#to make themselves look ableist and biased

[aziraphaledefensesquad]

Backdates to just 24 h ago so as we can see, self proclaimed aziraphale/crowley shippers are STILL saying shit like this about aziraphale in gifs and photos aziraphale isn’t even part of (this one features Crowley and Nina)

Tell me again why @badaziraphaletakes and the #aziraphalesefensesquad is unnecessary? We’re such a happy loving fandom full of people who love Crowley and aziraphale, and defaulting to making the best assumptions about both their actions, not just Crowley’s, right?

[schizosupport]

Psychosis and schizo spec experiences are messy, and complicated, and often don't fit the societal narratives.

Many psychotic people have experiences that look like symtoms of other disorders, and strict categorization and separation between symptoms and disorders often don't take schizospec and psychotic people's experiences into account.

Schizophrenia, as an example, is commonly classified as a neurodevelopmental illness, and comes with a range of experiences of neurodivergency that do not neatly fit into any one box/neurotype, yet can be both very disabling and very profound. Similarly, most schizospec people are prone to dissociation, and there's an overlap between plural people and psychotic communities.

For this reason and others, I'm not a fan of separatism in the neurodivergent community, which too often targets psychotics, by focusing on proving that this or that group is not "crazy" like "those people".

Occasionally this takes on some insidious forms within the different communities, where "deviant experiences" of odd symtoms that don't align neatly with the narrative of the associated disorder, are dismissed as fake, problematic, harmful - occasionally as ableist in and of themselves. This narrative is actively harmful to psychotic people.

I'm not a fan of arguments that hinge on the notion that large numbers of people are lying or mistaken about their lived experience, and sincerely, as someone who has read an unreasonable amount of research throughout my studies, psychological science is interesting, and useful, but it is never exact, and it is full of biases, blind spots and bullshit science hidden behind statistics and overreaching conclusions. Pointing out bad research is not "anti science", it is in fact pro science. I am a scientist.

I consciously reject the notion that the diagnostic manuals are anything more than a semi competent attempt at making a comprehensive classification of symptoms. This doesn't mean that these constructs aren't hugely influential, or that they don't describe real symtoms, but it is important for Mad and Neurodivergent activism to move beyond this reductive understanding of mental diversity.

So while I'm happy to provide info on the definitions of various disorders etc, because it has real world applications, I am more interested in what we all have in common, and in finding solidarity across diagnostic borders.

In the end, my solidarity is with the weird kids. The quiet ones, the fucked up ones, the ones who don't feel like they belong or fit anywhere. With symtoms and experiences and diagnoses like an ill-fitting set of clothes.

I want to fight the stigma, but I don't want to fight it by assimilation. It is not our job to be "normal" or "easy to understand and categorize".

I want radical inclusiveness, and I want it now. I want the judgement of harmless odd behaviours to stop, I want the mental health communities to stop fighting each other and throwing each other under the bus in the name of being palatable.

We don't have to be palatable to be worthy. We don't have to fit into a neat little box to be taken seriously. We are all deserving of non-judgemental love and support.

Our goal should not be to be neurotypical, it should be to live happy and fulfilling lives within the circumstances we were dealt.

Us psychotic weirdos need better options than to be monsters, or to be invisible.

[hiiragi7]

Parts language is not dehumanizing, but the way people in the plural community treat parts language makes me feel dehumanized as a person who uses parts language.

I was reading that damn "Why the Theory of Structural Dissociation is Ableist" article written by Stronghold and released by the plural association (bluntly, I find it to be a very poorly written article - not in its strongly worded opinions, but because it spreads blatant misinformation regarding the success of final fusion based on a study the author did not understand, and I also find the piece to be incredibly ableist against systems who use parts language and seek final fusion).

Specifically, I want to talk about this paragraph from the article today, as I find it illustrates a lot of the problems that I have encountered in the plural community with regards to parts language:

Although I do not think personalities is the right term for us, nor is the word parts. It is derogatory, dehumanizing & it is taking away from our autonomy, roles and authenticity as individuals. And so I often wonder whether the alter integration they desire, equals just not being Plural anymore in the minds of the writers of Structural dissociation. If it does, it makes sense to diminish us to parts. And it also makes sense to claim “no one has to go away”, if they never believed we are separated in the first place. After all, it is the ‘experience of separation’, not actual separation, as they say, we did not split off. So was using the term ‘parts’ in 1987 progressive, or a step to further diminish, gaslight and silence us?

While I find questioning the intentions of the authors valuable and think it is important to explore whether any given medical intervention is truly aimed at individual wellbeing or whether its goal is normality and conforming to ableist ideas of what health looks like, I find it completely unnecessary to shit on parts language in order to do that.

This idea that I or any other system which uses parts language is "diminished" to parts carries the implication that parts are something less-than, undesirable, or have less value than systems which are not parts. This narrative is surprisingly anti-system for an organization which claims to be "empowering those with Dissociative Identity Disorder, OSDD and all other forms, labels and experiences of Plurality."

I am not diminished to parts; my parts are me, and I am a person. I cannot be diminished by my own personhood.

Additionally, the idea that parts language is "derogatory, dehumanizing, and takes away from our autonomy, roles, and authenticity as individuals" may imply that systems which use parts language are self-harming, that they are being derogatory and dehumanizing towards themselves, and stripping themselves of their own autonomy and individuality. This is an extremely negative and biased view of not only parts language but also those who use parts language as well. I use parts language for myself out of self-love, not hate.

Further, if we are to acknowledge plurality as a spectrum, then even if parts language really did mean system members were less individual from each other, how is that a bad thing? Median systems have long existed and have described their experiences as "different versions of me" or "different modes"; why is this fine, but saying you have parts as a system is not? Why is there such a focus on individuality and personhood to the point that it excludes those systems who do not experience their systemhood in that way? In what way is that inclusive?

Parts language should not be forced onto anyone, as it is important in general not to force a view of self onto someone that does not align with how they identify; yet, it feels as though people completely forget that rule when sentiments such as "your system members are 100% different people" or "calling your system members parts is derogatory and you are dehumanizing them" are pushed onto people as some sort of objective truth. That is just not how my system works; It would be just as wrong to say my system is not parts as it would be to say to a system who is not parts that they're actually parts.

