#we love being disruptively conflict avoidant

[sleeplittleearth]

trying to dash out a domaystic ficlet this afternoon bc I actually have plans this evening for once, but now I've hit the tiny tiny bit of interpersonal conflict I knew would be included and have ground to a halt

[theambitiouswoman]

Do you really love yourself?

Many times in the past, I believed I was operating out of self-love. However, it was only when I began focusing on personal growth and engaging in shadow work and inner healing that I came to understand that my previous perception was not accurate.

Sometimes, we believe we're being kind to ourselves because we do things that feel good or seem helpful at first. We might do these things because we want to feel better or think they're good for us.

To become aware that something might not be truly self loving, we need to pay attention to how things make us feel in the long run. If something we're doing ends up making us feel unhappy, stressed, or even harms us over time, that's a sign that it might not be coming from genuine self love. So, it's important to regularly check in with our feelings and reflect on whether our actions are bringing us real and lasting happiness and well-being.

These are some examples you may relate to, where we might think we're operating out of self-love, but it may not truly be the case:

Self-Care:

Binge watching TV shows for hours, thinking it's self-care, but it leads to neglecting other responsibilities.

Regularly indulging in unhealthy foods as a form of self-care, but it negatively impacts physical well-being.

Spending excessive amounts on shopping to feel better momentarily, mistaking it for self-care, when it strains finances.

Oversleeping every day, believing it's self-care, but it disrupts daily routines and productivity.

Isolating yourself from others under the guise of self-care, but it can worsen feelings of loneliness.

Skipping regular exercise, thinking you're prioritizing relaxation, but it affects overall health in the long run.

Using substances like alcohol to cope with stress, thinking it's self-care, when it may lead to dependency.

Personality:

Constantly seeking validation from others to feel worthy, assuming it's part of your personality, but it indicates low self-esteem.

Always being the peacemaker in conflicts, believing it's your personality, but it might be suppressing your true feelings.

Refusing to ask for help in any situation, thinking it's part of your personality, but it can hinder growth.

Being overly competitive and comparing yourself to others, thinking it's just your personality, but it can lead to dissatisfaction.

Being excessively introverted to the point of avoiding social interactions, thinking it's part of your personality, but it may contribute to isolation.

Always putting others' needs before your own, assuming it's your personality, but it could be detrimental to your well-being.

Constantly seeking new experiences and never committing to anything, believing it's your personality, but it might hinder progress.

Career:

Overworking and not taking breaks, assuming it's necessary for career success, but it leads to burnout.

Staying in a job you hate because it's what you're used to, thinking it's for the sake of career stability, but it prevents growth.

Avoiding asking for promotions or raises, assuming it's humility, but it might hold you back professionally.

Pursuing a career path solely for financial gain, thinking it's practical, but it can result in dissatisfaction.

Accepting workplace mistreatment in the name of job commitment, thinking it's dedication, but it's detrimental to mental health.

Focusing solely on climbing the corporate ladder, believing it's the key to success, but it may lead to neglecting other important aspects of life.

Not pursuing opportunities for skill development, thinking it's contentment, but it can hinder career advancement.

Romantic Relationships:

Ignoring your own needs to constantly please your partner, believing it's love, but it leads to codependency.

Staying in a toxic relationship because you're afraid of being alone, thinking it's love, but it harms your well-being.

Sacrificing your own dreams and goals for your partner's aspirations, mistaking it for love, when it hinders personal growth.

Avoiding conflicts at all costs, assuming it's love for peace, but it prevents healthy communication.

Idealizing your partner and overlooking their flaws, thinking it's love, but it prevents realistic understanding.

Rushing into a new relationship immediately after a breakup, thinking it's moving on, but it might be avoiding emotions.

Disregarding your own values to align with your partner's, believing it's love, when it compromises your authenticity.

Friendships:

Going along with friends' decisions even when you disagree, assuming it's loyalty, but it might lead to resentment.

Pretending to enjoy activities you dislike to fit in, thinking it's maintaining friendships, but it's not authentic.

Ignoring your own needs to help friends excessively, believing it's friendship, when it impacts your own well-being.

Staying friends with people who consistently bring you down, thinking it's loyalty, but it negatively affects your self-esteem.

Avoiding confrontation with friends, assuming it's maintaining harmony, but it might lead to unresolved issues.

Letting others take advantage of your kindness, thinking it's friendship, when it's actually being taken for granted.

Faking interest in others' conversations to avoid feeling left out, thinking it's friendship, but it prevents genuine connections.

Personal Growth:

Staying in your comfort zone and avoiding challenges, thinking it's self-preservation, when it hinders progress.

Setting unrealistic goals for personal development, believing it's ambition, but it can lead to disappointment.

Constantly seeking external validation for your progress, assuming it's self-improvement, when it should come from within.

Overloading your schedule with self-help activities, thinking it's maximizing growth, but it might cause overwhelm.

Avoiding reflection on your mistakes and shortcomings, thinking it's self-compassion, when it prevents learning.

Perpetually focusing on your flaws without celebrating achievements, thinking it's humility, but it can lead to low self-esteem.

Ignoring your emotional needs in favor of pushing through challenges, assuming it's resilience, when it might hinder emotional well-being.

Physical Health:

Skipping Meals to Lose Weight: You might think that skipping meals will help you lose weight quickly, but it can lead to nutritional deficiencies and harm your body's energy levels.

Overexercising: Working out excessively with no rest can seem like a way to get fit, but it can lead to injuries, exhaustion, and even weakened immunity.

Crash Diets: Trying extreme diets that drastically cut out food groups might seem like a fast way to lose weight, but they often lack important nutrients and can be harmful to your body.

Ignoring Sleep: Prioritizing work or entertainment over sleep might seem productive, but sleep is crucial for your body to recover and function well.

Relying on Supplements Alone: Thinking that supplements can replace a balanced diet might seem convenient, but they're meant to complement, not replace, healthy eating.

Ignoring Pain: Believing that toughing it out through pain or discomfort is a sign of strength, but it's important to listen to your body and seek medical attention when needed.

Not Staying Hydrated: Forgetting to drink enough water might not seem like a big deal, but proper hydration is vital for many bodily functions and overall well-being.

[mingus-archives]

Saviors, Suffering, and Isolation in Across the Spiderverse

Something that really stuck with me from Spider-Man Across the Spiderverse was the theme of suffering inherent in the hero narrative (and specifically the spiderman narrative) and how we can perpetuate suffering in our justification of it.

In the intro to the movie, Gwen gives background into how she became Spiderwoman. She explains the traumatic experience of inadvertently causing her friend Peter’s death and says that because of this she can’t have friends. We see how this has caused her to further suffer, forcing a wedge between her and her band, her and her father, and her and Miles. She is obsessed with not letting a loved one suffer at her hands in the same way again. Furthermore, she is okay letting herself suffer through isolation as long as her loved ones are safe.

Then, we meet Miguel, Spider Man 2099, who fervently defends his and his organization’s behavior as making sure some suffering occurs in order to prevent larger suffering. Miguel took over a different dimension’s Miguel, allowing him to have a daughter and live a happy life. However, this dimension fell apart because he was an anomaly and caused that dimension’s timeline to not flow as it should. After this, he forms the Spider-society, which is intent on making sure that anomalies are taken care of and, more importantly, that canon events happen.

This is where the main conflict of the plot arises, as a canon event in the timeline is the death of the police captain, who in Miles’s universe happens to be his father. Miguel insists that Miles has to let his father die, and rages that Miles has already helped another Spiderman (Pavitr) avoid that fate. This is not a surprise to Miguel’s character; he is tormented by his attempts to lead a happy life and therefore believes that suffering is necessary. 

However, what is striking is that all the spider-people seemingly stand by Miguel except Miles. The characters we know, namely Peter B Parker, Jessica Drew (Spiderwoman), and Gwen all support Miguel’s perspective. This seems wildly out of character for these individuals who we’ve seen be insistent on saving people if it is in their power to do so. But it is important to note that, besides Gwen, they’ve already suffered that canon event of the police captain dying. For them, that was a necessary trauma in their lives that allowed them to be who they are today. It is in a sense a passive justification. They did all they could, but the captain had to die. But for Miles (and Gwen), the death of the captain is something they’re being forced to allow or even facilitate. They have to make the active choice to let their captains, both their fathers, die. Miles is insistent that this is wrong, and that there is another way to live.

