#well. actually it doesn't function as a critique

[piniatafullofblood]

I can't believe jorge managed to make a more succinct critique of the way that nihilism inevitably leads to unnecessary violence and fascism and hope is the strongest form of rebellion than what suzzane collins did with coriolanus's devolving worldview and gault's lockeian 'state of nature' ideals in tbosas

[skrunksthatwunk]

i just finished saw v and i don't have high hopes for the rest of the franchise (based on what ive heard) but im in too deep to stop now

[sparrowlucero]

Even if a creator is a bad person it's still okay to like their work. People need to mind their own business.

Honestly it's not really that sort of situation. I'll actively defend Steven Moffat here.

There was a huge hate movement for him back in the early 2010s - which, in retrospect, formed largely because he was running 2 of the superwholock shows at once, one of which went through extremely long hiatuses* and the other of which was functionally an adaptation of an already well regarded show**, making him subject to a sort of double ire in the eyes of a lot of fandom people. Notably, his co-showrunner, Mark Gatiss, is rarely mentioned and much of his work is still attributed to Moffat (and yes, this includes that Hbomberguy video. Several of "Steven Moffat's bad writing choices" were not actually written by him, they were Gatiss.)

People caricatured the dude into a sort of malicious, arrogant figure who hated women and was deliberately mismanaging these shows to spite fans, to the point where people who never watched them believe this via cultural osmosis. It became very common to take quotes from him out of context to make them look bad***, to cite him as an example of a showrunner who hated his fans, someone who sabotaged his own work just to get at said fans, someone who was too arrogant to take criticism, despite all of this being basically a collective "headcanon" about the guy formed on tumblr. Some if it got especially terrible, like lying about sexual assault (I don't mean people accused him of sexual assault and I think they're making it up, I mean people would say things like "many of his actresses have accused him of sexual assault on set" when no such accusations exist in the first place. This gets passed around en masse and is, in my opinion, absolutely rancid.)

On top of that a ton of the criticism directed at the shows themselves is, personally, just terrible media criticism. So much of it came from assuming a very hostile intent from the writer and just refusing to engage with the text at all past that.

Like some really common threads you see with critique of this writer's work, especially in regards to Doctor Who since that's the one I'm most familiar with:

A general belief that his lead characters were meant to be ever perfect self inserts, and so therefore when they act shitty or arrogant or flawed in any way, that's both reflective of the author and something the show wants you to view as positive or aspirational.

An overarching thesis that his characters are "too important" in the narrative due to the writer's arrogance and self obsession (even though this is a very deliberate theme that's stated several times)

A lot of focus on the writer personally "attacking" the fans or making choices primarily out of spite.

A tendency to treat the show being different to what it's adapting as inherently bad and hostile towards the original.

Just generally very little consideration and engagement with the themes, intent, etc. of the shows

This one's a little more nebulous and doesn't apply to all critique but a lot of it, especially recently, is clearly by people who haven't seen the show in like 10 years and their opinion is largely formed secondhand through like, "discourse nostalgia". Which. you know. bad.

I think these are just weird and nonsensical ways to engage with a work of fiction. I also think it's really sad to see the show boiled down to this because that era of who is, in my opinion, very thematically rich and unique among similar shows, and I'm disappointed that it's often dismissed in such a paltry way.

This isn't to say people aren't allowed to critique Steven Moffat or anything, but the context in which he basically became The Devil™ to a large portion of fandom and is still remembered in a poor light is very tied to this perfect storm of fan culture and I just don't agree with a ton of it.

* I'm sure most people have seen the way long running shows and hiatuses will cause people to fall out with a show, with some former fans turning around and joining a sort of "anti fandom" for it while it's still airing. That happened with both these shows. ** Doctor Who will change it's entire writing staff, crew, and cast every few years, and with that comes a change in style, tone, theme - the old show basically ends and is replaced by a new show under the same title. As Steven Moffat's era was the first of these handovers for the majority of audiences, you can imagine this wasn't a well loved move for many fans. *** I know for a fact most people have not sought out the sources for a lot of these quotes to check that they read the same in context because 1) most of them were deleted years ago and are very difficult to find now and 2) many of them do actually make sense in the context of their respective interviews

[cy-cyborg]

Disability Tropes: The Miracle Cure

The miracle cure is a trope with a pretty negative reputation in disability circles, especially online. It describes a scenario in which, a disabled character, through either magic, advanced technology, divine intervention or some combination of the three, has their disability cured throughout the course of the story. Sometimes this is literally, as in the disability is completely and entirely cured with no strings attached. Other times, it looks like giving an amputee character a prosthetic so advanced that it's basically the same as "the real thing" and that they never take off or have any issue with, or giving the character with a spinal injury an implant that bypasses the physical spine's break, or connects to an exoskeleton that allows them to walk again. Sometimes, it can even look like giving a character some kind of magic item or power that negates the effects of the disability, like what I talked about in my post about "the super-crip" trope. Either way though, the effect is the same: The disability is functionally cured and is no longer an "issue" the author or character has to worry about.