Critiquing the language which medical professionals use to describe the experiences of their patients has its place, absolutely, however you must also have a level of respect for the people who relate to and use that language that all too often is lacking.

[topazadine]

Identifying bad writing advice

I have seen what seems to be a backlash against the genre of writing advice in recent days. By that, I mean I saw like two posts about it within a few days of one another. That, to me, is an epidemic! We need a global symposium discussing the peoples' distrust of writing advice.

Not really, but one does need to practice caution when reading anything that tries to tell you to do something. That includes me, and even this post that you're reading.

There are tons of excellent guides out there helping to refine your unique voice rather than change it. BUT you should treat everything you read with some caution and ask if it resonates with you.

With that said, let's take a look at some warning signs that you might be getting bad advice.

Inexperienced source

You need to understand writing on a deep level if you're going to act as an authority on it. Someone who has just started writing can share their experience, but they shouldn't position themselves as an expert by any means.

Also, writing takes years to learn. Literally years. Casually writing for two years or so is not going to teach you everything you need to know so that you can share that with others.

I would also say that while you do not need formal training to be a writer, you should have some formal training to teach writing or give advice. As I'll discuss more later on, being able to do something well is very different than being able to explain how to do it.

If someone doesn't provide their credentials and their suggestions seem a little off, then they may not have the experience necessary to help you. I've shared my own credentials in several other posts so I won't belabor them, but I have written over two million words of creative writing, hold a BA and an MA, and have 15+ years of practice. I also tutored writing students for about five years.

Unengaging writing

This is pretty self-explanatory. If the advice-giver's writing is boring, or uninteresting, or hard to follow, they probably need to spend more time developing their own craft before they try to teach anyone else.

I include poor formatting in this as well. If someone is doing wacky things with their formatting that make it hard to read their guide, like using extra teeny tiny small font or enormous fonts, they are doing this more to show off how smart they are than helping you.

The "extra small super cute fonts" thing is also kind of ableist because low vision people are going to have to rachet their magnification up to 10000 to see anything. This suggests that the writer is not thinking about their audience.

Universalizing everything

The problem with advice about such a diverse craft is that it is almost impossible to target every potential need. Similarly, every advice-giver is coming from their own perspective and may not be able to see beyond their own experiences, biases, and so on.

If someone says "all good writers do this" or "always avoid this," they are likely not going to help you much.

With any advice, you should take what resonates and leave the rest. Sometimes, what resonates is uncomfortable, but you know deep down in your heart that it's true. That's common, especially if you have some bad habits holding you back but you're unwilling to fix them.

I try to always include a caveat that I am only coming from my own perspective and what I say may not apply to you. If someone writes an advice guide and tries to say that their way is the only good way to do something, or that anyone who doesn't follow their advice is a "bad writer," then they aren't thinking beyond their own nose.

Excessive prescriptivism

There are very few real rules in writing. In fact, I have distilled them down to only two that apply to everyone.

Writing needs to communicate something to someone.

Writing needs to be written so that others can easily understand (and enjoy) that message.

These two adages cover damn near everything about the craft, including the importance of grammar, spelling, syntax, and so on. For creative writing, they also consider the importance of coherent plots, understandable characters, good dialogue, avoiding infodumping, and so on.

Going further, these two rules explain that your writing should have themes and symbols meant to provide a deeper meaning without throwing it right in the reader's face, because readers don't like being lectured.

Note that these rules do not tell you how to create your characters, or how to format your writing, or anything like that. Because those things are all very context-specific, and what I suggest may not alway apply.

It's why older writers grit their teeth at younger writers bashing them over the head with "show don't tell" because there is nuance here. And you get to that nuance by writing a lot. Which is why beginner writers haven't found that nuance yet. And which is why beginner writers should not be giving advice.

Fails to explain the reasoning

Doing something and teaching something, as I said above, are very different things. Someone can be an amazing writer, but when they try to explain themselves, they fall flat. Similarly, you can be an avid reader but an atrocious beta reader because you have no idea how to identify problems and suggest solutions.

Having spent years learning craft and helping others improve, I can identify why something works or doesn't, and I can explain this in a way that makes sense. For example, my spicy mundanity post doesn't just say "mechanical descriptions are boring."

The post explains why those descriptions are unengaging, then shows examples of how to fix it, and then explains why those passages are better.

Similarly, my post on how not to write a character doesn't just say "avoid this." It explains why certain tropes are annoying and gives advice on how to fix those things.

I often link my advice back to key concepts, including cognitive load and audience, in order to demonstrate that at its heart, writing is deceptively simple: it's about communicating something to someone in an entertaining way. But there are millions of ways to do this successfully, and everyone needs to find their own path to success.

If someone just says "do this" without explaining why this is a better option, they're not telling you anything. They are just giving their opinion about what makes good writing without helping you improve.

Discouraging or elitist

Anyone who makes you feel like shit and like you can't possibly ever be a good writer ... is an asshole. Anyone who berates you for mistakes you make while learning is trying to gatekeep one of the world's oldest art forms - storytelling - for no reason other than to feel better about themselves.

You do not need an English degree or Creative Writing degree or any degree to be a good writer. You don't need formal training; (good) free advice you find on the internet, when applied systematically, can do wonders for you.

All you really need to be a good writer is time, practice, and patience. Just like anyone can pick up an instrument and become proficient if they do it over and over again, so can anyone become a great writer if they persevere.

Many people unfortunately fall into this trap of thinking that writers are some special breed of human who were innately gifted by the gods themselves. Sure, you can have an inclination toward writing, just like you can have an inclination toward anything else. But you can also brute force that talent through hard work.

Writers are not like athletes, where genetics and physical fitness and early life development all play a role in whether you can get to the Olympics. Some people just suck at sports and it's unlikely they will ever improve. I am one of those people. Rest assured I understand.

Thankfully, though, writing is much more forgiving and welcoming than that. (Though not all writers are very forgiving and welcoming.)