As a story centered on characters of colors (and minority characters given Gwen is implied to be trans in the movie), this can be seen as a message about how some communities or people of color treat suffering. That is, the belief in many minority communities like mine (Hmong) is that suffering is a necessary evil to endure for the good of everyone. They suffered, so their children must suffer as well. However, this mindset moves from a coping mechanism to harm when, upon finding no or a lack of suffering, we fabricate suffering onto others like us because we believe this is necessary for success. Instead of finding help, lifting one another up, leaning on each other, we lean into the suffering, the pain, and the isolation. We are unduly harsh to our children, or we don’t try to disrupt the unjust systems that harmed us, or we just let bad situations be.

The Spider Society may be a group of spider-people, but there is surprisingly little care being given to one another’s wellbeing. Instead, they all look at each other and empathize rather than offer real care. I understand rather than let’s understand together. The coldness of this community is made clear with how  harshly Jessica treats Gwen when she screws up, with how cruelly Miguel treats Peter (”I’ve had enough of you”), and most humorously with the therapy scene where the therapist spiderman rudely remarks, “Let me guess your Uncle Ben died?” The spider-people are all heavily traumatized individuals, and instead of healing they’ve worked themselves into a web of control and fatalism. By accepting that suffering as inevitable, they create the suffering of Miles.

As a daughter of a refugee, I grew up hearing the message that suffering made us strong, that it allowed them to be successful. Children who didn’t suffer were spoiled and grew up to be ungrateful wastes to society. I heard stories in my LGBTQ+ community about how young queers take things for granted and don’t understand how hard it once was. And when I suffered myself, I felt a similar urge to say that this suffering made me a better person. And this is so hard to fight because if you acknowledge the suffering wasn’t needed, that means you shouldn’t have had to go through it, that it was unjustified, that it was a random cruelty of the universe. And that is a tough truth to accept, because that means it didn’t have to be that way. Uncle Ben didn’t have to die for Spiderman to live.

In order to let our stories continue, instead of repeating the past, as well as help our communities Across the Spiderverse asks us to let go of the suffering and the belief we needed it. It is not what makes us heroes. It is not what makes us good. Instead, like Miles and Gwen (by the end of the movie), our heroism is in our love and our loved ones, and in the belief that there is a better way.

[diazmaximoff]

Understanding Daniel Diaz in Episode 4 of Life is Strange 2

Daniel’s actions at the church in episode 4 are a perfect showcase for cognitive dissonance, and I feel like that goes over most players' heads because Daniel is quote "an ungrateful spoiled brat who never listens" unquote. But it's always been so obvious to me that he's just succumbed to his pain and trauma more than Sean has, and that makes a lot of sense for a sheltered child like him.

Following the traumatic incident of Esteban being shot by the police, there's a profound disruption to Daniel's sense of security and normalcy. This abrupt loss triggers a dissociative response, where he detaches from the immediate reality as a coping mechanism (he doesn't remember Esteban getting shot throughout episode 1). The dissociation is a defense mechanism to shield his psyche from the overwhelming distress: his brain is literally trying to protect itself from disfunctioning, and Sean intentionally feeds into Daniel's illusioned mind in episode 1 to protect his innocence.

Now when Sean arrives at the church in episode 4 to meet him and then suddenly suggests returning to life on the road, there's a significant increase in Daniel's stress and dissociation. He is still slowly processing the traumatic events of the previous episode, particularly the violent incident at the pot farm where he his powers got multiple people hurt, including his own brother Sean.

At the church, Lisbeth's representing a stabilizing force for him, albeit through manipulation and brainwashing. She provides Daniel with a semblance of security and maternal care (that was never given to him by his real mom), and that perceived stability is what his brain makes Daniel cling to desperately to avoid psychological overload caused by his guilt over the immense pain he's caused others - not realizing that it's simultaneously distancing the people he loves.

Daniel is confronted with conflicting realities while reuniting with Sean: the comfort and stability offered by Lisbeth versus the chaotic and the extremely uncertain life on the road with Sean. To resolve this dissonance, Daniel pushes away the painful reality associated with Sean, considering himself a danger and a burden to Sean and everyone around him. He's effectively projecting his distress onto his big brother, whom, at the moment, he perceives as a threat to his attempt at redemption and his newfound stability. If he went with Sean, he wouldn't get to ignore his guilt at all since he'd be subjected to difficult circumstances that led him to hurt people in the first place. And, most importantly, he'd lose that stability and normalcy which his brain sees as a shortcut to keep Daniel occupied from the stress. In essence, Daniel absolutely despises uncertainty, which Sean is trying to thrust him into. Again.

Daniel's reaction to keep pushing Sean away also clearly shows that his avoidance of a homeless lifestyle is deeply rooted in his subconscious. His previous life, where he was protected and cared for (and spoiled) by his father and brother, was abruptly taken from him. This sudden loss has left him traumatized, and his actions are a direct manifestation of this unresolved trauma. His outbursts and reluctance to assist Sean are not signs of indifference or lack of empathy but symptoms of his brain's inability to process and move beyond these past traumas.

He is psychologically attempting to revert to a time of safety and happiness that we saw glimpses of before Esteban's death—playing Minecraft with his school mates, celebrating birthdays and Christmas, eating chock-o-crisps and his favorite cereal for breakfast—though this regression is ineffective because he remains a traumatized child who knows little about the dangers of the world. He's been continuously sheltered from danger and hardship, which limits his capacity to adapt to their current situation.

And for those quick to label Daniel as a spoiled brat: it's important to understand that being spoiled can make it harder for children, especially someone in Daniel's shoes, to cope with pain and adversity because they're accustomed to having their needs and wants easily met. This predisposition makes them more vulnerable to trauma, and their bratty behavior is actually a coping mechanism for them, a way of REACTING to trauma with the limited emotional and psychological tools available to them.

This is why Sean’s remark in episode 4 about the comfort of the past, coupled with his acceptance that he cannot turn back time, is incredibly crucial for Daniel. While trying to convince Daniel to come with him, he says, "If I could go back in time, I would—Dad would get us pizza and snacks, then pick the movie because we would always fight about it. And he always picked your movie. But I can't do that: all I can do now is fight for you". (notice that Sean mentions "movie" and "pizza" which is a direct callback to Daniel's words back in episode 1 when they were sitting on the bench in the woods).

That line alone signifies a pivotal moment for Daniel's development since he gets to confront with the harsh realities of the world—Nick's brutal assault on Sean and the church engulfed in flames—while observing Sean’s resilience during all of it. Sean’s ability to endure and continue fighting for Daniel is serving as a powerful contrast to Daniel’s dissociation, because his actions are underscoring the concept of purpose and resilience in the face of trauma. His unwavering dedication to Daniel exemplifies how a sense of purpose can drive individuals to withstand significant adversity, even when you'd want to sweep the pain under the rug. For Daniel, the realization that Sean’s sacrifices are solely driven by love and commitment begins to penetrate those dissociative barriers indefinitely, and by the end of the episode, he's fully accepted that he can never escape his trauma again: the pain is always going to be a pivotal, irreversible part of him and he just has to "keep on keeping on", as Finn would put it.

Ultimately, the powerlessness of not being able to change the past, combined with Sean’s persistence in getting his little brother back into his arms, helps Daniel understand that love can surpass pain. It teaches him that even amid chaos, there is always something worth fighting for—new reasons to care and new sources of strength—just like his brother has shown him.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Do you think Rollo, Fellow and Gidel could be in the main story? And if that's possible, could the events where they appear be canon? Or maybe they have an entire chapter giving them more development?

As much as I would love for the Halloweenies (yes, that's what I'm going to call Rollo, Fellow, Gidel, and any other subsequent new character introduced for TWST's Halloween season event) to show up in the main story and get further development, I don't think it's feasible within the current "canon" timeline. There's a good reason why Yana said that vignettes and story events don't always fit within the main story: it's because most of them would make zero sense if they happened within the single school year where all the OB stuff pans out. This is, of course, also true of Glorious Masquerade and Stage in Playful Land.

