Some people would probably argue that because taxidermying animals was something his dad encouraged and something they did together - one of Jeffrey’s happier memories from his childhood (according to the show) - is why the show painted it with a neutral lens, but I think that if this was the case, they did not do it well.

The torture porn aspects are also not surprising, especially when we know many of his victims were black men & media loves to glorify their suffering. True crime media also regularly attracts people who want to hear about gruesome murders and gory details AND it’s made by Ryan Murphy who delights in that, so. par for the course. It’s still disgustingly exploitative. Dahmer’s victims were people, and this really strips them of their humanity. There’s a scene in episode one or two, where the police come to Dahmer’s apartment and they discover Dahmer’s horrifying polaroids in one of the desk drawers. For those unaware, Dahmer would use the ruse that he was a photographer to get his victims alone. You will notice that the camera spends a significant amount of time on a few polaroids. I won’t show them but I am 90% sure the two shown are actually re-prints of actual Dahmer polaroids. I think so, cause I came across them accidentally once and they stuck with me. It felt like a really gross easter egg for ”real Dahmer fans” or something. Vile.

I don’t think there was a need for this show. Dahmer has been studied extensively in both literature, tv and movies. It does not escape me that this came out during the height of the true crime boom, either. Some people argue that this is not just a cash grab, but rather that it focuses on how the police wouldn’t believe the victims cause they were black. If this were true, they wouldn’t spend multiple episodes painting Dahmer as a socially awkward but sexy young man with abandonment issues. They wouldn’t have made a dramaticised netflix show without notifying the families of the victims, they wouldn’t have duplicated the very public breakdown of a victim’s family member without asking them first. And yes, it has been confirmed that the family members of the victims were not notified about this, they all found out when the rest of the world did. Keep in mind that Dahmer’s murders took place between the 1970s and 1990s. The families are still alive and they still remember and they’re being victimized again.

DAHMER does not bring anything new to the landscape of true crime, nothing new to the understanding we all have of Jeffrey Dahmer. It is nothing but a fictive retelling of his crimes that paints him as a sad little boy who just wanted to be loved. Ryan Murphy is trying to masquerade the show as some political commentary on how black people in america have been, and are, treated by the police. It’s nowhere near that.

[bondsmagii]

omg you read we need to talk about kevin? what did you think? i went through a whole range of emotions, most of them bitter & negative, bc i saw too much of my mum & brother in eva & kevin, something i’m still working through. i started off hating eva bc i projected my resentment towards my mum onto her, but i found myself sympathising with her a bit more towards the end. it’s helped me sympathise a bit with my mum too. this book has probably had the most lasting effect on me than any other!

man, I love that book. I first read it years ago and liked it then, but I recently reread it and I loved it even more. it's such a brilliant book -- profoundly uncomfortable and incredibly bleak, but I think it asks so many important questions that, face it, most people are too scared to even acknowledge. it simultaneously asks the huge taboo of a question -- what if you regret having your child? what if a child is just born bad? -- and also combines it with that other big question: why do kids shoot up their schools? the nature vs nurture debate has been absolutely raging for years regarding children who commit violence at school; as someone with an academic interest in this particular crime, it's one I've banged my head up against multiple times. people seem to always be firmly in one camp: the parents are to blame, or the kid is just evil. nobody seems to consider the interaction between these two things, and how it's always ultimately a choice.

the book is a pretty intense read for me, as I'm sure you can relate. the difference is that while you can see your mother and brother in Eva and Kevin, I actually see myself and my mother in Eva and Kevin. I was an unwanted and a resented child. my parents did not want to have me. I was what my parents referred to as "a surprise", said in the same tone as you would describe a sudden house fire as a surprise, or bad news at work as a surprise. the major difference between my parents and Eva and Franklin was that they had me very young (they would have been 19 and barely 20 when they found out, and 20 and barely 21 when I was born) and this most certainly added to the resentment. my father was always away for work, often getting to go to some pretty interesting destinations; my mother wanted to be the kind of woman who wanted to be a stay-at-home mother, but she hated it. like Eva and Kevin, my mother and I were very, very alike in personality and what we did and did not want out of life, and we were engaged in some level of warfare for my entire childhood. while I wasn't quite on the level of Kevin in terms of blinding my siblings and whatnot, I was quite the terror as a child. by the time I reached my teenage years I was uncontrollable and my parents had given up trying. I could not be punished. I did not care. any punishment they did hand out, I was maliciously compliant to the point of infuriation. I'm sure my parents could argue that I was born evil, and indeed that's what they told the extended family. I admit I was not an easy child. however -- I was a child.

I did not ask to be born, and when my parents made the choice to have me and then resent my existence, that was on them. a child knows. a child can tell when he's not wanted, when he's an inconvenience. I knew it very well, from an early age. my parents' resentment of me resulted in them abusing me right up until I left home. I was like an unwanted pet, except they couldn't dump me off at a shelter. no, they never laid a finger on me physically, so they can claim they didn't abuse me -- but emotionally and psychologically they were abusive, and especially in my teenage years, they neglected me severely. (think along the lines of being left at home alone for extended periods with no food, no money, and no way to get supplies as we lived in rural Ireland and the closest supermarket was 30 minutes away. this was not something they did out of malice, but rather something they did because they did not consider me at all. they forgot my existence, most of the time, or they deemed me so inconsequential that making provisions for me was a task that could be forever put off.) understandably this made me hate them in return, and I took great pleasure in being a little shit. it was all I had. nature vs nurture, which is it? my parents weren't exactly nurturing, and they taught me very bad behaviour -- but at the same time from the moment I was born I had my mother's personality, predisposing me to being a little shit. even now, grown up and after many years of working on myself, I still find myself fighting the urge to be as cruel and as judgemental as she could be; likewise I see those positive qualities she had, that she could have shown more of if she had put the work in like I had. we went from being furious carbon copies of one another to an example of the best and the worst case scenario.

basically what it comes down to is choice. Kevin and I had a similar situation going on, but Kevin chose to try and find what he was looking for in mass murder, and I chose to try and find it by getting out of my house and never returning. I mentioned earlier that I have an academic interest in the kind of crime that Kevin committed; since the age of 17 I have been researching these things, and now have expertise in several specific incidents. I bring this up to illustrate that this crime was on my radar when I was around Kevin's age, when I was suffering from the same problems as he was. thousands of kids find themselves in this position, yet so relatively few commit the act. why? it's choice. nature, nurture -- it doesn't matter. there comes a point where you have to make the choice, and honestly? it's chaos theory, baby.

as well as researching this kind of thing I'm also an amateur meteorologist. I love weather. I love trying to work out what makes it tick. and weather is a good example of what I'm trying to say here. weather cannot be predicted. we can get decent ideas, but at the same time we never really know for sure and also weather acts differently every time. there are too many variables. it's the entirety of the earth's atmosphere we're talking about here. identical weather conditions can arise time and time again, and each time the weather is different. a sunny afternoon one day is a washout the next. this is because -- and I broadly sum it up here -- there are so many tiny variables that we cannot possibly predict how they will change the weather. and I mean it's tiny variables. I'm sure you've heard of the butterfly effect -- this comes from the idea that a butterfly somewhere on the coast of Africa can flap its wings, and this tiny reverberation can spread through the atmosphere, creating a bigger and bigger ripple, until a hurricane smashes into the Gulf of Mexico. tiny atmospheric changes all interacting in ways we cannot imagine. this is why some kids shoot up schools. it's easy to look at psychology broadly, but no two people are ever the same. siblings growing up in the exact same house are not the same. identical twins, genetically identical to their very DNA, are not the same. tiny, tiny events, microdoses of chemicals in the brain, exposures -- they all change us in subtle ways. two people -- Kevin and I -- can grow up with almost identical familial issues and outlooks, but Kevin shoots up his school and I study my ass off and get myself to university to escape my parents. why? I don't know. I don't know what tiny little things might influence me one way and another kid in the other. personality, brain chemistry, waking up that morning and having enough or not -- I don't know. it's chaos theory. the variables are too small to say. nature vs nurture are only two variables out of millions. it's an oversimplification.

so to go back to the book -- who do I blame? neither of them. it was a perfect storm. we could say Eva didn't help, but I know of plenty of kids with decent parents who still committed such a crime. we could say that Kevin was just born bad, but there are plenty of people with his resentful outlook on life who don't commit mass murder, or any harm against anyone whatsoever. it's like how every tornado comes from a supercell, but not every supercell will spawn a tornado -- that final genesis point is unknown to us. we just can't predict it. there are no easy answers. there is no simple formula. we just don't know, and that's what makes Kevin's story -- and its real-life counterparts -- so terrifying.

[everything-laito]

feel free to ignore this if you already did it/don’t wanna analyze this, but would you mind going into the triplets relationships with each other? kinda like why does kanato disassociate himself from the other two, and why do ayato and laito have a love/hate relationship. could you also cover what their personalities were like before cordelia’s abuse and how they might’ve been with yui differently if they hadn’t suffered? thank you so much again, your analyses are amazing but you knew that ❤️❤️

Hi Hotline!! Always a pleasure seeing you in my ask box. And thanks so much for the compliment!!! I try my best :) Since I got so many Sakamaki bros related questions, I answered this in a completely separate post. But I will address your second question here! Super sorry that this is so late though, I got bulldozed with so much in relation to school and asks, haha. Anyways, *cracks knuckles* I shall begin! Rant under the cut! 

I wouldn’t say that there wasn’t a time that Cordelia didn’t abuse them. Cordelia never wanted to have children in the first place, from what I remember. So she hated them even in the womb. She just wanted to appease Karlheinz and basically birth “the best son” despite the heir placement going to Shuu in the first place. Also, there’s the whole “nature vs nurture” argument, and we don’t know how much of these boys’ personalities are their “nature” or part of their living situation, since we get tidbits of their pasts as kids. So this question is very nuanced with no definite answers; I can only use speculations, so please take this with a grain of salt, and extrapolate your own opinions from this. 

But, instead, I’m going to extrapolate their child personalities early on into the abuse. Obviously they were mostly ignored as a child. I believe Ayato was paid more attention to as a kid, then Kanato, then Laito. Laito doesn’t have any flashbacks to his childhood in his route to my knowledge (however I’ve only played HDB and MB; and just about to order Dark Fate soon!) so I do believe that he just gets ignored or just keeps to himself. I know Kanato was also more isolated considering Cordelia gave him Teddy to “make up” for his isolation, but he had his “use” through his singing, and was sexually abused in that manner. 

From what I can gather from his childhood, I could describe Ayato as tenacious and hardworking, as well as emotionally sensitive. He definitely takes things to heart, which is what I mean by the latter. There’s the whole “nature vs nurture” part that I mentioned, which is why the question is a little hard to pinpoint. But you can definitely say that Ayato is a people pleaser to an extent, at least when he was a kid. He’s trying to please Cordelia so hard, but also that could be something because he really has to. You could also argue that he still tries to please her despite her ignoring him; due to his innate nature to work hard. However, I don’t believe Ayato was sexually abused; but he’s still pervy “fuck boy” to an extent. So I do think that would be part of his personality if he never was abused. I also think he’d keep his dorkiness. 