It may take you longer than someone "naturally gifted," and you may struggle more, but anyone can become a good writer with practice.

Those who tell you otherwise, or who tear down your work and mock you, or who insist that you need XYZ degree or skill or experience or whatever, are wrong.

Please don't listen to them. Please don't let them ruin your joy.

If you'd like to read more of my work, consider buying my book!

9 Years Yearning is a gay coming-of-age romance set in a fantasy world. It follows Uileac Korviridi, a young soldier training at the War Academy. His primary motivations are honoring the memory of his late parents, protecting his little sister Cerie, and becoming a top-notch soldier.

However, there's a problem: Orrinir Relickim, a rough and tough fellow pupil who just can't seem to leave Uileac alone.

The book features poetry, descriptions of a beautiful country inspired by Mongolia, and a whole lot of tsundere vibes.

You can also check it out on Goodreads for a list of expanded distribution.

Be sure to preorder Pride Before a Fall, arriving January 1, 2025!

If you do purchase my book, don't forget to leave a review!

Reviews are vital for visibility on Amazon and help to support indie authors like me. Whenever you love a book, be sure to let the author know! It's much appreciated.

I've also created a masterlist of writing resources that you can peruse at your leisure, all for free.

Enjoy!

[altozeta]

you people are so ridiculous😭 hu is DELUSIONAL and should shut the fuck up for erm... being stubborn and overprotective. but ace who is also stubborn, and a billion times more confrontational and abrasive than hu, is just a pwecious baby boy who needs to be protected🥺. when nico calls a murderer heartless they r being ableist. unlike calling people delusional for being stubborn, which is fine and not ableist because hu suffers from female hysteria obv. yea levi killed people and doesnt feel a speck of remorse but🥺 he also has aspd maybe🥺 so stop being mean to him? have u considered that people w personality disorders are inherently murderous and simply cant control themselves so calling them heartless or bad people for being murderers is ableist i am very smart. that bitch hu should make me a sandwich

male characters can be as flawed as they like, even when their entire personality hinges on them being volatile, explosive and mean people can look past that, when theyre serial murderers people can look past that, #yass slay arturo hold your classmate at knifepoint #yass david try to get your entire class killed. but god forbid a woman acts irrationally. hu can never be anything but gentle and motherly, can not be biased, is not allowed flaws however innocuous they are in the grand scheme of things. im not against liking flawed characters, i love flawed characters, have favorites who have done far worse than ace or levi. its so strange that you people will agree with this until its a woman, women can only be flawed in very specific ways otherwise they are 'annoying', and annoying is the worst thing a woman can be. but if hu was a man i know you guys would be crying and sobbing abt hu x nico oh hu is so protective how valiant oh hu loves nico so much. i understand why people hate hu and find her annoying. its the same reason people hate any female character who works against the protagonist but is not a villain. it's just misogyny.

[sophieinwonderland]

Imitated DID is essentially people parroting what they believe DID to be. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are faking, but that they are misinformed, likely experience a high degree of suggestibility and also likely are prone to fantasy and cognitive distortions. DID is not what the media portrays. If the dissociative symptoms are not causing a disruption to living, then it is not a dissociative disorder. Thinking you have alters is not a dissociative disorder.

Seeing yourself as being composed of many parts is fine and normal. People are not one-toned but multidimensional beings. Every person is a complex person. Everyone is free to choose how they wish to view and identify with themselves. Fitting the criteria for a dissociative disorder, however, is not a choice a person can make.

The issue with so-called Imitated DID is that it often DOES meet the diagnostic criteria.

I fully agree that simply being plural is not a disorder. Every disorder has a requirement of clinically significant distress or impairment and it's super important that this remains and is respected.

If you look at many of the cases of Imitated DID though, they seem like they do likely cause some level of distress or impairment and would need treatment, regardless of if the patient is ashamed of their alters or not.

Half of the paper that started the Imitated DID myth was dedicated to a Borderline/ASPD group.

And as I discussed before, they seemed biased against many of these patients. Their first case study, they seemed to doubt simply because she has a history of prostitution and an older boyfriend. And the above implies that drug and alcohol use somehow makes people more likely to be experiencing imitated DID.

There's also a level of ableism at play, suggesting people with these personality disorders are faking their DID symptoms because of these personality disorders.

Remember too that this is the title of that paper:

It is not subtle that the goal of inventing Imitated DID was creating a legal defense for doctors who are sued by patients for alleged misdiagnosis.

And that they're trying to paint the patients who sued their doctors as part of this "hard to detect" group made up of liars, druggies, and prostitutes who can't be trusted.

The underlying point is clearly that these patients can't be trusted in court.

By publishing this, any expert witness could cite this in court when a doctor is sued for malpractice by a patient with DID.

That's the real goal. That's the reason this whole theory was invented.

The concept of Imitated DID was malicious and ableist from the start!

[fromtheseventhhell]

one thing that drives me crazy is when sansa stans say that arya and dany aren’t relatable to “real women” but sansa is. like it really seems like they’re saying that you’re only a real woman if you find sansa’s strict adherence to societal roles relatable. idk like i’m an autistic woman and i felt completely alienated by sansa, and related intensely to arya and dany. like i could never perform society accepted “traditional femininity” in the way sansa does, and i was often bullied for it just like arya, so of course i related more to arya than sansa. like sansa stans are literally saying that if you don’t fit into societies extremely rigid white cishet classist ableist definition of what a woman should be you aren’t a “real woman”. idk like sorry i can’t relate to women like sansa who bully other women for not being “feminine” enough lmao

All of this. That's one of the things I hate the most from Stansas. The obsessive need to make Sansa out to be the "true" or "right" example of female representation. Arya and Dany are incredibly relatable to a lot of people, myself included. I'm not saying everyone has to relate to them, but what happens all too often is that they end up getting reduced to a flat, one-dimensional character so that Sansa ends up looking better. If you have to misinterpret a character to make a point then you know there's a problem.