The main issue is that important details would automatically become continuity errors. Both GloMasq and Playful Land occur around Halloween, with Playful Land happening during the holiday prep and the conflict of GloMasq taking place on Halloween Night itself. But... this can't be the case for the main story because that creates faults in logic. Yuu does not learn who Malleus is until book 5, which occurs all the way in mid to late winter--yet if GloMasq were canon in the main story, then Yuu would have already have knowledge of his true identity (since Malleus's peers are all addressing him by name). Furthermore, Yuu should only know the first few dorms' members by mid/late autumn in the main story, yet they act like they're already acquainted with all of the students in the Halloween events. Why, then, would Yuu/the boys act confused or as if they don't know these people/Yuu when meeting them later in the main story?

This goes even deeper than just making issues surrounding Yuu. GloMasq and Playful Land becoming "main story canon" disrupts the storylines in place for other characters in the main story. Deuce's UM, for example, is integral to Rollo's defeat. However, Deuce does not actually develop said UM until book 5, which, again, takes place in the mid to late winter time. It's not possible for Deuce to have his UM in autumn, when GloMasq happens. Additionally, Ortho is shown in his College Gear for the Playful Land event, which he does not canonically get until the end of book 6. Book 6 takes place shortly after book 5, meaning probably late winter or early spring, which is way after Halloween.

We cannot say that GloMasq and Playful Land occur in the year after Yuu's first. While this could explain away Yuu's wonky relationships with everyone, Deuce's UM, and Ortho being a full student, this doesn't explain why the third years are still present or why everyone is in the same grade level they'd still be in for the year that Yuu joins NRC. The first years would be second years, second years would be third years, and third years wouldn't even be around anymore; they'd be away on their internships, most of which are not on Sage's Island.

Another potential problem is that the Halloweenies showing up in their own dedicated main story chapters spoils the people who didn't play their respective events. (This is assuming that TWST would give a recap of the events Rollo, Fellow, and Gidel came from; it robs the original event stories of their impact because the truth is that a summary can never do the full event justice. However, there is no avoiding this because otherwise not everyone would have context for the Halloweenies.) It's either that, or the players get no context whatsoever for who these characters are or what their relevance is, which interferes with trying to tell a story about their development and getting the out-of-the-loop players to care about their growth. It's not like you can go back and read the original events whenever you want either, you had to have played through the events in full when they were originally running (or rerunning) in order to see the stories in your albums.

Anyway 💀 as you can see, there would be a multitude of issues in trying to squeeze Rollo, Fellow, and Gidel into the main story. Not saying that it's completely out of the question, but it seems very unlikely to me unless TWST does a rug pull and introduces canonical diverging timelines within the game's main story narrative or something. Right now, I definitely do not see the Halloweenies being incorporated in that way. At best, maybe we'd get more official content of them if they ever got more card releases or something.

[ijustliketoreadstuff]

Miss Bustier and the teachers responses to Marinette’s struggles with Chloe.

In the “Derision” flashback, we discover that throughout the school years, Marinette had faced a problematic dilemma where the teachers would side with Chloe in any given situation. Of course the biggest question in terms of this was why the teachers were not doing more to tackle the situations surrounding their students. Now, their lack of attempting to properly tackle such situations, had primarily revolved around fear and an unwillingness to spend more time to uncover the hidden truth as their lives revolved around managing numerous students, each one with their own individual issues.

 In the past, Chloe had ensured her actions remained as hidden as possible if and whenever she carried out a plan, something we have also seen her do throughout the series, in the new school year. 

(In “Mr. Pigeon”, Chloe attempted to steal Marinette’s hat design without anyone knowing, but was proven guilty as a result of Marinette sneakily incorporating her signature into the design. )

But in order to ensure the teachers would not consider Marinette’s word in the years prior, we discover that Chloe had spent time building Marinette a reputation where she would always be considered the tardy student who would be quick to disrupt class. Of course, Marinette was tardy and disruptive in class because she had trouble avoiding the pranks Chloe left her. 

(The principle, Mr. Damocles, and teachers like Ms. Mendeleiev, would only see and focus on Marinette, as well as her reaction in any given situation. Chloe would regularly direct the principle in Marinette’s direction anytime she knew her plans would stall Marinette long enough to leave her tardy.)

(Chloe’s pranks would delay Marinette from arriving to class on time while also prompting her to react and appear as the one who was insinuating conflict, leaving Chloe as just another spectator in the crowd for the majority of the time)

If any situation would result in a possible confrontation, Chloe was quick to make up any story necessary to make it seem she was being falsely accused and was not being considered in the matter, but on the chance the teachers did not comply, she was more than willing to threaten to call her father, the mayor, to have them fired through her word alone. 

Although teachers like Miss Bustier attempted to resolve any conflict between her students as best she could, her attempts to correct their behavior primarily revolved around being caring in any situation and finding the positives to things that would ordinarily be wrong through her students eyes. 

(Miss. Bustier  attempted to look at the positive in Chloe drawing on Marinette's handmade gift back in "Zombizou") 

Miss. Bustier is perfectly aware of Chloe's behavior towards others, however, she did not have the heart to be more commanding and strict towards others in order to enforce stricter rules and punishment, instead, her attempts primarily focused on attempting to teach her students compassion and finding a way to defuse a situation before things could spiral. Miss Bustier’s lessons would be upheld by many of her students, but were words Chloe was only rarely willing to take into consideration as she was not very interested in learning to uphold the lessons others taught her in her day to day life.

(In “Zombizou”, Chloe was willing to apologize to Miss. Bustier near the end, but her willingness to apologize to her, did not mean she was willing to do the same for everyone she wronged.)

Knowing that Chloe was not easy to talk to about her behavior and the things she did towards others, as Miss.Bustier explained back in "Zombizou" that people like Chloe only think of themselves and couldn't properly understand the meaning of love, Miss. Bustier had instead focused her attention on the people around Chloe, expecting students such as Marinette to be the bigger person in a situation by being the ones to set an example for others of how to properly behave in situations with people like Chloe. Miss. Bustier's attempts were to inspire students like Marinette to potentially show others like Chloe the wrong in their actions by simultaneously giving a little kindness their way, all in the hopes that people like Marinette could additionally set a good example to those like Chloe and help inspire them to acknowledge their own behavior and be willing to put in the effort and sacrifice to change themselves.

And as we saw throughout the series, Marinette would attempt to take Miss. Bustier’s words and believe in Chloe as best she could. 

Only to realize as time went by that she now faced the same struggles the teachers had as Chloe was not very willing to listen and had continued to prioritize herself despite her moments of good and despite everyone's willingness to give her multiple chances to better herself.

(In “Malediktator”, Marinette attempts to let go of her past with Chloe to give her a chance to better herself by throwing her a party to show her support and kindness. Those who attended were all willing to do the same. Unfortunately, Chloe had decided to  focus on the benefits of a hero rather than the the lessons the heroes taught her, having no interest in committing to the work and sacrifice needed to be better. Instead concluding that the power of the miraculous and her new title as a hero was something she was entitled to and was now her right to use whenever she wished)

For the teachers, Marinette was the easiest to correct and punish, however, Chloe's behavior had sadly become to difficult to correct on their own as Chloe had presented consequences to anyone who attempted to punish her and fail to meet her demands. While teachers like Miss. Bustier attempted to work around those consequences by providing as much love and compassion towards her students as she could, other teachers had accepted that it was simply out of their hands as their attempts to prevent and sort through such situations would only result in them suffering the consequences and potentially loosing their jobs.