With Yui in this scenario, I think that it definitely would be more wholesome. Although I am kinda biased because I love AyaYui; they’re both so dorky and cute together. So I think that their relationship should be pretty similar as it is in more of the “sweeter” parts in the games, and obviously less abuse etc etc. But dang, I do think they’d match up pretty nicely. Ayato being a strong boy and Yui being a strong girl, but she’s definitely more shy and gentle. And I like that dynamic, haha.

From what I can gather from Kanato’s childhood, he definitely was isolated and genuinely lonely; although I think all the triplets were, but Ayato and Laito were probably the less lonely out of the Sakamaki siblings in total. Kanato was definitely more of the “misfit” and began to internally hate himself since he looks the most like Cordelia, according to him at least. He was definitely aloof, and I believe if he didn’t end up into the situation, he’d be more of the really shy type. But, we don’t know what the situation would be if Cordelia didn’t abuse them. Maybe the brothers could’ve been closer, maybe Kanato would be less isolated, thus he wouldn’t be as reserved and aloof.

This one’s a bit hard, but I’m not sure if him and Yui would work out personality wise? Or Yui would take the reins more in the relationship. She’d be more “motherly”, I think. And I’d think she’d be more bold than Kanato might be. I can’t say much on Kanato compared to the others, so I apologize for this speculation being short. 

And now, Laito. Since I’ve mentioned that Laito’s “main” abuse doesn’t happen until later on in his life, he definitely got the “less” of it as a child. He basically just tried to avoid the situation. Again, he runs away from his problems. And since I know Laito a lot better than all of the triplets, his tendency to avoid situations and emotions definitely carry into his “adult” personality. However, maybe if there was no abuse at home, he’d be different than that. But for this situation, let’s just say that he would be more passive. I mean, Laito’s passive in general, and I did go over this in my analysis of what I consider to be his true personality, but this includes him with all the abuse stuff. For this scenario here, I think he’d also just be kind of “smiley” and have a carefree personality as well. But definitely not as extroverted as he is. I don’t think he’d be a helpless romantic (I mean he isn’t in general, although I think he tries his best) but I think he’d definitely be more toned down and gentle, as well as dorky. Cuz damn, I don’t know where he got his love for crossword puzzles from, haha. He’s definitely a logic game kind of dude; aka sharp intellect. Also, curiosity; I think that curiosity is definitely more of an innate personality trait, and he has that.

This would be another dorky pair, but since Laito might be more outwardly carefree, I think that he’d definitely be more of a “shoujo love interest” kinda character with Yui. I,,,, just wanna hear him giggle a lot :’’’) and he’d definitely be open for Yui teaching him things, and vice versa. I mean, he’d still grow up in a mansion (and being a vampire) and probably not know how to cook, and since Yui loves cooking I imagine he’d watch her in awe,,,,,, wow this makes my heart soft, dang it Hotline! (Also similar cooking situation with Ayato but maybe a bit more sexual, teehee) 

Hopefully that satiates your curiosity! This was definitely fun to think about, thanks for the ask! 

Hope you enjoyed! 

-Corn

[spilledreality]

Sporting vs Herding

i.

I wanna talk about two blogposts, Seph's "War Over Being Nice” and Alastair's "Of Triggering & the Triggered." Each lays out the same erisological idea: that there are two distinct modes or cultures of running discourse these days, and understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the content of conversation as much as its form. Let's go.

One style, Alastair writes, is indebted to the Greco-Roman rhetorical and 19th C British sporting traditions. A debate takes place in a "heterotopic" arena which is governed by an ethos of adversarial collaboration and sportsmanship. It is waged in a detached and impersonal manner, e.g. in American debate club, which inherits from these older traditions, you are assigned a side to argue; your position is not some "authentic" expression of self. Alastair:

This form of discourse typically involves a degree of ‘heterotopy’, occurring in a ‘space’ distinct from that of personal interactions.

This heterotopic space is characterized by a sort of playfulness, ritual combativeness, and histrionics. This ‘space’ is akin to that of the playing field, upon which opposing teams give their rivals no quarter, but which is held distinct to some degree from relations between the parties that exist off the field. The handshake between competitors as they leave the field is a typical sign of this demarcation.

All in all, it is a mark against one in these debates to take an argument personally, to allow arguments that happen "in the arena" to leave the arena. This mode of discourse I see exemplified in LessWrong culture, and is, I think, one of the primary attractors to the site.In the second mode of discourse, inoffensiveness, agreement, and inclusivity are emphasized, and positions are seen as closely associated with their proponents.  Alastair speculates it originates in an educational setting which values cooperation, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, affirmation, and subordination; this may be true, but I feel less confident in it than I am the larger claim about discursive modes. Provocatively, the two modes are dubbed "sporting" and "herding," with all the implications of, on the one hand, individual agents engaged in ritualized, healthy simulations of combat, and on the other, of quasi-non-agents shepherded in a coordinated, bounded, highly constrained and circumscribed epistemic landscape. Recall, if you are tempted to blame this all on the postmodernists, that this is exactly the opposite of their emphasis toward the "adult" realities of relativism, nebulosity, flux. Queer Theory has long advocated for the dissolution of gendered and racial identity, not the reification of identitarian handles we see now, which is QT's bastardization. We might believe these positions were taken too far, but they are ultimately about complicating the world and removing the structuralist comforts of certainty and dichotomy. (Structureless worlds are inherently hostile to rear children in, and also for most human life; see also the Kegan stages for a similar idea.)  

In the erisological vein, Alastair provides a portrait of the collision between the sporting and herding modes. Arguments that fly in one discursive style (taking offence, emotional injury, legitimation-by-feeling) absolutely do not fly in the other:

When these two forms of discourse collide they are frequently unable to understand each other and tend to bring out the worst in each other. The first [new, sensitive] form of discourse seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge to the second; the second [old, sporting] can appear cruel and devoid of sensitivity to the first. To those accustomed to the second mode of discourse, the cries of protest at supposedly offensive statements may appear to be little more than a dirty and underhand ploy intentionally adopted to derail the discussion by those whose ideological position can’t sustain critical challenge.

ii.

Seph stumbles upon a similar division, though it is less about discursive and argumentative modes, and more about social norms for emotional regulation and responsibility. He calls them Culture A and Culture B, mirroring sporting and herding styles, respectively.

In culture A, everyone is responsible for their own feelings. People say mean stuff all the time—teasing and jostling each other for fun and to get a rise. Occasionally someone gets upset. When that happens, there's usually no repercussions for the perpetrator. If someone gets consistently upset when the same topic is brought up, they will either eventually stop getting upset or the people around them will learn to avoid that topic. Verbally expressing anger at someone is tolerated. It is better to be honest than polite.

In such a culture, respect and status typically comes from performance; Seph quotes the maxim "If you can't sell shit, you are shit." We can see a commonality with sporting in that there is some shared goal which is attained specifically through adversarial play, such that some degree of interpersonal hostility is tolerated or even sought. Conflict is settled openly and explicitly.

In culture B, everyone is responsible for the feelings of others. At social gatherings everyone should feel safe and comfortable. After all, part of the point of having a community is to collectively care for the emotional wellbeing of the community's members. For this reason its seen as an act of violence against the community for your actions or speech to result in someone becoming upset, or if you make people feel uncomfortable or anxious. This comes with strong repercussions—the perpetrator is expected to make things right. An apology isn't necessarily good enough here—to heal the wound, the perpetrator needs to make group participants once again feel nurtured and safe in the group. If they don't do that, they are a toxic element to the group's cohesion and may no longer be welcome in the group. It is better to be polite than honest. As the saying goes, if you can't say something nice, it is better to say nothing at all.

In such a culture, status and respect come from your contribution to group cohesion and safety; Seph cites the maxim "Be someone your coworkers enjoy working with." But Seph's argument pushes back, fruitfully, on descriptions of Culture B as collaborative (which involve high self-assertion); rather, he writes, they are accommodating in the Thomas-Kilmann modes of conflict sense:

iii.

Seph and Alastair both gesture toward the way these modes feel gendered, with Culture A more "masculinized" and Culture B more "feminized."[1] While this seems important to note, given that a massive, historically unprecedented labor shift toward coed co-working has recently occured in the Western world, I don't see much point in hashing out a nature vs. nurture, gender essentialism debate here, so you can pick your side and project it. This is also perhaps interesting from the frame of American feminist history: early waves of feminism were very much about escaping the domestic sphere and entering the public sphere; there is an argument to be made that contemporary feminisms, now that they have successfully entered it, are dedicated to domesticating the public sphere into a more comfortable zone. Culture B, for instance, might well be wholly appropriate to the social setting of a living room, among acquaintances who don't know each other well; indeed, it feels much like the kind of aristocratic parlor culture of the same 19th C Britain that the sporting mode also thrived in, side-by-side. And to some extent, Culture A is often what gets called toxic masculinity; see Mad Men for a depiction.

(On the topic of domestication of the workplace: We've seen an increased blurring of the work-life separation; the mantra "lean-in" has been outcompeted by "decrease office hostility"; business attire has slid into informality, etiquette has been subsumed into ethics, dogs are allowed in the workplace. Obviously these changes are not driven by women's entrance into the workplace alone; the tech sector has had an enormous role in killing both business attire and the home-office divide, despite being almost entirely male in composition. And equally obvious, there is an enormous amount of inter- and intra-business competition in tech, which is both consistently cited by exiting employees as a hostile work environment, and has also managed to drive an outsized portion of global innovation the past few decades—thus cultural domestication is not at all perfectly correlated with a switch from Culture A to B. Draw from these speculations what you will.)

There are other origins for the kind of distinctions Seph and Alastair draw; one worthwhile comparison might be Nietzsche's master and slave moralities. The former mode emphasizes power and achievement, the other empathy, cooperation, and compassion. (Capitalism and communitarianism fall under some of the same, higher-level ideological patterns.) There are differences of course: the master moralist is "beyond" good and evil, or suffering and flourishing, whereas Culture A and B might both see themselves as dealing with questions of suffering but in very different ways. But the "slave revolt in morality" overwrote an aristocratic detachment or "aboveness" that we today might see as deeply immoral or inhuman; it is neither surprising nor damning that a revolting proletariat—the class which suffered most of the evils of the world—would speak from a place of one-to-one, attached self-advocacy. One can switch "sides" or "baskets" of the arena each half or quarter because they are impersonal targets in a public commons; one cannot so easily hold the same attitude toward defending one's home. This alone may indicate we should be more sympathetic to the communitarian mode than we might be inclined to be; certainly, those who advocate and embody this mode make plausible claims to being a similar, embattled and embittered class. A friend who I discussed these texts with argued that one failure mode of the rationalist community is an "unmooring" from the real concerns of human beings, slipping into an idealized, logical world modeled on self-similarity (i.e. highly Culture A, thinking over feeling in the Big 5 vocabulary), in a way that is blind to the realities of the larger population.

But there are also grave problems for such a discursive mode, especially when it becomes dominant. Because while on the surface, discursive battles in the sporting mode can appear to be battles between people, they are in reality battles between ideas.

iv.

As Mill argued in On Liberty, free discourse is crucial because it acts as a social steering mechanism: should we make a mistake in our course, freedom of discourse is the instrument for correcting it. But the mistake of losing free discourse is very hard to come back from; it must be fought for again, before other ideals can be pursued. 