For some reason we're all expected to relate to Sansa, and only her, and find her more impressive because she uses "traditionally feminine" skills. I can definitely relate to your experiences; some of us are just inherently outside of social standards and have faced a hard time because of it. Sansa being traditionally feminine isn't even necessarily the issue for me, I just dislike how she treats those outside of societal norms. Sansa is very much a product of her society and as such reflects it's biases. It's really such a "fandom" argument too. Like you said, fandom has a very specific and narrow idea of what it means to be feminine. They call themselves feminists while spouting patriarchal standards for what is and isn't feminine. The people who use that kind of rhetoric could care less about female characters as a whole, they just want to prop up their fave.

It's annoying that this incredibly misogynistic standard has become such a normal topic of conversation.

[archivalofsins]

Gunsli what are you talking about this time-

Would you believe it if I said it's the use of the word "New". Because it is. Multiple people have pointed to the use of the words,

New and newly born

In Double to go see this is why there have to be more alters because Dissociative Identity Disorder forms in childhood and John is admitting that his existence is new. Not just in comments on my post but privately to me as well. This isn't a dig at that reasoning because I see how people could conclude that when they take those words at face value.

However, it is funny that these words are being taken at face value here but weren't in other instances. Personally, to me this just seems like another obtuse tactic to explain why there must be more alters and it's not just two. However, I've been assuming the worst a lot lately because of my current disposition.

So, I thought I should try to engage with this on some level of good faith. Then after doing so concluded,

"Yeah, it's still objectively a weird thing to assert and seems to mostly be rooted in the fact that people don't want there to be only two in this instance. Plus, I personally doubt if Double or Neoplasm had hard confirmed there were three alters anyone would be highlighting the line to say there were more than that."

Okay, well we can't speak on that because neither the song or voice drama hard confirmed or even alluded to the idea there were more than two alters outside of the use of variations of the word new. We can't speak on that because that didn't happen.

Yeah, I know that I was there but a good deal of people are still behaving as though either of those things did do that or will do it later.

So, I can only assume at this point the issue isn't the fact that Milgram the franchise or story is ableist, but it has garnered an ableist fan base that is projecting their own biases onto the media and blaming it for those existing in the first place. Instead of properly reflecting on themselves because that would take a level of maturity severely lacking in this space.

Something that could explain why Yamanaka keeps saying that he's really excited to have people grow older and look back on their experiences with the franchise and the prisoners' cases. In a very way. While continually poking fun at Es' immaturity within the narrative through multiple characters. What do I know though it's probably not that.

Okay, well what makes it unreasonable or come off like that? Huh? Since you're so smart.

Oh, why thank you let me explain.

Firstly,

As I said this term is used in songs before this one just as the color green is.

Harrow

"Newly born, “HARROW HARROW”. It’s ok to dislike, right? Losing it, losing it, What should I hope for."

So, it's curious to us personally why the use of the word "new" is being highlighted here to support the idea of their being more alters but not in the case above. It just makes it apparent that maybe people aren't positing this idea with the best of intentions but simply to cling onto how they wish the story to go. Which is anyway other than being about an individual with dissociative identity disorder and only two alters. Really interesting...

Kotoko literally uses this exact wording to explain the formation of a new problem or idea. The beginnings of her idea of Justice and hatred of criminals. In the same vein the term could be being used again here to describe a new problem or change of circumstances that has led to an exacerbation of a long-term undiagnosed disorder.

Unless everyone wants to apply the logic, they're using in Mikoto's case to undermine two alter representation here as well and say that Kotoko has a different personality that was born over the course of Harrow that immediately wanted to kill so they did.

Secondly,

How is it ableist?

Well, here's the base definition of ableism,

Of course, what one considers ableism one can vary from person to person.

I personally consider it anything that discriminates against an individual with a disability whether that discrimination is in their favor or not. As both can come from a place of belittlement and superiority.

I.E

"Oh, they didn't know better. You know they have x so things like that are hard for them to understand. As someone who doesn't have those sorts of issues you should be more understanding. Be the bigger person."

"Don't you know they have x- You shouldn't talk to them. They might go off at any time."

Both of these statements are ableist in my opionion because they both belittle or demonize someone based on them having a disability. There are times when the first one may be applicable. However, it is annoying for some individuals with disabilities to have themselves be treated like a child even after they are long past the age of adulthood. There's a good example of this concept in the game Pocket Mirror with the character Harpae.

One may seem helpful and even lenient, but it can be annoying and patronizing to continually assume just because someone has a disability, they are incapable of taking care of themselves or doing wrong. Pocket Mirror immediately comes to mind because it was the first game to teach me that this behavior of over helping just because someone has a disability can also be viewed as dehumanizing and ableist.

Okay well that's grand for you what does it have to do with this instance though?

Well, personally the ableism with this framing to me is that it frames having dissociative identity disorder as this thing where alters can just be born sporadically and immediately go on murder sprees. You know the ableist trope that everyone was bitching about being the case trial one. Just to be using it now to support the idea of there being more than two alters.

It kind of highlights that people don't have an issue with ableism when it directly supports the point they want to make.

Further displaying how performative and disingenuous the audience's interest in these concepts can be.

All to again undermine the idea that Mikoto is,

"I don’t remember a thing, it couldn’t be helped, I’m DOUBLE (MeMe) I was having such a hard time, I was trying so hard."

Along with the very existence of individuals that have dissociative identity disorder that presents with only this number of alters. When I referred to the behavior as copium it was to make light of this situation and move on. Because it was clear to me that people within this space aren't at a point in their lives where they can actively reflect on how they interact with the topics Milgram discusses.

That those behaving in this way aren't doing it based on any reasonable grounds but just trying to engage with the media in a way that they find more interesting to them personally. How that comes off to others or what it says about them is just what it says about them. However, there's no discussion to be had here. There's nothing to really debate about. Will nothing that ultimately sticks to discussing the material as it was presented instead of going into what the majority fan response says about the audience.

Which doesn't really make it that fun to interrogate in my case. I'm here to interrogate Milgram the series not real people's objectively harmful behavior. I don't go looking for 3koto theories for this reason. I don't go on people's posts about it saying well this is why I believe it's not that. Because at the end of the day I'm not hung up on what others want to believe is going on.