[lilacerull0]

sometimes we forget how much of a light house is in cuddy’s life that her PERSON!!!

this is exactly what i needed in my inbox for personal reasons so thank you :") but yeah... they're both weird!!! is the thing!!!! and house is so loud about it because that's how he avoids being accused of anything and cuddy tries to undermine her weirdness because that's how she avoids being accused of anything, but both of those mechanisms are a way of not being one's true self to the fullest. because if you are determined not to do what you consider to be the things only other people can do and you believe in this because it was proven to you time and time again that you don't exactly fit in, you might miss out on the simplicity you're unexpectedly able to appreciate and engage in. and if you're constantly trying to meet everyone's expectations, where is the space for you to be you? and house IS a light in cuddy's life in this very unexpected, unusual way because he somehow still preserves while living in a way that's completely against the idea of what life should or is supposed to be. something cuddy struggles with throughout the entire show almost... even the things she wants that fit the perfect life narrative she tries to make herself want them more. i am instantly brought to tears thinking about her wish to have a kid which seemed more real to me than her attempts to find a romantic partner... because i really feel like she wanted to have someone who would at least hear her if not be like her -> that's why wilson is so significant to her. he's wilson! he hears what nobody else can hear... but she also wanted somebody to love without worrying about whether she was doing it right. so the fact that she admits not to feel what she thought she would feel towards rachel makes such compelling character drama... because the most crucial thing that cuddy does wrong is the fact that she thinks not to fit within the realm of supposed and should is to fail. and that brings me back to house because he does not care about the supposeds and the shoulds and he is a great doctor, maybe even because of this very thing more than anything else. and yes that does disrupt cuddy's whole worldview, but it's also hopeful i think. because if not sticking to the rulebook works for someone else, maybe she's not doing anything wrong when she's not married with kids by the time her mother deems appropriate. maybe she's not doing anything wrong it she gets overwhelmed by how much work she has to deal with. this is EXACTLY why house is the one to help out in that cuddy centric episode. because that's what he is to her. he jumps out of the ordinary and makes it work. so it's okay for cuddy to be cuddy. so there's no right way to feel something. and it's pretty fascinating because that same thing is what easily turns into one of house's greatest flaws (the fact that he won't let himself do or god forbid enjoy something ordinary or boring), but to cuddy it's inspirational. (the horror on her face when he admits that he values her over his work comes to mind) and there is something very human about all that which is mainly why theirs is my favourite relationship on the show. humans do that! we see something in someone and find light in it, but to that person to believe that something they've been called crazy for (by others or themselves) or have felt bad about to the point of it becoming an integral part of their very being and simultaneously an inevitable source of some kind of twisted, survival-rooted pride can be viewed in a different way is world-changing and on the edge of world-ending. that's the main conflict between these 2 characters i think. the fact that the very thing that they're inspired by in one another is what terrifies them when they get too close to each other. loving the other one is easy. it's loving themselves enough to be a person with them that's paralysing.

[talenlee]

Dealing with My Dad

Okay, I write about fundie stuff, right? And time to time, I will wind up mentioning that my dad is a fundamentalist Christian and has beliefs like climate denial and supernatural demonic possession. With the coming of Christmas, and a greater period of socialisation with families, it’s that time of year when this kind of story circulates around: ‘Oh boy, dad’s going to do X.’

Well.

What about my dad?

Content Warning: I’m going to talk about my relationship to my dad and it’s going to possibly be a bit of a bummer. Also, if you’re the weirdo trying to stalk my blog to build a case of lies about that guy, you’re not going to find anything interesting. Really, this is going to make me look bad, not him.

Alright, so my dad is an older, conservative Christian who believes in some things that I think are conspiracy theories, like Velikovskian Catastrophe. He does reject modern arkaeology, but not because he thinks that the Biblical flood story didn’t literally happen six thousand years ago, but rather because he thinks God would have hidden that important artifact to prevent it from being an item of political power in our world. My father once extolled to me how amazing the Flood must have been in that it has successfully obliterated every sign it ever happened, something that shows the absolute power of god’s decision to wipe out history.

I don’t tend to fight with my father.

We have had conflicts; certainly since I left the house. We have largely been limited to a few moments where it became evident that we weren’t going to have a smooth time around something. But I still try to see my father regularly, and I don’t try to avoid him. This is because I like my father. It is a a complex relationship, where my father is someone I care about and also do not have a strong social bond to. It is a complex and frustrating way to be where I do not wish harm on him and recognise the ways he has improved as a person but also know there are things that he will do socially I dislike a great deal.

How then to handle this.

How do I square the problem with him institutionally as a person in a place of prominence in his church with my personal opinion about that entire organisation?

A long time ago I asked dad a hypothetically question about how he would feel about knowing that a member of his church that he was teaching was an atheist. He was someone who grew up in the church, who had a deep love of the Biblical text and the experience of church, concurred with the church on moral frameworks and behaviours, but simply did not believe in the existence of a God. This is an interesting question, to me, to pose to a religious leader type because it seems to me that hypothetically at least a person should care a great deal about why someone is at a place that is meant to be built around an ideology like a church is. My father’s stance was, not quite instant; he thought about it a moment, and then explained that he would be glad to have them, and would much rather they be there in his church than not.

His argument was that he couldn’t see into anyone’s hearts; he couldn’t verify what someone thought about the faith. What he could do was engage the community, encourage behaviours and exclude people based on what they were doing. If this person wasn’t disrupting things and get something out of the experience of the church, then he would much rather they be there, because how else was God going to reach them if they were being excluded from things?

It was honestly, a great answer. It was humble, it was honest and it looked at the material realities of the church situation. Even if you believe you have supernatural insight into the mind of god, which, I gotta hold onto, preachers believe they have, you can look at the actual relationships between people before you and decide you’d rather have someone singing along than not just because of how you think they hold to your ideals.

I think about it a lot when I think about how I deal with my dad, because pretty much most of my adult life I’ve been concerned that I treat my dad like a child, or at least, like I am the parent doing my best to encourage good behaviours in someone who doesn’t know better.

For example, in social gatherings, I will sometimes make it my job to keep my dad occupied on something he cares about. I don’t get to have long talks with him often, but being able to sit down with him and ask him specific questions about areas of his expertise give him a chance to engage with it without feeling like he’s the centre of attention. This means there are some topics I keep myself informed on even if I don’t know much, like Formula 1, the council of Nicea, and weird stories out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Seven Day Adventists. Note that these are Very White Topics that are mostly about people who are like himself, meaning that he doesn’t have a lot of reason to veer out of that lane to have opinions on complex ideas.

Similarly, there’s giving my dad opportunities to avoid social experiences. If we have the youngest family members in one spot, and they make noise, I take ’em somewhere and do something to keep ’em entertained. The infamous ‘uncle joe said something awful at dinner’ can be avoided if uncle joe isn’t people’d out by the time the dinner is happening. These kinds of outbursts can be seen as an outcome of stress and unhappiness in intense social situations. If dad can take a break at a social event, then he’s not going to be running low on conversation topics.

Also, and this is important: I have a lot of control over what I bring up and I can keep myself from bringing up stuff that I know will require an argument. And yeah, that means that there are times I won’t specify things about people I’m talking about, I don’t need to make my dad realise he’s hearing a story about a bunch of queers including his son. There are things I don’t need to talk about with my dad, and by choosing to keep some things private, I am able to keep him wanting to be connected to me, such that those normal things that are part of his mind now aren’t going to feel like alien ideas when he encounters the ways I am not what he wants me to be.

Finally, dismiss but don’t engage with conspiracism. He shared a story about bible college teachers being fired for showing their pronouns, where he presented the story that these teachers were fired from a Bible college for ‘not including their pronouns.’ This isn’t the case. The story, which took me a few seconds of checking on my phone, was that the Bible college fired two teachers who included their pronouns in their email signatures, which is especially telling because those teachers’ first names were Shua and Raegan. You wanna call your shot on those pronouns if you’ve never seen those names before? But yeah, dad internalised the story as something that’s literally opposite to the truth. I didn’t pull out my phone and fact-check him on the spot, I just shrugged and said ‘doesn’t sound true,’ and changed the subject.

Does this suck? I mean a little bit. It sucks that dealing with my father is work. But it’s work because I can’t change what’s in his heart or mind or how or why he thinks things, but I can do things to change his behaviour. I don’t think my dad wants to have an argument at a social gathering, but he has attached great value to an organisational social structure that makes him feel like he needs to be prepared to do so. And because of that, it means that my father is a person attached to this thing, this immense thing, that I hate. And I can love him even though he is part of that, and want him to remain connected because of it. I’d rather he have me in his life and remember ‘oh yeah, my leftie hippie commie son is like that, and I don’t hate him, so maybe hating people like that isn’t a hard rule.’

Not saying any of you need to like my dad. It’s not your job. It’s apparently, my job, but I don’t think it’s bad to try and keep these relationships present.

I can maintain a relationship with people who are part of something I find hateful.

It’s how I was raised.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[archduchessofnowhere]

BOOK REVIEW: Sisis Weg by Martina Winkelhofer

Empress Elisabeth took a break from court life and dared to escape her assigned role, something that no woman of her time, certainly not of her rank, was allowed to do. Until the death of her eldest daughter, Elisabeth was a product of her environment: the good daughter, the devoted wife, the submissive daughter-in-law. She tried to live up to expectations even in her darkest hours, until her body and psyche sounded the alarm. She knew that in this environment the wounds would not heal. She allowed herself long journeys and stays away from the imperial court, and it did not take long for her transformation to begin: from fragile emperor's wife to self-confident empress. From a woman determined by others to a woman determined by herself.