Moreover, freedom of discourse is the means of rigorizing ideas before they are implemented, such as to avoid catastrophe. Anyone familiar with James Scott's Seeing Like A State, or Hayek's arguments for decentralized market intelligence, or a million other arguments against overhaulism, knows how difficult it is to engineer a social intervention that works as intended: the unforeseen, second-order effects; our inability to model complex systems and human psychology. Good intent is not remotely enough, and the herding approach cannot help but lower the standard of thinking and discourse emerging from such communities, which become more demographically powerful even as their ideas become worse (the two are tied up inextricably).

The fear of conflict and the inability to deal with disagreement lies at the heart of sensitivity-driven discourses. However, ideological conflict is the crucible of the sharpest thought. Ideological conflict forces our arguments to undergo a rigorous and ruthless process through which bad arguments are broken down, good arguments are honed and developed, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different positions emerge. The best thinking emerges from contexts where interlocutors mercilessly probe and attack our arguments’ weaknesses and our own weaknesses as their defenders. They expose the blindspots in our vision, the cracks in our theories, the inconsistencies in our logic, the inaptness of our framing, the problems in our rhetoric. We are constantly forced to return to the drawing board, to produce better arguments.

And on the strength of sporting approaches in rigorizing discourse:

The truth is not located in the single voice, but emerges from the conversation as a whole. Within this form of heterotopic discourse, one can play devil’s advocate, have one’s tongue in one’s cheek, purposefully overstate one’s case, or attack positions that one agrees with. The point of the discourse is to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions through rigorous challenge, not to provide a balanced position in a single monologue

Thus those who wish us to accept their conceptual carvings or political advocacies without question or challenge are avoiding short-term emotional discomfort at the price of their own long-term flourishing, at the cost of finding working and stable social solutions to problems. Standpoint epistemology correctly holds that individuals possess privileged knowledge as to what it's like (in the Nagel sense) to hold their social identities. But it is often wrongly extended, in the popular game of informational corruption called "Telephone" or "Chinese Whispers," as arguing that such individuals also possess unassailable and unchallengeable insight into the proper societal solutions to their grievances. We can imagine a patient walking into the doctor's office; the doctor cannot plausibly tell him there is no pain in his leg, if he claims there is, but the same doctor can recommend treatment, or provide evidence as to whether the pain is physical or psychosomatic.A lack of discursive rigour would not be a problem, Alastair writes, "were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing."

v.

As for myself, it was not too long ago I graduated from a university in which a conflict between these modes is ongoing. We had a required course called

Contemporary Civilization

, founded in the wake of World War I, which focused on the last 2,000 years of philosophy, seminar-style: a little bit of introductory lecture, but most of the 2 x 2-hour sessions each week were filled by students arguing with one other. In other words, its founding ethos was of sporting and adversarial collaboration.We also had a number of breakdowns where several students simply could not handle this mode: they would begin crying, or say they couldn't deal with the [insert atmosphere adjective] in the room, and would either transfer out or speak to the professor. While they were not largely representative, they required catering to, and no one wished to upset these students. I have heard we were a fortunate class insofar as we had a small handful of students willing to engage sporting-style, or skeptical a priori of the dominant political ideology at the school. When, in one session, a socialist son of a Saudi billionaire, wearing a $10,000 watch and a camel-hair cashmere sweater, pontificated about "burning the money, reverting to a barter system, and killing the bosses," folks in class would mention that true barter systems were virtually unprecedented in post-agricultural societies, and basically unworkable at scale. In other classes, though, when arguments like these were made—which, taken literally, are logically irrational, but instead justify themselves through sentiment, a legitimation of driving emotion rather than explicit content, in the Culture B sense—other students apparently nodded sagely from the back of the room, "yes, and-ing" one another til their noses ran. Well, I wanted to lay out the styles with some neutrality, but I suppose it's clear now where my sympathies stand.

[1] It should go without saying, but to cover my bases, these modes feeling "feminized" or "masculinized" does not imply that all women, or women inherently, engage in one mode while all men inherently engage in another. Seph cites Camille Paglia as an archetypal example of a Culture A woman, and while she may fall to the extreme side of the Culture A mode, I'd argue most female intellectuals of the 20th C (at least those operated outside the sphere of feminist discourse) were strongly sporting-types: Sontag, for instance, was vociferous and unrelenting. 

[aelaer]

Hmm, I saw the Howard post and I haven’t read the MCU comic tie nor have I read any iron man comics but i guess he was abusive for hitting his son toy. Many parents from older generations are fine with corporal punishment. It’s not an excuse but abuse is way more severe. A daily constant beating for no reason.

For the Howard post (here, for those who missed it), I was focused strictly on the MCU rather than the comics. In the comics for Earth-616 he was 100% abusive, no question about it, from my understanding. I’m no expert on comic Tony.

As the ask indicates, this is gonna get into heavy topics. Mind yourselves. The heavier stuff is under a cut (at least if you aren’t viewing the original post on the mobile app; fix your stuff tumblr).

For the MCU, it’s much greyer if you rely on the movies, but Tony’s memories of his father from Iron Man 2 don’t speak well of Howard’s character, though they try to paint him in a better light by the end of it. So if you only view the films, it’s much harder to determine the relationship based on only one scene (after all, everyone has bad days, and there’s no parent out there who hasn’t been cranky at a four-year-old).

But then you get a second, worse occurrence with the tie-in comic. The official MCU tie-in comics (as opposed to the inspired-by comics) are considered canon. You can find a list of the tie-in comics and inspired-by comics over at Wiki, as well as most of their summaries. (Sadly they fail to mention the comic sponsored for Iron Man 2, which is freaking hilarious if you read what happens in the 2010 timeline of the wiki. He’s driving race cars in India. It’s great. The wiki timeline is literally the only place I can find information for this promotional comic.)

Anyway, back to the serious topic. Abuse comes in various forms, and from what I can see from a quick look at Google, there is no hard agreement of the types of abuse or the number. For instance, this site categorizes six types of abuse, while this site categorizes ten types, but lumps one of the abuse types above into one category and includes self-neglect as a type of abuse. Still, it’s some reading if you’re looking for further education on the topic.

Based on those definitions and what we see in the tie-in panels, Howard would fall into both emotional/verbal and physical abuser categories - if the reader considers corporal punishment on children as inherently abusive. Let me explain, and get into the nitty gritty of corporal punishment in the home.

Corporal punishment has hugely shifted in public opinion as a parenting/teaching tactic from the mid-20th century to now in the United States. In America in 2020, in my personal experiences, the most a parent could get away with is spanking (as opposed to using a switch, cane, belt, or slapping as used to be normal), and that has been massively falling out of favor the last 20 years, especially in states that have made it illegal in schools. This is at least, how it’s seen in media; I just don’t know enough about different sub-cultures in the United States to know if it’s universal. In middle-class California, it has fallen hugely out of favor. This may be very different in the rural areas of, say, Mississippi. I just don’t know.

I also don’t know about the status of corporal punishment for children across the world and had to do some digging. There is a lot of statistics in how favorable vs unfavorable it is around the world again on Wiki, and you can see most of Europe has made it illegal everywhere, half of the states have it illegal in schools, but as Wiki mentions, it’s legal in the home across most of the world and largely not illegal in schools. I think in the 21st century we’re going to see it sharply decrease as a punishment tactic as millennials raise their children and Gen Z starts growing up and raising their own children.

I want to address something you said: “Many parents from older generations are fine with corporal punishment. It’s not an excuse but abuse is way more severe. A daily constant beating for no reason.”

In the mid-1970s it was definitely very common for open-handed smacks to be dealt out by a parent to a children in Western society, at least from what statistics I can find. Here’s some more Wiki reading on it.

So I’ll play devil’s advocate: if we’re looking at the American mid-late 1970s (when Tony was a kid) and physical discipline not being viewed as abusive by the overall general populace, so long as it wasn’t excessive, let’s say that in this panel the smack in itself wasn’t abusive. If we’re going to make that conclusion, let’s look instead at the reason why Tony was being punished and the words used in the panel.

Howard [holding up a toy car that hit his foot]: This is yours, I take it? Is this how you spend your weekend at home?!

Tony [holding up a remote control for the toy car]: D-dad, I…

Howard [slaps Tony, and breaks the remote control]: Waste of time! I don’t need to deal with this nonsense! Do you understand me?!

Corporal punishment was delivered for many reasons in the ‘70s in America; in schools it happened from fooling around when you were supposed to be paying attention to being a punishment for nasty fights to disrespecting the teacher. In the home, I suspect it was largely disrespect or things like fighting with your siblings or stealing a sweet.

Tony’s “crime”, so to speak, is playing with a toy car and accidentally hitting his father with it. Nowhere in the lead-up does it indicate that it was done maliciously. It was careless, sure, but breaking a toy and meting out a slap in turn from carelessness is a huge overreaction. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Going into Wiki’s definitions of child abuse (more official answers can be found elsewhere, I’m sure), the conflict and debate about physical abuse is noted there, but I’m more interested in what they say about psychological/emotional abuse. With the resources listed there, they note that modern definitions of emotional abuse of a child entail:

“A repeated pattern of caregiver behavior or extreme incident(s) that

convey to children that they are worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted…”

“Other examples include name-calling, ridicule, degradation, destruction of personal belongings […] excessive criticism…”

“Emotional neglect: characterized by a lack of nurturance, encouragement, and support…”

Furthermore, it notes some of the consequences:

“Childhood psychological abuse [is] as harmful as sexual or physical abuse.”

“Psychological maltreatment is “the most challenging and prevalent form of child abuse and neglect."”

"Given the prevalence of childhood psychological abuse and the severity of harm to young victims, it should be at the forefront of mental health and social service training”

You can read the sources all in the Wiki article.

With all of those definitions, and the two scenes in canon we see with Howard interacting with young Tony (this one and the film reel in Iron Man 2), the evidence provided suggests that this was Howard’s natural tone when talking to his young son.

And that is, following all those definitions above, emotionally negligent and psychologically abusive.

So one may argue about corporal punishment all they want, and cultures around the world will continue to change their attitude towards it as we go further into the 21st century, but the scenes presented in canon firmly put Howard into an abuse role psychologically at the least.

Thanks for the ask, anon, and I hope that you found this interesting and potentially enlightening.

[kekeslider]

so whats your take on the catra/adora situation

I have a lot of thoughts about this and I’m gonna just unload them all below the cut bc this is gonna get kind of meta-y and pretty discourse-y, and I know a lot of people are trying to avoid that right now. The long n short of it is that I still like the ship.

I’m actually a little baffled by how much people don’t like this pairing now. It all basically comes down to the belief that Catra is abusive towards Adora, but people seem to be conveniently leaving out that Catra has been abused by the Horde as much as Adora. I’d actually argue that Catra’s abuse was harsher, while Adora was the favored child. That’s not to say that Adora wasn’t abused, because she obviously was, but there are different kinds of abusive situations, and in homes with multiple children, there’s often one that the parent/guardian clearly favors and manipulates and the other that gets the brunt of the abuse. Adora was manipulated and lied to and who knows what else, while Catra was physically threatened and harmed, emotionally abused, and pitted against Adora, her own best friend. They have different experiences, and Catra’s experiences have clearly led to the survival instincts she has now. I’ll also point out that members of the crew have stated that Catra’s portrayal is influenced by their own experiences with abuse (source). So flatout saying Catra is abusive and Adora needs to cut ties and leave her rubs me the wrong way. I think Catra is on course for a big redemption arc, because I think people who have been in abusive situations themselves want to tell stories of abuse victims overcoming it.