I'm not going to change my mind on this simply because of what other people think would be narratively pleasing.

Because that's completely subjective. I don't see this being the case and it would not be narratively pleasing to me. There's no evidence for it and I believe presenting the idea that dissociative identity disorder can only present in one way is harmful. I could disprove it a million times. I could go point by point frame by frame color by color explaining why this behavior is just ridiculous.

However, I do have a life and I want to spend it discussing things the way I like to discuss them. Regardless of how people feel about it. Because when someone else is pissing in a cup right in front of me and tries to sell it to me as lemonade I simply go,

"Okay, that's certainly a thing you did there. Now drink it. You like what you did there so much, right? Drink it."

It's really that simple.

[young-royals-confessions]

sorry for the long confession but i’m passionate about this and i think it’s important to talk about:

there is absolute nothing ableist about disliking or even hating sara. hating a character who happens to be neurodivergent is NOT the same as hating a character because they are neurodivergent.

yes, there are people who have projected their prejudices onto sara since season 1 because she is a neurodivergent female character. HOWEVER, there are also many many people who hate/dislike her because her actions are horrid.

and yes, autism and adhd affect personality and a person’s perceptions of the world (social cues and behavior, etc.) but they are not excuses. sara fucked up. she fell in love with a man who uploaded pornography of her 16 year old brother and then proceeded to warn said man of her brother going to the police to get justice. she fucking sucks (in my personal opinion).

she did bad things. it is not ableist to say that and dislike her for that. we can all acknowledge that she is neurodivergent and understand the basis for her actions and thought processes, but that doesn’t mean people are required to like her or turn a blind eye to her actions. autism and adhd are not get out of jail free cards for super shitty behavior.

and as someone who is autistic, i can understand people being upset that the only known neurodivergent character in the main cast is a very dislikeable person. i understand the criticisms that this may continue and further some people’s negative perception of neurodivergence. AND i can understand and even kind of relate to the protectiveness some of us may have over her. before season 2, i felt the same way. i defended her and held hope that that one scene at the end of season 1 was a fluke lol. but then season 2 happened and i just couldn’t continue defending her because i was basing it entirely on my own protectiveness of her character. she was representation for me and i hated that i was losing my ability to see myself in her.

and i think we should continue having this kind of conversation for more positive representation in not only queer media but all kinds of media for nd characters. this is important and it saddens me that i don’t feel a connection to sara anymore. but i also want to call to attention that excusing sara’s behavior with her neurodivergent diagnoses also doesn’t reflect good on neurodivergence in general. saying that her actions are the direct result of her autism/adhd and therefore cannot be criticized simply isn’t the best defense at all cause that can easily be turned into more hate on us by neurotypicals.

at the end of the day, sara is an understandably complex character with many layers. she is neurodivergent and for some viewers that may result in them sympathizing and relating to her more. while others may understand and appreciate those nuances but still find themselves heavily disliking her. whereas other viewers may project their biases on her and be hateful for the very fact that she is autistic and has adhd (these are the ableists). it is possible and even valid to critique nd characters as long as you remain conscious of the language you use and your own reasoning for disliking them. i often times look inward at myself to make sure that my dislike for sara isn’t coming from internalized ableism because i never want to contribute to the hatred of nd people in this world by projecting onto her. it’s healthy to do that so you avoid becoming part of the problem. but it’s not healthy to label every critique of her as ableism because then you’re misusing such an important identifier.

in summary, hold yourself responsible for the way you think about characters like sara. whether you’re expressing your dislike for them OR defending them, listen to the words you’re saying and look inward to see what it really is you’re trying to say (whether good or bad)

.

[jewish-microwave-laser]

did horseshoe theory is damaged to young lives?

i'm understanding this as asking "is horseshoe theory damaging to young leftists"—let me know if that wasn't your intention and i'll answer again :)

so i have a lot of complicated feelings about horseshoe theory, but i'll try to be as brief as possible:

horseshoe theory is right, but not for the reasons a lot of people think. i think the further away from the mainstream you feel you are, the more superior you might end up feeling like you are. so you put yourself i this situation where you feel smarter than everyone around you, and suddenly you stop being nearly so self-examining, and you end up not confronting a lot of harmful biases you still carry. so to use ableism as an example, leftists will often end up assuming that since they're leftists, they're superior to non-leftists, and don't need to really be concerned about possibly echoing ableist talking points. oftentimes, the intensity and stuck-in-one's-own-way-ness of The Far Left™ and The Far Right™ are similar, even when other (very substantial things) are different

so, the harm of the theory comes into play when we look at how overly simplistic it is. "go so far left you end up on the far right" is fucking bullshit, and the idea is that since that is bullshit we can throw out the rest of it too. (i thought the same until very. very recently.) but if we throw that out, then we don't have to worry about possibly starting to echo the far right, bc if the theory is bs then we don't have to give it any more thought. and then we have leftists making awful, ableist jokes, and calling disabled people ableist things when they try to talk to them about it (yes i am talking about a specific circumstance), and laughing at the idea that they could ever possibly be ableist, because we all know horseshoe theory is a joke, you're being dramatic

a final addendum to this response is that this is why i think it is important we specify when we're talking about left wing vs right wing bigotry. they take on completely different aesthetics, are used in different settings, and most importantly consider themselves to exist in completely different ideological frameworks. this is why i make sure to specify when i'm talking about them

[raymend]

yes im making this post again because ive discovered again that 90% of my self doubt is absolutely incongruent to my real actual views on the world. what i mean is that...

for example i dont think anyone should be measured by their productivity or ability to work long hours that's insane. except for when its me? that's stupid!!

i can only pick it apart by being like Okay but this is 1. capitalist and 2. inherently ableist .