There are already literally dozens of books about Sisi, and most of them have nothing new to say. So when yet another book written by an author that claims they're presenting "the real story" behind the Sisi myth appears, one is naturally distrustful. But only reading the preview of this book made me realize that historian Martina Winkelhofer actually had something new to say about Elisabeth. This book has been in my TBR for the past two years, and tired of waiting for a translation I just went ahead and used an automatic translator to read it. And guess what: this is one of the best books about Empress Elisabeth that exists.

Martina Winkelhofer's biography starts with Elisabeth's birth and finishes with her return to Vienna in 1862, after being away from court for two years. Something that distinguishes her from other Sisi authors is that instead of presenting a novel-like narrative about the empress' life, she adresses on the text the different sources that we have available, and isn't afraid to state frankly that there are thing we simply lack enough information to know for certain. Speaking of sources, she draws almost entirely from primary sources, and not just letters, but also court protocol documents, which brings the Viennese court to life in a way no other book about Elisabeth I've read before achieved.

This is also the Sisi biography with the most sympathetic and balanced depiction of Archduchess Sophie I've ever read, presenting the complex relationship between mother and daughter-in-law without vilifying either woman. Not only Winkelhofer adresses the problem regarding the sources (Elisabeth's statements about her mother-in-law come from after Sophie's death, and Sophie's correspondance and diary entries avoid mentioning any conflicts or quarrels within the imperial family), but also she understands both that Elisabeth was a very young girl who lacked the skills to understand court schemes and was deeply intimidated by the hierarchy at court - and therefore, by her mother-in-law, and that Sophie ultimately had no ill intentions towards her daughter-in-law, but simply couldn't understand why Elisabeth couldn't fulfill her role as empress as tradition demanded.

Another of my favorite things about this book is the attention Winkelhofer paid to Elisabeth's staff. The working and living conditions of her servants is often highlighted. There is a whole chapter focused on Elisabeth's secretary Leopold Bayer, a bourgeois man that was responsible of controlling and organizing the empress' household and was so effective at his job that years after his retirement his system still worked perfectly. Perhaps if you want to read only about Sisi you'll find this chapter, as well as all the other instances in which Winkelhofer focuses on the staff, uninteresting and disruptive, but I loved it. So many authors seem to think that the people responsible for cleaning, cooking and keeping royal households running weren't glamorous enough to deserve even a mention, so it was very refreshing to see how here it was an important part of the text.

To be honest, my biggest complain about this book is that it ended. This biography finishes when Elisabeth returns to Vienna in 1862; Winkelhofer is going to release the second part of her biography in October, but I wish she had just released it as a single-volume book, because if there is a historical woman you can get away with writing a 600+ pages long book is Elisabeth. And while the book is well sourced (over 500 footnotes!!!), she often made more general claims about the general lives of the aristocracy with no citations. Since Winkelhofer has written books specifically about the lives of the aristocracy before I trust she knows her stuff, I just wish she had referenced further literature on the matter. Also because I'm a Queen Marie of the Two Sicilies girlie, it disappointed me that Winkelhofer didn't mention her two weeks stay in Vienna in 1859, nor how her role during the Siege of Gaeta was one of the things that stressed her sister during 1860.

Overall this is a fantastic book that paints a complex and interesting picture of how the child Elise became in the young Sisi and then in the Empress Elisabeth. Let's hope that an English translation is happening soon!

[historia-vitae-magistras]

Does Francis have any paternal feelings for Matt, or does Matt ever see him as his father? and would it bother Matt that Francis openly backed Alfred for the revolution, or that he has an on and off again relationship with Arthur? Its kinda like his family is on good terms with the guy who abandoned him, and his faux papa likes everyone in his family but him.

So to start, before someone puts another essay in my box I want to acknowledge that these things might not be true for every French Canadian and every Metro/Euro-French, but an empire in the form of language, religion, culture and the more martial and economic types defined much of this history and still very much feeds into our relationships to this day.

By period standards, François was a good parent for Matt's first few decades. With Matthew, he wanted what Antonio had with Maria and Arthur with Alfred. François was motivated. He could plainly see that Matt was smart, bold, and cheeky when he was small. He was clingier and calmer than Alfred but still not fully broken in. The novelty wore off, and Francis was more hands-off, but he still took great pains with Matthew. A lot of blood and treasure was sunk into Nouvelle-France, and for a long time, Francis was determined to have a return on his investment. He wanted Matt.

But that didn't last. The French started to lose interest at the end of the 17th century after a generation passed after massive investments in the 1660s. François tired of him, and Matt shrank back. Oranges, presents, activities, interests and education largely ceased. Matt spent most of the next century competing with François problems at home across the Atlantic for attention and usually losing. And thus began the slow process of French disengagement, which became certain when we got swapped for a sugar colony.

And from then on, Matt's significance shrank even further. He was very upset when François openly backed Alfred and so did most of Europe. But it didn't really matter to anyone if he was. Alasdair was sympathetic but it's still largely irrelevant. Matt got a better deal from the British Empire than most people so his list of things to complain about is shorter than most people of the period. And most of the time, Arthur was good to Matt. When he got over Alfred's fucking off and Matt got his ass back in his place in the hierarchy, Arthur spent a lot of time with Matt, investing in him and educating him. But that didn’t stop Matt from being rendered to the importance of a piece of furniture when Arthur and Francis resumed their millennium-long love affairs. He spent much time sleeping as far away from Arthur’s bedroom as he could if François visited, usually in the nursery. He would take Arthur's possessions to Edinburgh or Cardigan.

I think he understands that whatever is going on between his father, his uncle, and François is too old for his feelings to disrupt it, so he tries to avoid conflict as much as possible. He has a job and a role and a place in the world far better than most of his peers so shutting up and getting along is the wisest choice of action even if he does get very, very, very interested in chopping wood until he’s fit to fall over to get the physical stress out of his system a bit. He gets the odd glance of approval from François in the early 20th century, but it's largely for political gain when he is relevant. Or the odd bout of existentialism when Francis feels bad about something or is feeling threatened and wants to make good. But in general while Matt doesn't have a close relationship with Francis, he is still his child. Francis mostly wants to correct him, and Matt mostly wants to be left the fuck alone, but there's a very fucked up if largely invisible connection that still spans the two of them.

[mississpissi]

i started writing this in the tags on bulk's post but i got pretty off topic so i'm just gonna put it here.

whenever theres a conflict in night vale, i like think about whats going on in the real world. finknor are really really good at satirizing very real and heavy issues and somehow finding ways to bring out the beauty and awe and community that can exist no matter how bleak things seem- it’s a huge part of what i love about wtnv.

this arc and janet specifically is so interesting to me because of exactly this. 

i think part of why we're so obsessed with lubelle as a villain is bc we KNOW she's the villain. we can see her disrupting the town and using her language and “logical explanations” to get rid of things she doesn't like- to get rid of that which makes her uncomfortable. its satisfying for us to hear cecil call for the town to shut her out! its satisfying to hear of the town storming her campus, confronting her and calling her out as being in the wrong! its satisfying to know that, by the end of this season, things will be resolved in some way that leaves us feeling hopeful. that things might look different, that dynamics might change and characters will have changed, but that there is some sort of resolution coming. 

it’s also heartbreaking (though very fun from strictly a storytelling perspective) to see that the efforts cecil and the town have made so far aren’t working. it’s heartbreaking to hear cecil be at such a loss as to what he can do, to try to avoid violence for carlos’ sake, to feel hopeless. to watch him put his trust and hope in someone who is promising freedom from janet's tyranny only for that to be shattered.

sometimes i wish i could go grab a pitchfork and storm on the people who are trying to explain away the existence of people i love. i would be lying if i said i didn’t sometimes feel at a loss as to what i can do- as to what authority figures i can trust, where i can put my hope. sometimes i want to yell on public radio for everyone to shut out the hateful, hurtful people in power. sometimes i feel paralyzed like i imagine carlos has in this arc. i don’t know that there will be a neat resolution to everything going on in the world right now, but i am trying to remember that there ARE people taking action. that there are people trying to make the world a better place, who want good for everyone around them. that there ARE people marching and yelling for change. that there IS beauty and awe and good and community no matter how bleak things feel. idk. i might be projecting too much here but also isn’t that what art and story is all about? just… i love this narrative bc its fun and exciting, but also bc it is such a brilliant mirror being held up to world rn. and now im gonna go back to hoping cecil is kidnapped and so so sad and scared and hoping that steve carlsburg will use his hope and love of his community and unique knowledge and perspective to save the day. or carlos or whatever. sorry im so insane ab this little podcast.