So that’s sort of the basics of Catra and Adora’s abuse by the Horde, and people have ended up saying, well Adora got out, why can’t Catra? First I’d like to point out the irony of the fandom pitting Catra and Adora against each other in the same way Shadow Weaver did, holding Catra to Adora’s standard. But what makes Adora and Catra different here? There could be a lot of things, you could get into discussions about nature vs nurture, you could argue that Adora has an inherent goodness because she was destined to be She-ra or whatever. But in the end I think it comes down to the different ways they experienced abuse in the Horde. Adora got to switch to the side of good because she thought she was on the good side all along, that’s what the Horde convinced her of, and she didn’t know anything outside of what the Horde told her. Then she also had Shadow Weaver favoring her, and the respect of her superiors and peers, so her life in the Horde was, comparatively, not that bad. But Catra knew it was bad. I’ve seen people calling Catra evil based on her duh, you just figured that out? line. But doesn’t it make sense that Catra knew she was being abused, because she was being treated so much harsher than Adora was? It was in her face all the time, but like Adora, she didn’t know anything beyond the Horde. Abuse was her norm, and she developed certain survival instincts because of that.

But Adora offered Catra a way out right? And Catra knowingly refused, so Catra is evil, right?? This is where I think Catra’s character gets extra complex, because it starts delving into the psychology of abuse victims, and one of the things that’s pretty well known is that abuse victims will often refuse to leave their situation, even when given the chance. That’s what abusers do, they make their victims afraid to leave the stability of their situation, no matter how awful it is. The devil you know, yanno? Adora wasn’t exactly offering Catra safety, she was offering her the chance to join a weak rebellion against the group that was conquering the world, a rebellion which massively failed the last time it was attempted. And leaving the Horde, and then losing? That would make Catra’s situation so much worse.

There’s a lot you can get into with Catra’s motivations throughout the season, but I’ll leave the deep details to Catra-specific character metas. I sussed out 3 big motivations for her from my 1 viewing at the asscrack of dawn.

1. She’s being forced to act against Adora by Shadow Weaver, the woman who has directly abused her her whole life

2. She wants to take down Shadow Weaver as a form of revenge and surpass her in the process

3. She want to prove to everyone in the Horde that she’s powerful and capable without Adora around (reminder that Adora said displays of weakness were a no-no at the Horde, so it stands to reason that being the best and most powerful is a goal ingrained into them as cadets) because Catra has been pitted against and compared to Adora her whole life (this ties in to Catra’s sidekick remark).

None of this excuses her actions, but it does explain her backstory and allows the viewer to get inside Catra’s head and understand why she does the things she does. It deliberately paints her as a sympathetic villain, because you understand her, and it makes you want to root for her.

Catra being sympathetic is a big thing to me, because it’s done on purpose. They’ve planted the seeds for a big redemption arc, one that may run the course of the show, and that’s something I want to see happen. A well done redemption arc is incredible to watch play out. And I’ll remind everyone that the crew has pretty openly loved Catra as a character, and they’re very invested in her as a character, and I personally don’t see how a crew with abuse victims on their staff would create an abusive character and then care about her so much. That goes double for catradora, they’re all interested in them as a duo and post art and content that toes very closely to the line of ship art, and I can’t see abuse victims creating a show just to ship a character with her abuser.

When it comes to Catra and catradora, there’s a few big important things I think people are ignoring.

- Catra has all the groundwork for a bigass redemption arc. It’s something fans have been expecting and hoping for since the first info about the show was released

- In order to get a redemption arc, she needs to do something that needs redeeming. Think of season 1 as Catra’s villain origin story. A redemption arc has no payoff if we don’t see their misdeeds. But Catra’s misdeeds aren’t a case of Cool motive, still murder, because nothing she’s done so far has such long lasting effects. She attacked some people with the Horde, of course, but also keep in mind that this is a kids show, where things like that have to be exaggerated so kids can see that they’re doing Bad Things (remember that time Zuko burned down a whole village, kidnapped Aang, attacked them all multiple times? And he has THE redemption arc every other one is compared to)

- This is only the first season! There’s so much story left to tell, maybe more backstory for Catra, more flashbacks detailing her experiences, etc etc. There’s something like 39 episodes still guaranteed to come, and I’m not expecting season 4 Catra to be the same as season 1 Catra. She’s going to change, her relationship to Adora is going to change, and I want that change to be positive. That’s a big draw for catradora: positive character development

- The crew has stated multiple times that Catra and Adora’s friendship/relationship is very central to the story, and that definitely shows in s1. Telling people not to like this ship is telling them to not fully engage with one of the show’s main foci (and there are definitely positive moments within all the hurt we see. They love each other, in an environment that doesn’t want them to)

- I haven’t seen a single person say that Catra and Adora’s relationship as is would be healthy and perfect. Everyone knows they have stuff to work through. What I have seen is people caring about both of them as characters and friends, people who love each other and deserve to be happy. People WANT a redemption arc for Catra, and they’re shipping Redeemed!Catra/Adora. They’re looking ahead down the path of character development and hoping it leads to romance, because it very well could. One of the big reasons people latch on to ships like this is that it has so so much room for growth and development, for them as individuals, and them as a pair. I know it’s illegal to talk about vo/tron, but you can compare it to people who shipped k/ance and a//urance after season 1. Neither had healthy romantic dynamics in the first season, but people were looking forward to growth and development, and shipping that. The whole point is that you want to see characters grow together. Development is half the point of storytelling. Romantic ships where they basically start out all happy and good are dull because they don’t have the same space for character growth and development. They’re static, they’re boring.

- The crew of the show likes catradora! They care so much about these two characters and their bond, and I don’t see a crew of LGBT people making a romantically coded dynamic between 2 female characters, hyping it up, creating content of the two of them, just to have one be an evil abuser

This is also where I’ll point out that many other antagonistic characters have been much beloved by the fandom and part of majorly popular ships

- Zuko: Zutara & Zukka

- Bakugo: Kiribaku

- Sasuke: Sasunaru or w/e it is

And you’ll notice these are moooostly m/m ships, and people still stan them to this day. But catradora of course is f/f, and we know f/f ships are subjected to much higher criticism than m/m pairings. In fact, the defense for Zuko and Bakugo is their traumatic abuse backstory, so the same should apply for Catra.

I’m also going to say, at great risk to myself, that I think the discourse around this ship is mostly happening because the current She-ra fandom is largely made of of (ex) v/d fans, where discourse was basically a hobby. And for good reason, there was a lot of dumpster fires in that fandom and show, but I think it’s resulted in people coming into this fandom just chomping at the bit to jump on some discourse and be the most Unproblematic and Self-Righteous. Am I basically vaguing myself by saying that? Yeah, kinda, but I’ll have to stand by it. We’ve seen so little of this show and people are already making major decisions about what’s ok and what’s not because they’re coming off of a fandom with a pretty shitty crew, and they’re expected to be hurt again. But the She-ra crew isn’t the v/d crew, and they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

This got really rambly and stuff but the point is, I like catradora. I want to see them grow and heal and love each other, because I care about both characters. It isn’t about shipping an angsty abusive ship, it’s about wanting them to find each other again without the toxic influence of the Horde.

[darkspellmaster]

Voltron Rant regarding Prince Lotor, his plans  and everything that follows...

Right now it’s late, and I’m tired, but there’s something that has been going on in my head for a while now since season 6 has come out. Recently I started to work on a long post about comments made by the staff and Lotor’s actor, regarding his behavior and I’ve seen a lot of reactions from fans in regard to anyone feeling that Lotor’s actions were justifiable, or that one should feel sorry for him for his past. 

Now on the one hand, it’s perfectly fine to have a sympathetic villain. A lot of shows have that and they are stronger for it. On the other hand, if you’re having someone do villainous acts, please have the character own those acts rather than, saying that they just need help and hugs. Or that it’s a nature vs. nurture thing, because in a lot of cases one could use characters that fall into the same tragic area as Lotor and point out the folly of this statement. 

Now while I have nothing but mad respect for the Voltron creative team and the cast, I do think that they’re making a bit of a bad choice in how they’re wording things in regard to Lotor. Because they are painting him in a very “Draco in leather pants” way, which will not go down looking good should the character not get redeemed, and even if he does, it still doesn’t look good. 

Again I really love him as a character, I just wish that people would at least realize that he’s not some innocent person that has done no wrong, and, in this case, that defending his actions by putting the blame on Voltron or Romelle, or his parents, is just adding to the issue that he hasn’t fully come to accept. That he could be accepted by others, even welcomed in, if he would let go of his damn desires to go across the rift and accept that he’s both Galra and Altean. 

I mean, hell he had an open chance to just live the life he was talking about, but he either didn’t think about it, or didn’t see what he had right before him. 

Let me try to explain, again, if this comes off as bitter or salty it’s not meant to be but it’s late and my brain is working on over drive here. 

Let’s start with Lotor’s plans for the Alteans. Given what Romelle tells us Lotor has these people completely under his sway and control. They trust them with their lives, love him and worship him. This means that they would give their lives for him if he but asked. And yet, rather than just explaining his plans to these people, the ones that owe him their lives, he lies to get them to be used for his plans. 

My issue with this is that it’s a cold and calculated move. Not some misguided action, it’s a deliberate choice that he had to consider before making it. Meaning that he didn’t trust his people, or that he didn’t fully understand the level of devotion that he had. Lotor could have easily talked about his plans to the Alteans there. There was no reason not to, as they trusted him. He could have explained, in detail, what he was trying to do and why it was going to benefit all of them and allow them to come out of hiding. Again given the feeling of devotion these people have, I would be damn surprised if he didn’t get a whole host of volunteers to be tested for this project and to willingly do this for the betterment of the people. 

This plan that he set up was a whole folly because of the fact that there had to be better ways of doing this or getting the energy for the Quintessence. Not only that but one could argue that he had the perfect set up there for his own peaceful existence or a way there to grow his own army. The Altean’s would have happily learned to fight, or work with tech, to help build him up an army to fight his father. He’s a long living person, so why not play the long game? 

Also regarding the situation with Romelle, As per JDS, I should note that he points out that Lotor could have put up his hands and let himself be arrested. He could have easily owned what he did at that moment and said “Yes, I did what she said, it was for the greater good, and I’m not ashamed of it. I’m willing to be put back in the cell while you all cool off and so we can talk. Like we have in the past.” That’s all he had to do, and yet he dumbly put himself in a weird position and later blames everyone else for his choices. Choices he made on his own. No one had a weapon at him saying you have to do any of this. 

Not to mention that there was a number of opportunities when he was alone with Allura where he could have mentioned the Alteans and explained everything before Keith and Romelle came in. This way not only does he look heroic, as he can put his own spin on it, but also Romelle’s impact on Allura could have been lessened some what, or at least the whole revelation could have had a different outcome. 

Then there’s the fact that there’s a number of characters out there that both counter the idea that one has to end up with a “the ends justify the means” mentality from the tragic life he’s had growing up, and the idea that how you’re raised and the people around you, are what create you. 