That^^ is the one way ive figured out how to continually question and work on internalized shit because it stops being about You as an individual but rather how that mindset can affect people without realising it. and i feel like this is especially important 4 ppl unlearning internalized homophobia n transphobia stuff (AND body image etc) where your internalized (now externalized) issues can absolutely trigger other people..

longer example under the cut i kept going sorry. tw transphobia

i think back to that tumblr funnyman w the crazy transmed rant (cant find it. dont really want to i remember it being pretty upsetting lol) about how he was mad that people want to see trans(masc) characters because he himself hates himself for being trans a lot & wish he was born a cis guy.. because when he was called out for it he said it was just a vent post? and even if the original posts werent full of veryyy misgendering language it would still be a weird post to make to an audience of impressionable trans kids, that being trans is some kind of mistake or problem .. it feels very irresponsible to say that, knowing the self hatred that can come along w the simple act of existing as trans and feeling different to others but then seeing someone u look up to talking about it like that..

i think especially now when state governments are doing so much homophobic and transphobic shit its more important than ever to be there for the younger members of the community and to work on your own internal biases so that you don't transfer them to the next generation. being trans doesn't have to suck that bad: it's not you that's the problem it's our transphobic society n government, and i think that's really necessary to hammer in.

i think trans doomerism is like so intensely vile because of the way that it thrives off of attacking other people (fat, gnc, poc, etc) for making it embarrassing and weird to be trans (Unlike Us Normal People Who Hate Ourselves) when its not their fuckin fault???? Hello i fucking hate optics nerds can you shut the fuck up and have empathy . Who do you think your enemy is . some neopronoun using mfs or the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !!!!!!!

and i used being trans as an example because it's the easiest to illustrate but my overarching point here is the fiona and shrek thing . YOUR negative thoughts, seemingly about just yourself, when externalized, OTHERS will extend that logic to themselves even when you don't intend it, and that's something that can be easily contributed to by societal issues & the isolation u can feel by not fitting the cishet white abled mold

[re-strictedaccess]

The Neverending History of Discrimination

Hi! It's Teddie - let's talk discrimination.

I recently had the opportunity to read Mar Hicks’ “A Feature, Not a Bug” where Hicks discussed the explicitly ingrained role of gender discrimination and privilege in Silicon Valley and technology as a whole. One particular quote stuck out to me:

"[…] gender discrimination is baked in to the structures of high tech economies themselves, a critical part of their focus on concentrating power in the hands of those who already traditionally wield it. Gender discrimination is not a bug—it’s a feature."

What interested me the most was the way that Hicks’ article describes exactly how gender, sexuality, racial, ethnic, and other discrimination was incorporated into the evolution of modern technology, so that not only does it enforce pre-existing biases and prejudices against marginalized identities, but it also hides it behind a relatable valuation of talent. This connected deeply to a philosophical author George Yancy, who introduced the white gaze into a discussion of embodiment for racialized bodies. In his essay, “Confiscated Bodies,” Yancy literally coins the term white gaze to represent the way that in his, and quoted, experience, white people look and otherwise physically interact with “black bodies”. Interestingly, Yancy discusses the way that black bodies are singled out; objectified, sexualized, “problematized” – just for existing against a backdrop of white “normalcy”. By establishing a social norm of whiteness (this can be similarly extended to ability, beauty, gender, sexuality, and other races), the world, we, have conditioned the “abnormal” (those deviating from our previously established norms) to be something to be seen, confiscated, even owned. Then, even in situations where no one is being explicitly racist (/sexist/ableist/etc – you get it), these ingrained concepts of normalcy are still portrayed and act discriminatorily against these marginalized groups. This is exactly what Hicks is discussing, just on a larger scale; even if this scenario wasn’t intentional, it still allows these misguided norms to persist and exist despite decades of protest.

What’s more, Hicks perfectly describes another behaviour that Yancy writes about in his text: where this “metanarrative structure of whiteness” a large portion of its power is the fact that each time the white gaze acts, regardless of how intense the act might be, it continually suggests that racism (among all discrimination) is something that is historical, something natural, something not man-made. But this is false – racism is not a historical fact, it majorly came into play when colonizers stole human beings from their homes and treated them like garbage.

All those arguments that say we’re naturally trained to recognize abnormalities, that ancient civilizations were also racist, that it takes a long time to unlearn racism, are just not true. Sure, we as humans have exceptional pattern recognition, and can isolate things that don’t fit that pattern – but nowhere in that psychology does there exist a natural tendency to point out these differences and shame or discriminate against them. And unfortunately, the sentimentality that some people have for these “historical” acts of discrimination are not only unfounded, but just completely not an excuse…? Just because several generations were raised believing that the colour of your skin determines your worth, that does not mean you have any right to believe that same thing. Be better than them. (Like honestly, they also believed the sun revolved around the earth. But also, people still believe the earth is flat. So do with that what you will.)

(LMAO)

As Hicks claims, there’s not really any way we can just add more women to the field of technology, or idolize the women that make it far (because this only engenders more discriminatory behaviour by recognizing the outliers, or special cases of success). Unfortunately, we can’t demand these racist, ableist, sexist, “misguided but destructive” technologies and social constructs to collapse, as it would be impossible to undo everything that has already happened and start at the very beginning. But what we can do is see these hidden forms of misogyny, racism, discrimination, and from them learn how we can better understand one another as human beings and stop being “trapped by its negative effects”.  

[shitty-adblr]

Hello fellow enraged Tumblfolk!

This is a sideblog where I verbally defecate on the most laughably awful, offensive, bizarrely targeted, vague, clickbaity, low effort, hideous, and otherwise shitty ads on Tumblr.

As the transphobic and ableist pissbaby coward CEO drives Tumblr into the ground, the advertisers that are being platformed here are getting weirder, more unhinged, and more comically misplaced. I hate it, but I feel compelled to mock it.

The "inspiration" for this blog was an ad for a WordPress blog written by an incredibly ableist quack claiming to "heal spiritual autism." That's part of a trend of ads which are some combination of anti-science, right-wing, evangelical christian, or the worst kind of appropriative new-age quasi-religious fuckery. In other words, Tumblr is actively promoting misinformation, dangerous pseudo-science, ableism, hatred, and cult-adjacent bullshit. Because of course it is.

*heavy sigh*

There are vulnerable people on this site and many of these ads are run by predatory people and organizations who are looking to fleece, defraud and indoctrinate. Those ads are the worst of the worst, and I want to dunk on them like an enraged English teacher - bleeding red pen all over a half-assed attempt at cleverness.