[immediatebreakfast]

Can we talk about chapter 27, and how weirdly unhinged it was? In the sense that it's so far one of the chapters in which Tripitaka completely ignores, and downright misunderstands every single thing that Sun Wukong did?

Conflicts, and how to solve them are (by what I read) a crucial part of the journey to deliver the scriptures along with actually understanding why they happened, and how to solve them. Like the last conflict in which the three disciples (Sun Wukong, Zhu Bajie, and Sha Wujing) let their own gluttony dictate their actions that led them to steal from the Ginseng Fruit Tree, and to Sun Wukong basically uproot it in a fit of anger.

At the end the answer was with Guanyin (love her <3), and all parties managed to heal the tree with the important lesson of forgiveness with reason since a great offence had been mended. However, this chapter with the bone spirit feels almost like a comedy? Because there is so much happening in such a simple problem that could have been avoided by listening.

The Lady White Bone demon managed to fool Tripitaka three times with the same trick, made Zhu Bajie and Sha Wujing look like incompetent disciples that can't protect their master, and made Sun Wukong feel hopeless as his warnings were never heard.

Tripitaka was like a very selective wall depending on what side he decided to give the reasoning. I wonder if it was a moment of resentment regarding Sun Wukong that did not left after fixing the Ginseng Fruit Tree, or simple misplaced anger that came from hunger being fanned by Zhu Bajie's words.

Because it was so weird to read Tripitaka agree again, and again with every single accusation that the pig threw at Monkey without even stopping once to actually think how Zhu had always showed bias for beautiful women. Which the Lady White Bone demon transformed into to trick them because she wants to eat Tripitaka!

When Idiot saw how pretty she was, his worldly mind was aroused and he could not refrain from babbling.

This pig I swear to god. If Sun Wukong is seen as unfilial by refuting Tripitaka every time they come to a truce, then Zhu Bajie was very disrespectful by pushing the one who is supposed to be his teacher to eat food brought by a stranger without even checking if it's poisoned. While also spouting rebutal after rebutal against Sun Wukong thanks to his own resentment for being either tricked by the demon, and simply being against Monkey that morning.

"There are coundess priests in the world, but none is more wishy-washy than this old priest of ours! Here's ready-made rice, and three portions to boot! But he will not eat it. He has to wait for that monkey's return and the rice divided into four portions before he'll eat:'

On top of Tripitaka not once considering that maybe famous trickster, Heaven disrupter, and Void Chaos monkey Sun Wukong might have a leg to stand on in his argument. How it's too convenient that a seemly beautiful young lady, then an old woman, and finally an old man suddenly appeared on the road (that Monkey made!) of a mountain that was inhabitated by monsters before Sun Wukong scared them off. One after the other every time Monkey struck down with his iron rod.

Which was, at the end, a mistake on Sun Wukong to repeat three times without thinking of a solution which did not include hitting what the others perceive as a human person with a weapon that has beaten powerful monsters. That is something Monkey did in the wrong by not thinking outside of his own perspective to explain the demon situation.

When I was a monster back at the Water-Curtain Cave, I would act like this if I wanted to eat human flesh. I would change myself into gold or silver, a lonely building, a harmless drunk, or a beautiful woman.

Now that I think about it, do the three of them know that Sun Wukong has fiery eyes, and diamond pupils that can see through the disguises of evil spirits? Because this is mostly a miscommunication problem. Where the three characters involved scream at eachother, excepto that one points at the godanmed demon while the other two ignore the actual threat stalking them on the mountain.

It's so wild that the chapter ends with Tripitaka giving Sun Wukong a fucking written certificate stating that he is no longer his disciple, and Monkey going back to Flower Fruit Mountain while crying his eyes out. Downright bawling with tears!

[rainbowsky]

Hi Rbs,This is not an ask. Just wanted to share few words with you. Dont publish this if you not wanted to.

(Its not pointed at only Accio like she mentioned in comments.I can see some bxgs with large followers started saying the same nowadays in twitter also).Really sorry if the ask created issue for you.

I always look for your POV when i get confusion in my turtle journey for almost 3 years now. Thanks a lot for that .I am glad you are clear in your point of view that-bad behavior is the issue, not the headbands/toys.

There is a saying-'If you want to kill a culture, kill their language'

Likewise I think its one of the way to turn turtles to solos slowly by changing their mindsets (like its a shame to show cpf stuff when one of them only present )-That means we need to show solo banners and considered solos in events/we will be voiceless in that events and our identity will be lose eventually.

This is in reference to a previous post.

Hi, Anon. Thanks, I'm glad that you find my blog helpful.😊

I'm going to respond to those two separate topics, here - the topic of fan colors, and the topic of anonymous asks/responses.

First of all, don't worry about any issues. If I want to avoid issues I can just ignore questions that are potentially controversial. I don't generally do that because I'm a believer in discussing things in a healthy way and sharing perspectives.

Fan colors

I feel pretty strongly about fans' right to exist, and their right to show support. All fans, regardless of fandom color. I think there is far too much polarization and conflict in the world. Live and let live.

Perhaps my perspective is overly idealistic, but I would vastly prefer a world where people would have higher standards for acceptance of other people rather than leaning on divisions and differences as an excuse for excluding and marginalizing each other.

It feels like there is often an agenda whenever an event like this happens, where certain uncharitably angled and edited clips of turtles supposedly behaving really horribly suddenly appear out of the woodwork, and this narrative starts to spread around turtledom and solo spaces that turtles are behaving badly and being disrespectful. This happens every single time there is an event like this where turtles dare to show their faces.

I respect that there are many turtles who will disagree with me on this, but as far as I'm concerned turtles are innocent unless proven guilty to me. I will always do my best not to malign or chastise turtles without having all of the facts and without being absolutely certain of what really happened.

If fans really are being disruptive, that is unacceptable. However, if they are not, if they are just having fun and supporting DD, I do not want to be among those who join solos in attacking them.

I hope we can remember as fans that a lot of the supposedly damning material we see about turtles in situations like this is anti material! We shouldn't be so ready to believe the hype about turtles being disruptive and bad.

Even in cases where a turtle might be behaving badly - there are usually dozens and dozens of turtles at events. Why are we so happy to condemn all turtles based on the behavior of one or two?

I don't buy the solo narrative of turtles being uncouth, of turtles not belonging, of turtles not having a right to show themselves publicly. I think everyone could benefit from a bit of perspective. This is fandom, it's supposed to be FUN. Excluding certain 'undesirable' people from sharing their enthusiasm and support - it's just such utter BS to me. I made it all pretty clear in this post.

I'm a turtle. That's it. That's all I have to say about it. I'm not a solo I will never be a solo. I will always love both of them, no matter what happens.

Turtles have a right to exist. Turtles have to a right to exist and be seen as existing. They're not under any obligation to crawl under a rock or pose as solos.

I firmly believe that GG and DD appreciate the support of turtles. They have behaved in ways that I believe support this theory. There's even a LRLG rumor that came out a while ago that said that "turtles give them strength". This is something that I have always believed. I believe the evidence supports it.

Therefore, who is anyone to say that BXG support should be withdrawn or covered under a blanket?

I will never jump on the bandwagon with solos to cut turtles down. Especially not without clear evidence turtles are behaving badly.

When turtles are behaving badly, or when I feel our fandom needs to pull our socks up and behave better I will always be among the first to say so. I'm sure people get sick of hearing it. But this isn't one of those cases, as far as I'm concerned.

And just to be really clear: this is my OPINION. There are totally valid contradictory opinions out there, and I fully respect everyone's right to disagree with me. We all must engage with fandom in the way that feels right for us, and I think it's extremely important for people to form their own values and perspectives on things based on what feels right for them.

That includes you, Anon. While I'm glad you find my perspective helpful, I hope you will form your own ideas about these topics. I am often wrong about things! 😅

Anon asks/responses

As for the comment about anons contacting me when they have something to say about something Vic posted, surely you can understand why it looked like that's what you were doing. Your phrasing was very similar to Vic's post. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with writing me about what you're thinking/feeling about stuff you've read outside my blog, it's worthwhile to understand why it can rub people the wrong way in some cases.