Also one could note that it’s not the fact that he didn’t have anyone around him loving him that made him make bad choices, it could just be the fact that he’s already predisposed for it due to being in the Quintessence and it makes it easier for him to naturally think the way he does. 

Just to name a few: (Warning Spoilers  below the cut) 

Ardyn Izuna from the recent Final FantasyXV for example grew up in, as he puts it and we only have his word on this, a perfectly happy sort of household as a prince. He eventually went on to be chosen to stop the Star scourge and was to become the rightful king. However his actions during this event caused a tragic outcome that lead him to become petty and angry and want not only to destroy Noctis family, but also to remake the world for the greater good. 

Like Lotor there’s a sense of entitlement to him. He’s long lived and is willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants done for his view of peace. Even if that means killing innocent people along the way to do it. 

I can also point out at the same time to Char Aznable of Gundam. Not only does he lose his parents to a straight up murder by a friend of the family, he later loses a friend because the guy looks like him. Char’s goal is the destruction of the Zabi family and he’s a very complex character who chooses to kill his friend and the most innocent person in the Zabi family, Gharma Zabi, even though they’re best friends, just because he was born into the wrong family. Gharma had nothing to do with the death of Char’s parents, and yet, for what he feels is the greater good for the Space Colonies, he needs to wipe them all off the face of the earth. 

Both of these guys have the same issue that Lotor does, that the ends justify the means, and that by taking the actions that they do they think in the end they will make the world a better place in some way. There is also the selfish aspect too in them, where even if their choices are purely based on real feelings, under that there’s still a sense of “I want something.” Which is still a selfish thing, and again, they still are villains as they take villainous actions that they don’t need to to achieve what they want. 

And what of a character like Folken de Fanel, who chose to go to the side of evil because he felt it would bring about the greater good, and protect his brother. He didn’t realize how bad his actions had become until he killed two of the people he had saved as children. Prior to that time he had told Van, his younger brother and hero of Escaflowne, that he was willing to keep doing bad things if it meant innocent people like Van could live in a world where they didn’t have to fear war or pain, or sadness. After the death of the two cat girls that he raised, he actually owned what he had done and was willing to face trial and his own death that he had made happen on himself. He even turned sides at that point. 

On the other end of this, you have someone like Voldemort who actually got help and yet still became evil. 

Then you have the other side of the coin, where the characters also had bad lives, didn’t have good influences but became heroic characters. 

Levi from Attack on Titan, for example, grew up in the slums. Lost his mother at a young age, became a thief and pretty much grew up with a lot of rough people. Yet he wound up meeting Erwin at an older age (late teens or early 20s) and was already a good person who wanted to do right. 

Then you have Sha Gojyo from the Saiyuki manga series. Gojyo grew up with an abusive mother who had sex with his elder brother who had to pretend to be his own father so she wouldn’t beat Gojyo. Not only that, but him being a half demon, half human made him a target for beatings and harm. His own step mother tried at one point to murder him and he nearly just let her do that to make her happy, and his brother had to kill her to stop her. He was abandoned at the age of ten and left to fend for himself. Yet he’s one of the kindest and most honest of the Sayuki crew, willing to go out of his way, even as he complains, to help those in need as the story moves along. 

The idea that Lotor’s upbringing is one of the points for him making his choices is fine, but it’s good to remember that just because you grow up in a bad situations doesn’t mean you’re going to make bad choices and do villainous things. 

One last character really fast, which I think highlights some of the issues regarding Lotor’s actions for me. 

Recently Black Butler revealed that the main character Ciel phantomhive has a twin brother. Because of this we’ve also recently learned he’s more than a little obsessive over his twin brother, and may have been behind his own parents murders as a means of keeping his brother to him self. On top of that you have Ciel himself, who, after suffering not only illness, but also sever physical, mental and sexual abuse, is a bit on the cold side (an understatement) and willing to make choices that a normal 13 year old really shouldn’t have to make. However, for all his gruff actions, he’s actually a loving person who does things to make others happy, even while drowning in his own despare. Keep in mind that both boys had the same pair of loving and attention giving parents. 

(Manga Coloring (129 chapter) by VermeilleRose.Original art (manga page) by Yana Toboso.)

As I said above, I don’t hate Lotor. He’s a great character and a wonderful antagonist. But I do see him as a villain, and he needs to own up to his actions. What I mean by this isn’t just saying, “Yes I did this but let me explain...” he needs to own what he did. Tell them that he either feels that he’s right about the choice he made and thus feels that he was in the right, that he disagrees with them as he feels that he made the right choice, and if they can’t be allies because of it, so be it and that he has no regrets for doing it. Or that he thought he was right, and now feels that he’s wrong and wants to fix what he screwed up and accept the consequences. 

No blaming the Alteans, no blaming Allura or her father, no blaming his father or mother, and no blaming Voltron for what he did. Again, no one told him to do what he did. No one, as far as we know, put the idea into his head. This was his idea and his alone, as far as we know, and if he’s not regretting doing this, than own up to it, accept the consequences, and move forward. Be that as an ally or not. Just own it and fans need to stop making excuses for him. 

Being from a broken home may have contributed, but that doesn’t mean it has to make him into the person he is. As I pointed out, there are others that are in just as bad situations, who still manage to become good people and heroic in their lives. And at the same time there are bad guys that have had nothing but a loving family, and still become monsters in the end. 

But actions need to have consequences, and while one can understand the actions of a character, that doesn’t mean that their actions can’t be seen by others as villainous or bad. And being misunderstood doesn’t alter the choices the person made. 

[official-transsexual]

@tylereatsmen I already brought up race as a social construct?

Like, this is basic "Sociology 101" shit.

The first two articles you linked (I don't waste time on Quillette as a matter of principle 🤷) both acknowledge that gender involves social construction. These authors are actually primarily arguing against the lay understand of "social construction" that you keep falling back on- nothing there contradicts my description of the social framework of gender occurring as a natural byproduct of sex categorization & functioning as a "translation key" for aspects of our inner sense of self (and, while the "nature vs nurture" of that inner sense of self is extremely complex & very much unsettled, we absolutely do know that social interaction during certain stages of early childhood impacts brain development and function in crucial ways, as demonstrated by so-called "feral children," whose very existence indicates that social interaction impacts the development of neurological structures).

But you want an example that's a bit less based on speculation? Here, I've got one! I've mentioned before on this blog that I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and not just casually- I was knocking on doors at nearby farms to preach ~the Truth about Jehovah~ as a preschooler, & by the time I hit puberty I was genuinely concerned that my grandpa would try to perform an exorcism on me if he thought demons were leading me astray. I didn't have cable at home, nevermind an internet connection, so my knowledge of trans people was limited to occasional playground rumours about people who sometimes showed up on some cable show hosted by a dude named Jerry.

For all intents and purposes, I spent most of my time existing within a different culture than most of my peers, and as a result I very literally did not have the ability to comprehend that my body could be "wrong" until well after I moved in with another relative partway through highschool. What I experienced before gaining that understanding was undeniably a "trans experience," but I was still straight-up not capable of recognizing my actual gender or the nature of my physical dysphoria for several years after getting out of that environment. Changing my cultural exposure by merely removing myself from a subculture long after any of the "sensitive" stages of early childhood development literally caused drastic changes in my experience of dysphoria.

So, to summarize:

1) "Social Construct" does not mean "unrelated to biology."

2) Recognizing the constructed nature of gender categories does not deny the pre-existing sense of self that an individual's gender identity is formed from.

3) Social interaction literally shapes human brains, especially during certain early developmental stages when social interaction is an extremely necessary component of typical neurological development.

4) Even relatively minor cultural shifts outside of these stages can change how people experience our bodies.

encouraging self-exploration > gatekeeping

[orionsangel86]

Cas ans Jack barely had scenes together in the first half of the season and now he is trapped in the AU world? When will they share scenes again? They clearly dont care about Cas as a character, sadly he only exist as a ship fodder on the show these days. Cas meeting with Claire and Jody? Not possible. Jack and Cas having a bond beyond lipservice? Not possible.

Hun I’m really sorry that you felt this way after the last episode. But I wholeheartedly disagree with you about Dabb and Co not caring about Cas as a character. He is not ship fodder. I absolutely hate that very concept and would take Cas being amazing and having a deep and meaningful arc over canon destiel any day. 

I have basically super dropped the ball on my reviews at the moment, and haven’t actually made any comments on tumblr at all about my 13x09 episode thoughts yet. So I will admit here that I am quite annoyed about Cas being pushed aside in the last episode. I don’t really understand the decision to lock him in a cage over the midseason story and for Wayward Sisters. Especially when Cas’s presence in Wayward Sisters would have only further encouraged viewership. Yet I guess they could argue that they didn’t want him pulling focus (which being Cas he would do regardless - he’s just that much adored by fandom). 

I remain quite baffled at how he has been dropped from these supposedly super important episodes right after a 6 episode run where the subtext, empty space, and basically TEXT at certain times was all about Cas. After all, our season opening song was literally “nothing else matters” being played over a sweeping shot of Cas’s dead body.

To address your specific points, I imagine the ship fodder thing comes from 13x06? The whole cowboy thing was rather excellent for fanfiction purposes. But I don’t think it was there entirely for ship fodder. If you strip away the destiel reading for the time being, what the writers are trying to tell the audience with this episode is that Castiel is so important to Dean that he can literally lift him up to a level of pure happiness just by his very presence. Castiel is the embodiment of happiness for Dean Winchester. That is what that episode told us (as well as the very obvious lack of Castiel in the previous 5 episodes where the entire focal point was to tell everyone that Cas’s death has broken Dean.) This isn’t about shipping fodder. Shipping fodder is comments like “last time someone looked at me like that, I got laid”. Shipping fodder is also a mixtape (though honestly I’d say it’s less fodder and more proof of canon romantic love but that’s just me.)

What episodes 1 - 6 has given us is NOT shipping fodder. It is 100% undeniable proof of Castiel’s importance in the show. It is this show going out of its way to tell us that without Castiel, at this point, Dean Winchester is a broken shell of a man. 

Also, if Cas was just shipping fodder, why would his fight for survival in 13x04 have been so freaking amazing and overwhelming and poignant and such a beautiful representation of overcoming depression? Castiel was made a phoenix in that episode. Reborn from the ashes of his own depression and terrible self hatred. I share your anger at his lack of screen time. Believe me I do. But Cas (and also Sam) often have character arcs that play out over a longer time period and with far less frequency than Dean’s. They often get overshadowed by Dean. 

I still have a lot of faith that they will come back to Cas and his own awesome story (which imo will continue to be a journey of faith in himself and his found family and to finally make peace with his own past). So I’m not gonna get super bitter about that just yet. 

As for your point about Jack being trapped in the au world, I don’t personally think that will last all that long. Yeah I can understand wanting Jack and Cas to be together and bond or whatever, but there is still a lot of ambiguity about what Jack is doing to Cas and others with his powers so I am less enthused by Cas taking on the daddy role just yet. In fact I am rather opposed to it. It makes me uncomfortable that he has had this satan child just thrust upon him. He didn’t ask for it, or want it, until the forced change of mind in 12x19 and now he’s just like “well I am responsible for this kid” and its just another thing for him to feel guilty about and yeah I’m side eyeing the whole daddy cas thing super hard. I don’t see how it is a good thing for his own development, so I’m not bothered that they have separated them (I would have just liked the Winchesters to have been shown trying to reach Cas in 13x09 when they found Jack though because not even having that mentioned that they tried to call him makes them seem idiotic and it was a major factor in me not enjoying the episode).