There are also a lot of people without a lot of resources and yet tons of ads promoting *ridiculously* expensive and useless products and services that I seriously doubt anyone on this site would ever buy, especially not when shiilled through the poorly designed and written ads on here that just seem so laughably out of place. They're still predatory and some seem downright fraudulent, but they are at least more amusing.

There are ads that are hilariously terrible in that they don't even make it clear what they are trying to sell. These are just plain hilarious because why bother paying to run an ad and not even get someone to write decent copy? Is it just farming confused clicks from people asking themselves "what the hell is the point of this?"

And finally, and most rare, there are ads that are okay, or even (shockingly) good. They advertise things people might need, or even things that are socially positive and that fit Tumblr's demographic. They are like Unicorns though. I won't be posting those for now because Matt and his sycophants will probably take any praise as proof that they're not horrible bigots doing a massive disservice to the userbase. Fuck that - I'm going no quarter.

Grades will be on the A, B, C, D, F scale, with + and - as appropriate, and with edits, critiques and commentary. One caveat: You're not going to see any A's or B's until things change here. This is a no positivity zone. The highest praise here is "C+ - It's fine, I guess"

Grading is entirely subjective and fully informed by my very conscious biases. These biases include but are not limited to:

- I hate advertising and marketing on general principle and see it as inherently manipulative and cynical. It's also full of bigotry and is a field populated by some of the most cruel and exploitative people on the planet.

- Every fucking platform being ad-filled garbage is one of the main reasons that all techbros should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

- I also hate buzzwords, trends, and am appalled by the enshittification of the Internet.

- Stupid rich assholes should all take short trips to the bottom of the Atlantic in imploded submarines.

- AI content generation is ruining two generations of a free and open web crafted by humans and is a self-defeating bubble waiting to explode.

- All authority is harmful. The worst abusers in the world insist on being called "Doctor", "Father", "Pastor", "Officer" and especially "CEO". Telegraphing your power is a warning of the harm you can inflict.

Extra points off for ads for WordPress blogs because fuck Automattic. Extra points off for shilling religious bullshit.

[grrrlsoverdramas]

Something that I’m thinking about this ep is how people read this show and the characters differently because its main character has autism.  And it makes sense, since that is an attribute that most kdrama characters don’t have, but it’s interesting because this show ALSO falls solidly within the bounds of the “man tries hard to be good at his job” [for the most part idk, I don’t watch these because I don’t care about men who are proud of themselves or even just “good” at their “jobs” (supposedly), but I think there are a lot of lawyers and sometimes women also get to try to be good at their jobs and men just gotta go and disappoint them, you know? also it’s all Namgoong Min stars in anymore.] AND the “slice of work” [sometimes we just need a show where people (mostly women) crush it at work and realize their dreams after failing over and over again, mentor/mentee relationships, cool looking offices, rom-com professions, idealistic main characters, preachy plots] trope sets here. So ultimately what we’re dealing with here is a show that is trafficking in the same tried and true formulas we’re used to from these genres.

And so it’s interesting how changing one element (the main character’s central conflict not being poverty or a traumatic event in their past) adds complexity to the way we read things, but also narrows the lens through which we interpret actions.  Minwoo was set up early as a common workplace kdrama archetype, The Kiss-Ass Who Doesn’t Care About Ethics and Just Wants to Get Ahead.  These characters are whiny, entitled babies who think they’re the only people who’ve ever struggled.  They think they’re in a gritty story where they’re the antihero but they don’t know they’ve land plop in the middle of story where We All Learn Something from the Hero’s Tenacity. There are a number of ways this character can go.  I always root for the Inspiring Character Growth direction (especially in this case since Geurami likes him), but he might also become a Turncoat to add a little spice to the narrative! And because this show is about Woo Young Woo and in part about how she has autism, that is going to be tied to this character’s actions as someone who is built to be in conflict with her.

So it makes sense that there were so many posts this ep about how Minwoo is ableist and We Don’t Like Him. But I was interested in how many of these posts said Just That.  Because the truth is, everyone at her office is ableist. Especially Myungseok and Sooyeon.  And we know that! But it doesn’t make us write their characters off.  They live in an ableist society. They’re flawed.  Minwoo is just more flawed.  Because it isn’t just ableist, he’s also a jerk.  The thing that makes what Minwoo said on the phone so much worse is that WE know that HE knows what he’s saying is bullshit. 

By the end of last episode MInwoo had to acknowledge that Woo Young Woo is a good lawyer.  So he basically started giving himself permission to play dirty. What he said on the phone was so much worse because he knows (based on his own biases previously) how easy it is to use someone else’s ableism to write Youngwoo off. I think that’s also why Junho didn’t say anything, because he knows that Minwoo KNOWS what he’s doing. Minwoo had make sure she couldn’t prepare, not tell her about a meeting, etc etc, to “win” against her and he knows that.

What I did actually appreciate however, was Minwoo telling Youngwoo at the start of the episode that he was sabotaging her on purpose.  Mostly I appreciate this because it would have simply sucked as a viewer watch him undermine her constantly and have to wait for her to catch up.  He wanted to win, but he’s enough of an asshole to want her to know that he wants her to lose. There is respect there but not in a good way. 

Sooyeon gets embarrassed by things Youngwoo does, gets annoyed by her and condescends to her. But always think about that first scene in Myungseok’s office where Youngwoo is introducing herself and is about to start on her palindrome thing and Sooyeon gives her a little shake to tell her not to.  Sooyeon knows that Youngwoo is a good lawyer who always got first place at school, she could pretend not to know Youngwoo or not care whether or not Youngwoo makes a good impression, but she helps her out. It was good writing to contrast Youngwoo liking her to disliking Minwoo in an episode that focuses on how Youngwoo struggles to remember that people lie/trick and deal with it (something we HAVE seen already in previous eps, though). 