I think Vic had a good point, that if people have a reaction to what they read on Vic's blog, they should respond there.

As bloggers we stick our necks out when we put our positions out there every day. Everything we say and do is attributed to us, and we take all the backlash (and praise) of people's reactions. That's fine - that's what we signed up for - but I think sometimes readers lean too much being anonymous, in ways that sometimes feel a bit gratuitous. Just my two cents, but

anonymous should not be the default.

I get it that some people are shy, and no one is ever obligated to respond or interact openly if they do not feel comfortable doing so, but I really encourage everyone to respond off anon in the appropriate place whenever humanly possible.

I think it's important for everybody to remember that all of us are Anonymous, even bloggers. We're all hiding behind usernames. Nobody knows our real identities. Therefore, I hope people will try a little harder sometimes to just interact and engage directly with comments or questions in the notes of a post. Especially with simple, basic questions.

And especially with responses that aren't questions. My inbox is for questions.

You are free to ask anonymously of course, but I hope everyone will give it a second thought every now and then and consider going off anon. There are a lot of benefits to that.

Not least of which is that when you go off anon you begin to build a relationship with me, with other bloggers, and with other readers. You begin to become a more integrated, engaged part of the turtle community here.

If I don't know who is asking the question, I can't associate those interactions with anyone, and therefore you're losing an opportunity to make friends. You might feel like you heard from me, but that doesn't mean I have any clue who you are.

I've made some good friends through people who regularly asked questions in my inbox off anon.

HOWEVER, my anonymous inbox is not a place for people to ask questions aimed at bloggers who do not have anonymous asks turned on. And yes, people do regularly send me anon asks about Vic's posts, and other bloggers as well. You don't generally see them because I don't answer asks that I feel aren't for me.

If somebody has a question about a post another blogger has made, the appropriate place to ask that question is in the notes or comments of that blogger's post. Unless someone is asking me for my opinion on it, or unless there is some other direct connection to me, it doesn't belong in my inbox.

Anyway, this is not aimed at you Anon, I just want to address that because I think that Vic's point was a valid one.

Neither of us bite. I know sometimes I can be a bit blunt by some people's standards, but I do my best to respond in good faith to people who approach me in good faith.

No one ever needs fear messaging me privately or commenting on my posts or sending me asks off anon if they are doing so in good faith and in the spirit of friendliness.

And as someone who considers Vic a friend, and who I've known for years, I feel the same holds true. People are selling themselves short if they don't take the opportunity to spark a friendship by engaging with Vic's posts.

Edit: follow-up post here.

[anthonybialy]

Reviewing Basics About War and Everything Else

Explaining everything gives us a chance to review what’s taken for granted as we help those who never granted access to basic facts in their skulls.  Simple tones aren’t just for first contact with aliens.  Liberals could avoid feeling they’re being condescended to if they started grasping simple notions.  Declaring Israel needed to cease firing at terrorists who certainly won’t respect the honor system serves as yet another failed test.

Defining what war is may help those confused about which side to back.  We all agree it is very bad.  The rather unpleasant state involves explosions that may damage more than hearing.  People who end up dead and stuff that ends up broken.  The only thing worse may be not fighting one on account of how the diabolical other side may continue to wage it.  

World War III’s Axis fans don’t notice the corpses that spurred a righteous response.  Oh: it’s like inflation.  Missing steps like the Underpants Gnomes is essentially their doctrine. The difference is that liberals don’t end up discovering how commerce works.

It’s mean to make residents leave.  Tacit or active Hamas allies avoid encountering a reason Israel got bossy.  The evictors don’t need to root out the human demons who want to prevent their continued existence or anything.  Pondering why there’s an evacuation might lead to the end of sanctimony, and feeling superior is how liberals fuel themselves.  Their solar panels don’t work.

Time moving forward may seem restraining.  But at least noticing there’s only one direction allows for knowing which events happen first.  Take noticing just when a war began, which we call the Pearl Harbor factor.  For Earth’s present major conflict, recall just which side flew in to a music festival on a contraption too primitive for Mad Max and slaughtered everyone they could for the crime of not eating bacon for the wrong reason.

Locating terrorists before they go on another serial killing rampage through your streets might just be a legitimate reason for displacement.  I’m sorry for the disruption.  Finding something to drink requires excessive effort for some right not.  But primary victims will never have water or anything else again.  The Hamas Mutual Aid Society is stingy with Evian.

Determining who started this is a distinction that’s as important as it is easy.  Even amateur conflict detectives can uncover the most crucial aspect with minimal scrutiny.  There shouldn’t be any worry about something so obvious to spot, yet the answer eludes the self-proclaimed smartest amongst us.

Ask if one side turned water pipes into rockets.  The weapon of primitive losers who don’t even use protractors to aim is acceptable to fiends who want to kill anyone they might hit.  Condemning practices that are savage in every way shouldn’t be this hard.

Board the tour bus at any stop.  Noticing where the loop starts is too difficult to grasp for phonily high-minded types who cherish chances to condemn the cycle of violence without noting where said cycle began.  

Liberals never follow consequences, which explains why they’re liberals.  Grasping what comes next is for soothsayers.  The most sophisticated analysts believe in rationality and not magic about predicting tomorrow, which is why they’re always shocked when printing money doesn’t cure poverty.  

Pondering just why Israel is fighting would mean acknowledging a certain religion maintains a terror problem.  College professors reflexively thought that means Judaism.  Attacking civilization charms those living far away while benefiting from cushy protections.  Total non-anti-Semites are suspiciously eager to harvest grievances against a country that seems like America in its decadent love for gun rights and true tolerance.

Foes of the only place they’d want to live in the Middle East adore making up tales.  Pretending a rather broad-minded nation is a group of seething Islamophobic colonialists on occupied land who run their own open-air concentration camps doesn’t conform with reality, but that’s never stopped Democrats from maintaining their beliefs.

Leftists figure Israel must be the violators if they can win wars.  Equating strength with violation is as foolish as Donald Trump declaring power is all that matters.  They surely enjoy thinking on his terms.  They also don’t grasp how bearing arms allows the virtuous to outmuscle fiends if you’re seeking consistency.

The only debate is whether they’re unaware or familiar.  The result is the same, so figuring out why one of the two sides opposes the most just war possible is academic.  Condemning the republic fighting back against terrorism makes it seem as if the conflict is simply a matter of sadism.

Good guys try their hardest, which is the one time villains’ apologists aren’t into appeasement.  Israel is already at an infinitely higher standard for protecting the innocent, and the entity fighting to continue existing is still never good enough for liberals preening like it’s a serious Steven Spielberg movie.  Stick to special effects.

You simply can’t start a binge on season four.  Confused viewers are missing important context.  Don’t they wonder how characters got to the present situation?  Liberals don’t grasp drama or anything else.  Trying to explain what’s happening to the clueless means nobody can follow, which they sickly seem to enjoy.  The inattentive sure seem to enjoy others being as oblivious.

[airborneham]

Fascist Werewolves: Exploring Social Deduction

Dreamland Devlog #1

Great art from Mackenzie Schubert

I’m Hitler. A lot.

No, not the real-life Hitler. Thankfully he’s pretty dead, which is great since he was a fucking Nazi.

No, I’m Hitler a lot in the social deduction game Secret Hitler from Goat, Wolf, & Cabbage, where one player is randomly assigned the hidden role of Hitler, while some players are their Fascist allies hiding amongst the Liberals. Strangely enough, I’m spiritually Hitler pretty often in many other hidden role games, including Dead of Winter, The Thing: Infection at Outpost 31, The Resistance, Unfathomable, etc.

I love this box art so much.

Any game with a betrayer built-in or potential hidden opponent, through random chance I somehow disproportionately end up with that role. I’ve been Hitler so much that it became a problem with my friends. One night I was Hitler three games in a row. Then I was dealt the Hitler role a 4th time and I told everyone so we didn’t have to do it again.

Due to the frequency of being a betrayer, I’ve noticed some common trends in these games that can be problems for some players, as well as lead to stale, repetitive games for those more experienced with the genre.

Today I will explore what makes social deduction games fun for some and not others, why they have so much replayability, and in what ways designers like myself can innovate to create new, more dynamic experiences in the space.