(I feel I need to add a disclaimer here that I love Jack as a character and find him extremely interesting as a mirror for TFW and a comment on the nature vs nurture theory and love that he is a baby bird who has somehow imprinted on Cas BUT I don’t LIKE the relationship he has with Cas because it hasn’t been built by natural means but rather supernatural means which makes me uncomfortable. I hope they build on this and we get some proper answers in the second half that’s for sure. Or I’ll be pissed.)

My response to your point about Claire is similar. Now I get super annoyed when Cas doesn’t get brought up in Claire episodes. It is one of my big pet peeves of the later seasons since Claire came back. I don’t need her to be asking after him all the time, but it would be nice if he was mentioned in the background, or in an off hand comment or something in a Claire ep. There have been Claire episodes in the middle of HUGE mytharc plots where terrible stuff has been happening to Cas off screen and the fact that the boys don’t bring him up, or Claire doesn’t seem to mention him irks me to no end. 

However I DO understand that they have a complicated history, and I DO understand that Claire needs to have her own story going forward and not be tied to Cas as a character. I don’t NEED Cas to be in Claire’s episodes, or in the Wayward Sisters episodes all the time. I don’t think that it is necessary for him to be a big part of that story at all, because they are going down completely different paths. HOWEVER I do think it is integral to Cas’s growth that he and Claire have a healthy relationship. Because they were only just beginning to build on that when we last saw them interact. I don’t need him there, I just need proof that they interact.

Also, because Cas now appears to have adopted two wayward children, I would like to think that his first adopted child at least fucking acknowledges him every now and again and actually HAS an ongoing relationship with him. I don’t need her calling him her father, but I do want it to be textual that she has forgiven him for Jimmy. I don’t consider that very complex and emotional story closed, and I think it is necessary. Especially since Cas haters still use it against him and us, as his fans. 

As far as Jody is concerned I guess they haven’t ever had any reason for them to interact so far. Jody has only really been part of the mytharc since the end of season 12. I have a feeling they probably will meet soon. So this doesn’t bother me. 

I guess you can say that whilst I don’t agree with you and your comments about Cas, I can understand where you are coming from and do understand your frustrations. They are also my frustrations, but I try not to let my own frustrations fester. I have faith in where they are taking Cas’s story. Sort of. I have a few gripes. If they get sorted out, I’ll be happy. I have been saying for a long time that Dabb is a huge Cas fan. Season 13 has not changed my mind about that at all.

[psychosynchrony]

Xenogenesis Trilogy

Title and Author: Lilith’s Brood (Xenogenesis #1-3) by Octavia E. Butler Rating: 5/5

Thoughts: (This review contains spoilers within the main section below the cut)

The Xenogenesis trilogy is compelling, sensual, and really, truly disturbing. Read in omnibus as Lilith's Brood, it is a cohesive work, troubling in both its insight and its predictions. I have so very many thoughts and feelings about this story. I like a book that makes me think, and this certainly did that. Butler takes a pessimistic view of human nature, lampshading what the book calls "the Human Contradiction" of intelligence and hierarchical behavior as a fundamental, deterministic flaw. But if she's criticizing human nature, she's also using her alien characters to dig down into imperialism, colonialism, and slavery.

Humanity has destroyed itself in nuclear war (recall that this is 1980s sci-fi). But fear not! The alien Oankali have stumbled upon earth just in time to save humans from extinction... by genetically blending with them, whether they like it or not. The three-sexed Oankali are "Gene Traders," on an endless spacefaring search for new life to incorporate into their own. All Oankali can 'taste' genetic and biochemical information, but it is the Ooloi (third sex) who can directly manipulate genetic material to change an existing organism or generate offspring from its mates' genetic material. The price for humanity's rescue is, in many ways, the end of humanity as a species, as the rescued survivors are expected mate and produce offspring with the Oankali, or live out their lives in sterility. (Human objections to this trade are universally met with incomprehension on the part of the Oankali) It's a messy, complicated story, with themes that prevent the reader from simply deciding "Oankali good, humans bad." The humans tend to be nasty and brutish. The Oankali tend to be callous and arrogant--alien enough that negotiating on human terms is impossible. As we move through the trilogy, we hear first from Lilith Iyapo, a human woman held captive by the Oankali, as she navigates between terrible options to carve out something of a life for herself in the new status quo. The second book is told by her Construct (Human/Oankali hybrid) son Akin, who struggles between his two identities. As Oankali, he 'knows' that the blending is really for the good of humanity, but as human, he struggles against the notion of biological limitations on free will. Ultimately, he becomes an advocate for allowing a small group of humans to settle on Mars without Oankali interference (much as one group of Oankali were permitted to keep traveling in case the gene-trade with humans went wrong). Both he and the Oankali are certain that the settlement is doomed to self-destruction, but Akin argues that they deserve the right to try to save themselves anyway. Finally, the third book deals with another of Lilith's children, a Construct Ooloi who uses its abilities to renegotiate the relationship between humans and Oankali. The increasing otherness of the narrators forces the reader to ask questions about values and consent, about interference vs. the right to self-determination, about nature vs. nurture, and about human nature itself. For the Oankali, biology is fate; to leave humans alone as they are would be as good as murdering them. For humans, the forced assimilation bears strong resemblance to a campaign of rape and genocide, and many respond accordingly. The trilogy ends on a hopeful note, but without resolving every question. It's given me a lot to think about, and I'm pretty sure I'm only scratching the surface.

[strivingscribe]

Salt of the Earth ~ Ch 007

Salt of the Earth by MsMoon

Chapter 7 ~ Nature vs Nurture

Chapters: 7/?

Chapter Navigation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Fandom: Young Justice

Rating: Explicit

Warnings: Angst, Feelings? Violence?

Relationships: Nope.

Summary: After responding to an incident, members of the team are saved by an unknown metahuman. But no protocols are in place to deal with the series of unfortunate events that assail Anitia Moore. What exactly should the team do when a someone with powers needs training but doesn’t want to be a member of the team?

Author’s Notes: This chapter goes to all the introverted girls that wanna go home and decompress. 

PS: Sorry for the chapter title :| would you look at that, my soc major is showing. 

Please do enjooooy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

 Sharon Moore trudged upstairs to her office, robotically calling hello to her employees as she passed them. She needed to finalize next week’s schedule, double check the status of deliveries, and most importantly… not think about how all her contingency plans weren’t going to be much good against someone like Batman.

  She practically collapsed in her office chair, glaring blandly at the computer as she turned it on. Her eyes slowly adjusted to the light, or the lack thereof. She looked at the curtains, reminding herself that vitamin D was important.

  She took a deep breath, rising and plodding over to the window. She drew back the curtains and froze.

  ….she did not have the tools for this.

  “Hello, Ma’am.” Superman said, floating not far from the window.

  She closed the curtains and held them there.

  ….of the times that Sharon imagined a scenario in which a man would be conversing with her from a second story window, encounters with superhumans had never been on the billing. Of course, all those daydreams had been when she was much younger and had fanciful notions of romance.

  “I don’t mean to alarm you, Ma’am, but I can still see you.” He said from the other side of the notably flimsy barrier.

  No use in hiding.

  She tossed open the curtains and opened the window. “Exactly what are you doing here?” she demanded, through the screen.

  “I wanted to thank you…. You’ve raised a fine young lady.” His sincerity was palpable, and Sharon almost wanted to stomp her foot in frustration. She wanted to be angry at him… but…

  He was Superman…. Damn pseudo-fascist iconography and the heartstrings it tugged at.

  She hung her head. “Would you… like to come inside?”

  It was a surprisingly easy process, letting Superman into the upper floor of the Bakery unseen. They did, after all, have a fire escape up there. It was still peculiar to see him sitting on the dark teal sofa in her office…

  “Would you like some coffee?” she asked, not at all certain what exactly she should be doing.

  “No, thank you.” Again, Sharon was really conflicted. He was being… so polite. “You seem at a loss.” Oh. Great. He noticed. Of course.

  She let out a little laugh. “I…” she eased into her office chair. “I don’t know why you’re here.” she said at last.

  “I told you, I wanted to thank you. Your daughter saved my boy…” he smiled, looking a little chagrin. “Also… Batman can be a little ...intimidating. If perhaps, you were in need of anything, I could see why you might hesitate to contact him.”

  “We’re fine.” Sharon said, wincing at how defensive she sounded.

  Superman leaned forward slightly. “There’s no shame in admitting it.”

  “Admitting what?”

  “That you have a child with unique needs.”

  “All children have unique needs.” She argued.

  “Your child is not like most children.” Superman reminded, as if she needed to remember it. “I’m not trying to trap you or make you feel guilty.” he assured. “Anita’s circumstances have been brought before the league.” his words made her tense up. She could barely handle Batman, and here was Superman talking about the league. “We’re all very impressed with your home.”

  Sharon blinked at him, feeling dazed and disconnected.

  “Your daughter…. her reality is far from normal. But that’s never stopped you from trying to give her that. You’ve given her a safe environment where who she is doesn’t suffer from what she is.” He smiled sympathetically. “It cannot have been easy.”

  Breathy little laughs huffed out of her, and she felt her defenses crumble entirely. “I have never had the tools for any of this.” this admission is not an easy one, but it’s always accompanied with a resilient truth. “That’s no excuse. Not when she needs me.”

  “Sharon.” his voice was so clear and certain. “You do not have to do this alone.”

  Sharon steeled herself, because she could not, would not cry...in front of Superman.

  She took a deep breath. “What…” she clenched her teeth. “I suppose I know why the league would be interested in her. What I don’t understand is what you’re so worried about.” Sharon squinted at him, studying his expression. “She hasn’t done anything wrong. She’s done the best she could with what she’s had. What do you foresee happening that has you so eager to offer help?”

  “I honestly don’t understand why we wouldn’t offer help.” Superman countered. “It’s fairly obvious that Anita’s abilities aren’t something that she understands entirely. If we can help her understand that, we can help her find a safe place in her own society instead of trying to hide from it the way that she does now.”

  Sharon frowned, her eyes downcast. She… she had taught Anita to be cautious, yes… what if that caution just led to her daughter into being afraid of the world? She thought of Anita’s habits and tendencies. Had she taught Anita that she couldn’t live her life?

  Her eyes rounded as cold dread seeped into her gut. All of Anita’s tendencies were bent towards restraint, stiflingly so… Had she taught her daughter to be afraid of herself?

  “We… we don’t have a lot of options… do we?” she realizes, woodenly staring at her own hands.

  “Your choices aren’t as limited as you think.” Superman assured. “Either way, you’ll have support.”

  Sharon considers this quietly before clearing her throat and determining, “Well… I have a feeling, I’ll be having a more in-depth conversation with Anita soon.” she sighed, sitting back against the chair back. “She’ll want to hide away in what’s familiar, but…” Sharon shook her head, propping an elbow on the desk and placing her hand against her temple for support. “..I just don’t know if that will continue to work for her.” Superman nodded. “I just… I don’t know…” she wavered, not certain how to voice her thoughts. “I don’t know what options she has.” she said at last.