I think it also touches on some stereotypes connected to autism. The way Youngwoo says autistic people mostly live in a world with “just me” and other people think of things in relation to “Me and you.” For Sooyeon and Minwoo, this is true x100. Both are SUPER obsessed with what other people think/do/think of them. That leads to Sooyeon’s frustration that Youngwoo isn’t obsessed with that, and her feeling that other people would/should also be frustrated by that, but ultimately Sooyeon is empathetic and is still nice to Youngwoo.  And while what Youngwoo said about “just me” might sound like this idea that autistic people aren’t empathetic, I think this episode actually reveals that these are two separate things.  Youngwoo might struggle to consider what other people are thinking, or to remember it could be vastly different from her point of view.  Minwoo struggles to CARE how other people think/feel, even though he seems pretty good at taking it into consideration. If anyone on this show needs to learn empathy, it’s Minwoo.

Basically there’s a scale from Empath to Dalek.  On the empath side is Junho and Minwoo is a Dalek.  Youngwoo etc are somewhere in between.

[mutually-assured-resurrection]

content note/warning: ableist nonsense about autistic readings of Will Graham, mentions of bigotry against ASPD and NPD folks

I remember seeing a post or an opinion piece months ago that was like "Will Graham isn't autistic because as the series goes on he makes eye contact with people and is less awkward, he's actually just evil and was pretending to be autistic at the start because he's a master manipulator" and I was so??? Like, tell me you don't hang out with autistic people without telling me you don't hang out with autistic people, ffs. Anyway, I just remembered it so here are some rambling thoughts that I'm trying to phrase as best I can

Eye contact depends on the person, their energy/ability to mask that day, their level of stimulation, their closeness with the other person. Just because soneone makes eye contact doesn't mean they're not autistic

Will was acting so much with Jack in later seasons, that mask was on tight, and then with Hannibal... part of it was acting and part of it was very much Will just being familiar and comfortable around Hannibal, despite his purported loyalty to Jack (and better sense)

When he lived with Molly he had his dogs, nature, alone time to recharge, and a partner who if not fully understanding about the Hannibal thing was perceptive enough not to push issues. Autistic people can behave more in line with neurotypical expectations when they're given time to collect themselves and enjoy their passions (this also doesn't make someone Not Autistic and expressions of autistic joy are so important! It's not just a reaction to negative stimuli, but for people who've trained themselves or been trained to mask as default that's often the only way their traits are expressed)

Being autistic and being a bad person are not mutually exclusive, you can have your dark!Will be autistic because autistic people are not by default innocent or w/e. But saying he's faking being autistic to manipulate people is pretty gross, not to the character but to autistic people who are accused of faking and denied support and care, esp people who don't "look autistic" (anyone not a young white cis boy) or "act autistic" (act like Sheldon goddamn Cooper). It's a very icky statement to me.

Is it problematic for Will Graham to be autistic? Well, he canonically is autistic (see the first episode, and I think a few other examples where it's stated), and I don't think there's a way for Will Graham to be that isn't problematic. Man's in love with a cannibal serial killer.

Also, seems to me that whenever people want to make a clearly neurodivergent character who's bad at comforting others, has solitary hobbies and doesn't prefer the company of most other humans (and a whole host of other overlapping traits like flat affect, which I do think we see with Will) seem "nice" they call them autistic (because being autistic makes you sweet and innocent and childlike /s) and if they want them to seem "bad" they say they have ASPD, NPD, etc (because these are the Bad Person Disorders that make you evil /s) and it makes me want to throw sonething into a wall. Stop thinking with only your biases for 5 minutes, I beg

[maximum-rambles]

A heated rant from a pissed off, severely autistic adult to low support needs autistics that have a fuckton of aspie supremacy.

Tw: a bunch of swearing, “aspie” supremacy, ableism, violent meltdowns and a brief mention of autistic trauma.

Low support needs autistics/so-called “aspies”, this is directed HEAVILY AT YOU and I’m not fucking around. Listen.

//////////

I’m starting to really get fucking sick and tired of the ✨aspie supremacists✨ literally anywhere on this god-forsaken earth.

Let me explain:

They’re so bold and got the audacity to think they’re the main representatives of the autistic community all while shoving other autistics with higher levels of supports aside and become derogatory at us.

I’ve had my fair share especially with cis yt autistics that call themselves so-called “aspies” and it’s fucking grating and insufferable.

Like, no Zach. I don’t fucking care that you think you’re better than any autistic person that’s NOT a carbon copy of you, who doesn’t need someone to keep you safe, who has the advantage of navigating the world with a couple of road bumps AT FUCKING BEST.

There’s a reason WHY it’s a spectrum in the first place.

Your amount of privilege is so fucking outstanding and the fucking audacity you have thinking that you’re the victim while already throwing the people that are on THE SAME SIDE.

One side note: Trying to make it look like it’s not disabling and only quirky is just gonna fuck us over.

It’s this shit mentality that has caused biases on who gets support and who doesn’t.

It’s the shit mindset that causes more ableism for us to deal with. Both within our community and with non autistics.

It’s the shitty idea that means you’d get away with your ableist actions AND NOT GET HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

I was in fucking denial when I found out I was severely autistic and even with a fucking full-time job which is the ONLY DAMN THING that gives me a structured routine. Without it, I’m not able to fucking care for myself independently or keep myself from spiralling off into distress very fucking easily.

But no one wants to talk about the violent meltdowns where you lose control of yourself and the ability to keep yourself safe.

No one wants to talk about the the inability to care for yourself without ongoing assistance.

No one wants to talk about the extreme difficulties in communicating with others, the ability to handle change without always a crisis happening, the unbearable sensory issues that FUCKING LIMIT YOU EVEN WITH ACCOMMODATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS!

I’m SO FUCKING TIRED OF IT ALL!

I’m fucking tired, pissed off and just DONE with all the aspie discourse that happens EVERY DAMN TIME! I don’t fucking care anymore.

For once. For fucking once, I don’t want someone with fucking privilege using my support needs and autistic trauma as their trump card in a argument. For once I don’t want to be treated like an outcast for literally shit that’s out of my control and can’t fucking change. For once I just want to be heard without someone openly speaking over me and being so fucking vile and ableist.