Lying to your friends.

I get a lot of practice pretending to help while lying about details of the game, so I’ve gotten pretty good at it. At first it was novel, but now that it’s become a meme in my group, I don’t really look forward to it. Being a betrayer is more stressful than being a good guy as it takes more effort to keep up the facade, and sometimes it’s just tiring to be the opponent to everyone else at the table.

Conflict, even in a game, can be exhausting. This is especially true in games with longer play times. Honestly, sometimes people can tell when I’m NOT the betrayer because these days I get more engaged in the game when I’m not trying to disrupt things for everyone else.

Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy a good game of Secret Hitler. It’s a very well-made game that innovates on the structure set up in The Resistance and fixes many perceived flaws of that game in a lot of ways. I just ran into some repetition with the basic social deduction games like Secret Hitler, The Resistance, or your Werewolf Mafia and that ilk:

Most of the game is simply players lying and trying to not get caught.

Sure, there’s other stuff going on, each game bringing their own twist to the mechanics of revealing or hiding information and how to effectively sabotage the goals of the rest of the players while they hunt for the betrayers. But their core, these games are about lying to your friends and getting away with it. Nearly all have only two teams, so even with special roles with unique abilities, you’re either

A good guy trying to spot the liars -or-

A bad guy trying to not get caught in your lie. 

If you have friends who are bad at lying—their face turning red or their giggling giving them away—and they end up a Fascist or Hitler or Spies or Werewolves or pick your bad guy, the game effectively ends there.

Even if you’re experienced and don’t break easily, the game is about sussing out the liars. Once that’s been done, there’s little else to do even if the game doesn’t immediately end.

You know who Hitler is? Don’t elect Hitler to be chancellor.

You caught the werewolf? Kill them.

Game over.

The meat of the game, the deduction part with all the unique mechanics and interactions that each game brings, ends once the roles are uncovered.

Twists and turns.

Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m not giving these games credit. There are many different ways that it can play out after that point:

Sometimes you have to keep playing, avoiding the person you suspect as a betrayer. They can shout all they want but you don’t let them on the team and you are fine. They don’t really get to play the game anymore, but they can keep voting “no” and spewing nonsense. Maybe they have another ally they can protect that can win for them. Or maybe you were wrong and the Cylons were tricking you into thinking your ally was one of them.

Or maybe you just guess right and kill Hitler.

There are actually a lot of interesting paths the games can take, all sorts of dynamic tricks and social maneuvering that players can do to change the way the game plays out, which is why the games are so popular with so many people, why there are so many different variations of the same core experience, and why they keep people coming back to play them over and over. 

Remember, I was dealt Hitler 4 games in one night. We didn’t keep dealing out games because we hated the experience. Coming from LARPs, my friends and I love getting into our roles and getting to push and pull alliances and trust knowing that the lies are part of the game.

For us, they’re great fun, but they rely heavily on that one core factor.

Liars are assholes.

The deep experiences and most exciting moments rely on the social aspect: the deception, the manipulating, the trickery, the interpersonal conflict. These are very much negative social experiences if they were outside the context of a game, and some players struggle with that. There can be a lot of valid reasons to not enjoy being purposefully lied to, tricked, and manipulated, and some people find it difficult to separate the interactions of the game from real life.

We often use games as a way to simulate certain types of situations and emotions in a safe environment, something I plan to write more extensively about in an upcoming post, but for some people, even in a simulated or safe environment, this is not fun.

Some people don’t like being scared, so they don’t watch horror movies. Some people don’t like lying or being lied to, so they don’t play social deduction games. There are lots of different types of people in this world with lots of different tastes and preferences, and that’s okay.

For that reason, most social deduction games are very reliant on specific play-group dynamics in the same way tabletop RPGs are. You can’t really go out of your way to design your game to accommodate people who don’t buy into the premise, however, I do think you can broaden the appeal by shifting the focus while retaining the appeal.

Other viewing.

No Pun Included has a great review of Blood on the Clocktower, another social deduction game that’s made a lot of buzz and seems very cool, and he goes into the topic in impressive depth that I would recommend checking out if you’re interested in learning more of the history of the genre and the way different types of people experience it. It’s a very good video even if you already own and love BotC.

This theme might be a bit too edgy for me, but it does look very pretty.

The YouTuber Shelfside has a great breakdown of the genre’s strengths and weaknesses as well which I will be referencing more next time. In particular, he brings up the more complex game Human Punishment: The Beginning and how adding all that extra weight and complexity makes the hidden role dynamic more interesting, but bogs down the experience. I admittedly haven’t gotten to play it yet, but I really look forward to it despite that very obvious hurdle. It appears to do exactly what I want to see more games in the genre do, albeit burdened by a steep complexity rating on BGG that makes it less accessible to a broader audience.

The title certainly is… something.

Finally, the Think Like a Game Designer Podcast from Justin Gary, a great listen in general, has an episode with one of the designers of Two Rooms and a Boom: Alan Gerding. Listen to the whole episode as it has a lot of fun stories and Alan is great at telling them, but around the 40 minute mark they discuss some of the same issues with social deduction games that I have here and how each of them have tried to solve for them in their own games. Justin is a phenomenal interviewer and you can subscribe to his Think Like a Game Designer Substack to get more insights from tons of more designers.

A game with a player count of 6-30 is something to aspire to.

This is a devlog?

Subscribe Now on Substack

Social deduction games, especially the popular low-complexity ones, are highly dependent on player social behavior above all else and, because of this dependence, can turn off or completely exclude certain types of players.

But there is something we can do to change that and we’ll find inspiration in an unlikely place.

You might be wondering why I’ve written over a thousand words about social deduction games in a post that’s supposed to be a devlog without even discussing my own game.

Firstly, I wanted to set up what the current landscape of social deduction games look like. I also intended to make it clear that I really do love them. It’s my love for the games that make me want to push the boundaries a little bit.

Next time I’m going to change focus to games I’ve made in the past, as well as the social deduction game I am currently working on, titled Dreamland, that looks to solve some of these problems while remaining on the lower end of complexity. I’ll discuss the LARP I used to run, the difference between hidden roles and hidden goals, and how I have made shifting alliances in hidden role games that are dynamic and uneasy even after roles are uncovered.

Keep an eye out for that, and please share this with people you think would be interested. I appreciate it a ton.

Also, feel free to let me know what you think about social deduction games. I’m interested in your thoughts and opening up a conversation.

[piscesseer]

Mercury in Libra 💘

Mercury enters Libra on October 4. It will stay there until October 22, making for a short transit. Mercury in Libra makes us focus on relationships and communication. We are more likely to seek harmony in our relationships.

While Mercury is in Libra, we tend to be more diplomatic and friendly. We are feeling kinder, avoiding being rude and self-centered in our communications. We might be more interested in meeting new people and making connections. This could be a time of increased social activity and networking.

We could make great progress in our personal and professional lives. We can be more rational in our one-on-one relationships. It’s a good time to look at our negotiation skills. We are more likely to work together to solve problems and find common ground, and it could be a good time to note how to bring this into our daily lives.

It can be more difficult to make decisions during this more open-minded time. We are more likely to sit on the fence and accommodate others' opinions to keep the peace. We don’t want to look like the bad guy. It’s a powerful time to consider other points of view, especially if this is something that we usually struggle with.

Our interest in art, beauty, and harmony might be increased, leaving us feeling inspired. Appreciate beauty and harmony in our surroundings. Pursue any interests in art, music, or literature.

Mercury in Libra is a time of great potential for progress. Coming together to make peaceful negotiations or considering things from a view we never have before can help us work toward a better future. As Libra tends to be a people-pleaser, we should be sure that we are not bending or breaking on our personal boundaries.

Journal Prompts for Mercury in Libra:

Explore a recent conversation or negotiation where I had to find a compromise. What did I learn from that experience?

Reflect on a time when I found it challenging to express my true feelings or opinions for fear of disrupting the peace. What could I have done differently to address the situation?

How do I handle conflict or disagreement in my communication? Are there ways I can improve my conflict resolution skills while maintaining my desire for fairness?

Do I tend to weigh the pros and cons carefully when making decisions, or am I easily swayed by others' opinions? How can I strike a better balance between seeking input and trusting my own judgment?

Do I find it challenging to say "no" or set boundaries in my interactions with others? How can I work on asserting myself without sacrificing harmony?

How can I better express my love and appreciation for others?