  Superman smiles. “Perhaps… I will have that cup of coffee.” he says. “And we can talk about possibilities.”

  Sharon laughs a little when she realizes that even she hasn’t had a cup of coffee yet. The morning had been so robotic, she’d simply forgotten. Coffee sounded like salvation right about now.

  Of all mornings, this was the one in which Sharon Moore had left her phone ‘Do not Disturb’ feature on…. no alerts came when Anita sent her texts.

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anita is fast and very coordinated. After darting into the alleyway, she finds and alcove and presses herself against the corner, flattening herself against the stonework of the building. At the moment, she’s out of line of sight from the street.

  She almost laughs at herself, because all she can think is the ‘It can’t see me if I don’t move’ line.

  She holds her breath when she hears heavy footfalls...boots. The sound draws closer, slowly edging near her little corner, until it stops.

  “Hey.” the statement, question, greeting, whatever? It’s Superboy, because of course it is. He’s just… leaning back against the opposite side of the corner that she’s pressed against.

Fuck.

  “Hey.” she says back.

  “You alright?” he asks.

  She nods, swallowing thickly before retorting, “I’m hiding in an alleyway from Superboy, so… you know. I have been happier.” He lets out a little snort of a laugh, which somehow eases her. “You?”

  “Not that great either, actually.”

  She blinks, focusing on him and letting the noise around them fade.. his breathing is labored. She swings away from the wall, peeking around the corner at him. He looks… worn out? Fatigued or something, maybe.

  Her eyes widen and she vaults herself across the alleyway, nearly colliding with the business corner of a dumpster. “Shit.” she hisses. “My eyes are still green.”

  He blinks at her, tracking her movements before squinting at her eyes. “Are they not supposed to be?”

  She shook her head. “I have light brown eyes.” she muttered, still stepping backwards to put distance between them. “Unless…”

  His eyes rounded, his eyebrows hiking up in realization. “Unless you absorb something like kryptonite?”

  “Shit.” she seethes at no one in particular. Really just the situation. “Shit, shit, shit!”

  “Wait.” he says, making to follow her.

  “Are you mental?” She growls at him. “I’m literally radioactive right now.”

  “Yeah, but…” he shrugs. “It’s not as bad as it was.” he admits. It’s true… he can stand and walk and talk and breathe. So it’s not bad. He still nauseous and he’s beginning to get a pounding headache… but he can cope with it. “Why is that?”

  She opens her mouth and then freezes, her teeth clicking together when she snaps her jaw shut. She crosses her arms tightly, and mutters. “Go away.” before turning and jogging in the opposite direction.

  “Yeah, fat chance.” he grumbles, jogging after her. His step falters after the first few, but he persists, unwilling to lose sight of her now.

  She hears him and turns, hopping backward a bit. “What are you even doing ?”

  “I’m staying with you.”

  “You don’t make any sense!” she squeaked. “I’m a pox, and you’re going to chase after me??”

  “We heard about Luthor.” He says, and she stops. She stares at him, completely inert.

  “You heard about Luthor.” she repeats, her tone dull.

  “He’s dangerous.”

  “I didn’t need superpowers to know that.” she says in that same dull tone. “But why were you…” her eyes narrowed. “Are you watching me?”

  His head lulled to the side a bit, his eyes sharpening as his lips thinned. It was a great, ‘really? that’s what worries you?’ expression.

  “Of course we’re watching you.” he says in such a dismissive fashion that she feels a little foolish. Or she would if she wasn’t utterly terrified. “What did he say to you?”

  Anita stared at him as she tried to process the question. She felt so numb, it was hard to understand works and make them.

  “I..” she swallowed. “Some… bullshit about scholarships and…” her eyes drifted, though she certainly didn’t see anything.

  “What?” Superboy asked, taking another step closer.

  Anita put her hand out and backed up till she felt the brings of the wall behind her. Superboy, not wanting to make her uncomfortable, and not wanting to be uncomfortable, backed up till he was standing against the opposite side of the alley. Distance did lessen the severity of the symptoms.

  “I think… I think he threatened me.” she said, processing the situation and the words he’d said. In retrospect, there was a thinly veiled threat in there. “He talked about my mother and brothers, and ...and said I’d want to keep them safe.”

  She suddenly felt like she couldn't get enough air, and the weight that had bothered her in her ankles felt too heavy.

  “Oh God…” she reached for her bracelet. Filtering the beads through her fingers, rolling them and then letting them fall before moving to the next set in line.

  “Breathe.” Superboy coached, and it was surprisingly comforting to have him here. “You’re safe.”

  “But they--”

  “They are safe too.” he interjects, in hopes that it quickly quells her panic. “We’re keeping tabs on your family.” He said this without really knowing if it was true. It was more a sense that Robin would probably have something like that in place. Her distraction allowed him to draw closer, her usual misgivings about their proximity a dull memory.

  “How..” Anita croaked before shaking her head. So many questions and she had no idea how to find answers...much less what she should do once she got those answers.

  “Anita.” He says her name, and she freezes. “That’s your name, right?” she nodded woodenly. He holds out a hand, as if for a handshake. “I’m Connor.” she winces back from him.

  “You shouldn’t…”

  “It’ll be ok. Trust me.”

  She eyes him and then his hand before timidly reaching forward to take it. She watches him, critically eyeing their point of contact before taking his reaction. Conner doesn’t feel that much worse, really. It’s just like standing next to her; a headache, upset stomach, there’s a faint sensation of cotton stuffed in his ears….sound seemed duller... but, it’s all manageable.

  “Nice to finally meet you.” he said, and she laughed nervously. He lets go, and though she doesn’t feel threatened, Anita still presses herself against the brick behind her. It’s less about him and more about the need to feel grounded. She had her breathing back under control, at least. “You were going home, right?”

  She swallows hard. “Yeah… It was that or the bakery, and...I really don’t want to be underfoot right now.”

  He nods. “Then here’s what we’ll do. I’m going to accompany you home, just to be safe. When you get there, you can call your mom, assuming someone from the team isn’t already doing that. I’ll keep watch outside your house.”

  “What??” she asked, trying to draw back, but he keeps his hold on her.

  “Just to be safe. Besides, if I’m outside and you’re inside, I probably won’t feel the effects of the kryptonite.”

  She takes a deep breath. “There’s really no point in trying to deny it, is there?” He doesn’t comment, aside from a wry smile. “You really don’t have to stay, though. I’m sure it’s fine.”

  “I’ll touch base with the team before I move on.” he concludes. She nods, and starts walking. He falls into step beside her.

  “Are you...wearing your shirt inside-out?”

  He shrugs. “Believe it or not, it’s usually enough for most people to not notice me at all.”

  “...huh.” is her only response.

  They walked in silence for a few blocks before Superboy said. “So...this thing you do with rocks…”

  She huffed out a heavy breath, but otherwise there was no response.

  “uh...How’s that work?”

  She shrugged. “I don’t know how it happens, just that it does happen.” her tone is dull but unresisting. Her voice is hushed, as if she’s afraid to be overheard. Superboy eyes her, wondering how forthcoming she’ll be if he keeps asking.

  “You just...what? Suck up things from them?”

  “I…” she sighs heavily, shaking her head. “I really don’t want to talk about it.”

  “You’ll have to eventually, you know.”

  “That doesn’t mean I have to right this second.” She grumbled. “Or that I have to tell you anything.”

  “You always this chipper?” Superboy asked.

  She smirked, and while there was plenty of derision in her posture...the expression wasn’t entirely a sarcastic. “Can’t be helped. I’m having such a good day.” she stops at a crosswalk, hunching her shoulders in a downward arc, her arms crossed over her belly as she damn near folded her torso in half.

  “Uh… you ok?” he said, wincing at the ineptitude of those words. Of course she wasn’t, and he feels like an ass for mentioning her struggle at all… but...how else can he figure out what’s going on, unless he asks?

  Her face settled in a pout before she grumbled. “Lead is a bitch.”

  He half snorted. “Tell me about it....but...I mean.. wait, what?”

  She groaned. “On the kryptonite necklace. There was lead.” she reminded. “Why lead, anyway? It’s not a decorative metal. It’s even poisonous to normal people.” she lurched forward when the walk sign lit up. “It kills my stomach.”

  “You feel the lead ...in your stomach?” he asked.

  She nodded. “It’s not even that it’s horribly painful...it’s just… jarring. It was worse yesterday, when the contact was fresh. Now, the crests are spaced pretty far apart.” she grumbles, then stops and turns to glare at him.

  He stares back, fighting the discomfort of those eyes. “What?”

  She huffed out a sigh. “You’re just…” her teeth clenched together. “...you’re surprisingly easy to talk to.” she muttered before she started walking again.

  “I...what?” his confusion at her statement was palpable.

  “I don’t talk about it. I never talk about it. Not with anyone except my mom.” she says, needlessly adjusting the right strap of her backpack. “I didn’t want to talk about it, and here I am talking about it.”

  “Well…” he wondered if he could reason her into opening up more. “I am one of the few people aware of the situation. It...could do you good.”

  “It doesn’t.” she bit out, looking away.

  “And maybe….maybe I feel a little guilty about it. I’m the biggest part of why you’re…” he jutted his chin in her direction.”Suffering?” he shrugged. “May as well tell me all about it.”

  She straightened her spine, rolling her shoulders back as she walked with her eyes forward. “Don’t be an idiot. Spreading the suffering around is no way to manage it. Besides, I’m responsible for my actions. No one else.” She shook her head. “Apart from that, talking about it is distracting.”

  “What do you mean?”

  She took a deep breath. “I’ve keep asking myself one thing on loop… Why was I shaking Lex Luthor’s hand this morning?”

  He blinked, his eyes darting around them. Just the mention of Luthor made him feel twitchy. Like he was being watched down the barrel of a sniper’s scope.

  “Walking’s a good time to think.” Anita continued, her eyes sliding towards him.

  “What?” he asked.

  “The reason you feel guilty… it’s because I’m in pain after I helped you?”

  He blinked at her. “What are you getting at?”

  “There are three factors that connected to what happened yesterday. The asshole on the bridge with his death necklace, you and your group, and me in an imperfect disguise. I assume what’s left of the necklace is secure in your custody.”

  “It is.” he snapped, feeling strangely defensive.

  “Hm.” she grunted, looking forward again.

  “What are you fishing for?”

  “We can both assume that Luthor wasn’t angling to meet me for a scholarship, and it’s very suspicious that he’d approach me the day after that whole bridge thing.” she ground her molars, not sure how to continue. “Even if he doesn’t know about me, he knows something, and he wants something .”

  The question she wanted to be answered was… delicate. Or it could be. She assumed Superboy was here to help, but how far did this goodwill extend, exactly? Could he be provoked into changing his opinion entirely?

  “I guess what’s bothering me is… How Lex Luthor ties into all this? Assuming that he does… If it’s because of what happened yesterday, how is he connected to that? Could it be a coincidence?... That seems..” she shook her head again. “unlikely.”

  “Luthor owns most of Metropolis.”

  “Fantastic.” Anita spat. Again another wave of anxiety washed over her, her thoughts immediately centering on her mother and brothers.

  “It’s possible that he got something from traffic cameras, the way that Robin did….”

  Anita took a deep breath, gaining little comfort from the action. She still felt breathless, but she refused to submit to that panic. Now was not the time.

  “Batman did show up on my porch last night.”

  “That was a covert op, but… Luthor is resourceful.” he shrugged, feeling guilt creep up into his shoulder blades. “Guess he could’ve seen that.”

  “Do you think Luthor’s connected to the Mask-hole?”

  Superboy breathed out a tiny laugh. “Maybe. But… I don’t see how he’d know about you. We don’t even know much about you.”

  He watches from the corner of his eye as she chafes her own biceps as though she’s cold. “Yeah well.. me neither.”

  His eyes darted forward, away from her. To watch her right now...It felt… invasive. Like he was staring at her while she was having this vulnerable moment.

  “Now what?” she said.

  “What do you mean?”

  “I mean.. I mean, how…” she shook her head. “I… I don’t know what to do.” she said, her tone distant, confused as she watched her steps as she was taking them.  “PVA26077.” she muttered.

  “What?”

  “It’s...an inside joke. Mom’s not overly worried about profanity now, but there was a time when it was on the list of things that’d get you in trouble.” she explained, sounding stronger than she had just a moment ago. It was nice to discuss something she had a decent grasp of. “Travis and I came up with a bunch of things to use instead of the standard cuss words.. that one’s one of the most colorful slurs.” She smirked. “Mom never got mad at those, because we used things like ‘Waterloo’ and ‘Witch Trials’... another way get Travis more interested in history.” she massaged her temples.

  “We don’t have contingencies for this.” she murmured. “Worst comes to worst, text plan zero to everyone, everyone comes home, we pack up and hit the road. No questions asked, let things run their course. Hire movers, sell the business, open shop in a new area…” she began to pant. “But… but Luthor’s reach is long. And even if he wasn’t a factor, the Justice League is involved now.”

  “Hey, you don’t have to run from us, alright?” Superboy reminded. “We actually want to help.”

  “To what end?” Anita cut in. “I don’t want to be a superhero. I just want to live my life in relative peace.”

  “Who says you can’t?” Superboy challenged, and she finally met his eyes. “We just want to make sure you’re safe.”

  SHe surveyed him for some time before she started walking again. “Something to consider.” she muttered, and it was really starting to irritate him.

  He knew there were a million thoughts cycling through her head, but she just wouldn’t say anything. She refused to say anything at all. Was it just how she processed things? Or was this a bigger issue.

  The two of them spoke very little during the time it took to reach the Moore house.

  “We’ll be around… you know…” Superboy shrugged.

  “If I should need you.” she said with a tiny smirk, and he had the distinct impression this was another inside joke.

  He nodded. “I’ll...check back with the team and… we’ll see you around.”

  She nodded, swallowing thickly before croaking. “Thank you.” She didn’t wait for a response before jogging inside.

  She didn’t see Superboy check his comm before jogging across the street. She didn’t see him leap away, because she didn’t look.

  Once inside she took a deep breath. The air in the house normally had a soothing quality to it. But something was off. Her head slowly rotated to the side, one ear cocked higher than the other.

  “...there are three heartbeats in this house.” she announced to the seemingly empty living room.

  The sound of footsteps from the kitchen made her eyes dart to that doorway. Her eyes widened as a well-dressed Lex Luthor stood there smiling at her.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I really have to get back to my African American history Pre-1868....even though it's lible to kill me :| 

[matrixbearer]

Thank you for the bayverse!Optimus meta. It was very enlightening, and also put into words aspects of him that I had thought of but not really... formulated I guess. The reason why AoE is my fav TF movie is precisely because of the persecution of the Autobots, the injustice that nobody really gets punished for. You mentioned also the sparklings. I attributed their "evilness" to Megatron being their father, but you're right, they come from the Allspark. Part 1/2

Part 2/2: So does this mean that in order for a transformer to turn into a mech like say Optimus or Bumblebee or Ratchet they would have to be educated accordingly? or is it maybe that the Allspark was corrupted? But back to AoE, what I appreciated so much was the realism. Like, you cannot convince me that we wouldn’t use alien robots (who have proven to have a soul) to advance our own technology. The movie might have been too long (that was imo not the flaw) but in that sense it was realistic.

♞ ┊ ( ooc. )

I am glad you found some enlightenment in my response to your question about comparing Tyran Optimus to other iterations. (reference.)

CONT.

Oh, I have no doubt that humans would use an alien species for their technology, that we would argue ourselves into moral ambiguity for our benefit; we do it for our own kind, I cannot see is proving to better than to an interstellar alien. Having faith in humanity does not mean ignoring our worst qualities; it is about watching for those qualities and trying to put a stop to them. We all know, at our heart of hearts, that if we wanted to be the great species we aspired to we could be. The only price to pay would we could no longer look to another group and see them as Othered in the sense that they don’t deserve the same care we give ourselves. We tell ourselves that to take care of someone of another group would will cost us anything in a burdened sacrifice. We don’t look to someone else and provide for them the same way we do ourselves.

That is animal instinct, that is survival of the self and the tribe. It is only when we get into the tribal instinct to provide our own tribe that selflessness begins to take a backseat. The reason why we’re not cannibals and why we condemn murder is because we taught ourselves as a species that to harm one of our tribe was to harm our tribe, because it diminishes the population of the tribe. Until humans can look at ANY other human as a member of their tribe, we will continue to be the human species we see in AOE && TLK; we will be the humans that turns refugee children away because they aren’t seen as children of our tribe. Optimus Prime puts emphasis on the right of freedom belonging to all sentient beings; there is no other, there is no crossroads of division, it is simply for all. We don’t see that. We haven’t come to see that, yet.

So yes, we would treat an alien species as another resource for us to strip clean and pick apart for our sole benefit.

The AllSpark is not corrupted, at least we have NO indication that it is. It is simply the powersource of the unique radiation required to bring Cybertronian metal to life. The rest attributed to it is metaphysical. While we could argue that the AllSpark must be alive because it sources life, I do not feel at all that it is inherently evil or corrupted. Why? Because it goes back to the argument of what is evil. The Nokia phone in the box (TF1) was not evil; we could say it was merely defending itself. If you refer to my previous answer (here), I iterated how Cybertronians are much tougher than humans are. They are naturally more violent than we are because they can survive much more. But to call them inherently evil because they have a higher tolerance of violence is projecting our limitations onto them and turning into a diagnosis.

Cybertronians are more evil than we are—but that is their nature. That is no different than them transforming into another form. It is who they are, built into their CNA. They are not inherently evil, no more than how humanity is inherently evil. With sentience comes freedom, free will, and the right to choose WHO and WHAT we are. They, just as we, become evil in how they behave. Autobots are also violent, but they fight to protect and to defend. Decepticons are evil because they fight to destroy worlds, to hoard resources, and the power to decide who does and doesn’t deserve those resources. That is what we do when we assess someone and decide if they are worthy of partaking in the resources we’ve claimed as ours. Evil comes out when a member of one tribe decides that the member of another tribe is somehow less than and subsequently less worthy of receiving life giving resources. That is when evil comes out.

The Civil War started because of a famine (re: Tyran books). They were in a race to find the AllSpark and they were fighting over who gets to decide who receives their resources. Megatron was evil because he wanted to only give to the strongest, to those like himself. Optimus wanted to give it anyone, no matter what it meant they were because all Cybertronians had the the same rights as he did. That is why the Decepticons are constantly saying they just want to go home, they just want fuel, they just want to rebuild their world—okay, that sounds noble, but they also wanted to deny those very things to others they feel are unworthy. They wanted to rebuild Cybertron in their image, and this was the same fundamental goal the Decepticons had in the end of Transformers Prime and why Optimus chose to destroy the Omega Lock. That fundamental differences in morals is why Tyran Optimus opted to have the AllSpark destroyed and Cybertron critical damaged by way of aborted transportation to our solar system.

What was the deciding factor to turn bots like Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ratchet, or any of the Autobots away from the extreme violence inherent to their nature? The same factor that decides such with us; free will. We are also a violent species, and there is no need to give explains of our atrocities as a species when we can all think of at least three. But it also refers back to the definition of evil being in the choices we make, and now in how we are born. The idea that someone is inherently evil (born that way) is an ancient one, not so much challenged until recently as we learned more about mental health and also looked beyond our immediate tribe.

This is the whole ❛ nature vs nurture ❜ argument. Transformers Tyran clearly lines out that evil within their species is nurture, not nature, and that humans are the same. The Autobots choose to not be as the Decepticons. Optimus Prime was one of the leaders that ended the tribal wars that carved up Cybertron; they were a lot like the tribes of the British Isles.

Are some people inherently less prone to violence than others? Yes, absolutely, and we can see that in our own kind. Optimus Prime was one of those less prone to violence; he had an eloquence to explain his reason away from violence that made sense to others. Ironhide was one of the first to step away from the tribal wars and follow Optimus towards the unification of Cybertron and its many tribes.

One of the many points of the background apocrypha in Tyran that is missing from the movies is the dyadic reign of Megatron and Optimus. They were High Lord Protector and Prime; one led the military and Cybertronian might, while the other was leader of the civilian side of things. They were equals and balanced each other as two sides of a coin. They were also sparktwins; they came from the same spark but were separated, and were reunited when the tribes were united. Megatron was meant to be the more violent side to balance Optimus’ pacifistic side. Megatron’s job was to protect Cybertron, to enforce its laws and guard its safety. Why? So that Optimus could focus less on the will to survive and more on the will to grow as a civilization beyond the most basic of needs. Without Megatron, Optimus has suffered, being pushed further and further to the edge of their primal instincts, often times to fight the mech that was supposed to protect him and let him just worry about leading their people. It could be assessed that as time passed on without Megatron, Optimus’ more violent instincts were brought out more with time.

There is a lot more realism in the last two movies. To me it shows Michael Bay and the other creative minds behind the continuity have grown and matured as well. If we look at the difference between say TF2 & TF4 there is a lot less of the childish humor. Less sexualization, less crude humor, less easy fixes, and the characters age as well. We no longer have a teenage hero of the story, but a father of a grown daughter. I think it is because they realize their target audience is actually older than they original were aiming towards, and that is why the realism becomes all the stronger and all the darker. This new Tyran Trilogy they are making is my favorite so far. I love the background and the setup of the previous three, but this new story arch is just so refreshing and exciting. 

IDK, I don’t agree with any of the criticism I’ve consistently read about AOE or even TLK. They are long, but I like long movies. I’m not typically a movie person but a TV series person because I like lengthy; I also don’t like reading book series with less than three involved.

At the end of the day, the Tyran continuity is not going to be for everyone. It is for me because I love the emphasis on how alien they are, the inclusion of advanced technology and magic, and a brutality to balance out the previous continuities kept tame for younger audiences. AOE&TLK are my favorite from the continuity now because of all the reasons I’ve discussed.

That and the music is also amazing, just as with any of the Tyran movies!

Hope to hear from you again, BayverseAnon! I love discussing this continuity as I feel it is under-discussed with less negativity.

And if anyone wants to send worldbuilding anons to my Tyran Optimus, please do so! I love worldbuilding with any of you.