But why would this be a bad thing? In a world with magic or super-advanced tech, if you can cure a character's disability, why wouldn't you?

[ID: a screenshot of Roy mustang from Full metal alchemist Brotherhood, a white man with short black hair in a hospital gown. In the corner of the screen is the hand of another person holding a small red gemstone. /End ID]

Well there's a few reasons. First, lets talk about the purely writing related ones. If you've been around the writing or even media critique communities for a bit, you've likely heard people voicing their frustrations with tropes like "The fake-out death" where a character is either implied to have died, but comes back later, or is explicitly shown to be dead and then resurrected. Often when this happens in media, it leaves the audience feeling cheated and like a character's actions and choices don't really matter if even the worst mistakes and consequences can be undone. In the case of the latter situation, where they die and are brought back, it can make the stakes of the whole story feel a lot lower, since even something like death is shown to be reversible, so the audience doesn't really have to worry about anything bad happening to their favourite character, and once you've used this trope one time, people will constantly wonder why you wouldn't use it every time it comes up.

The same is true for "fixing" a character's disability. It sets a precedent that even things as big and life-changing as disability aren't permanent in this setting. We don't have to worry about anything major happening to the characters, there's no risks associated with their actions if it can all be undone, and it will lower the stakes of the story for your audience. Personally, I also feel like it's often used as a cop-out. Like writers wanted to include a major injury the leads to something big like disability for shock value, but weren't sure how to actually deal with it afterwards, so they just made it go away. Even in cases where the character start the story with a disability and are cured, this can still cause issues with your story's stakes, because again, once we've seen you do it once, we know its possible, so we won't feel the need to worry about anything being permanent.

Ok, so that's the purely writing related reasons, but what if that situation doesn't apply to the story you're writing? What if they're "fixed" right at the end, or the way they're cured is really rare, so it can't be used multiple times?

I'm glad you asked, because no, this is far from the only reason to avoid the trope! In my opinion, the more important reason to avoid it is because of how the a lot of the disabled community feels about the miracle cure trope, and the ideas about disability it can perpetuate if you're not very, very careful.

You might have noticed that throughout this post, I've put words like "cured" and "fixed" in quotes, and that's because not every disabled person wants a cure or feels like their ideal to strive for is able-bodied and neurotypical. For many of us, we have come to see our disabilities as part of us, as part of our identities and our sense of self, the same way I, as a queer person might see my queerness as a part of my identity. This is an especially common view among people who were born with their disability or who had them from a young age, since this is all they've ever really known, or who's disability impacts the way they think, perceive and process the world around them, how they communicate with people or in communities who have a long history of forced conformity and erasure such as the autism and deaf communities. Many disabilities have such massive impacts on our lives that we literally wouldn't be who we are today if they were taken away. So often though, when non-disabled people write disabled characters, they assume we'd all take a "cure" in a heart-beat. They assumed we all desire to be just like them again, and this simply isn't the case. Some people absolutely would, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not as universal as media representation makes it out to be.

Another reason it's so heavily disliked is because this trope is often used in conjunction with other ableist and harmful tropes or it's used in ways that perpetuate misinformation about living with a disability and it can have ableist implications, even if that's not what the author necessarily intended.

If the miracle cure is used right at the end of the story for example, as a way to give characters a happy ending it can imply that the only way for a disabled character to be happy in the long run, is for them to be "fixed", especially if they were miserable all the way up until that point. If it's used earlier in the story as a way to get said character back into the action, it can also be read as the author thinking that disabled people can't be of use to the plot, and so the only way to keep them around is to "fix" them.

Of course, there's also the fact that some authors and writers will also play up how bad being disabled is in order to show why a cure is justified, playing into the "sad disabled person" trope in the process, which is pretty much what it says on the tin. Don't get me wrong, this isn't to say that being disabled is all easy-breezy, there are never any hard days and you should never show your character struggling, not at all, the "sad disabled person" trope has it's place (even if I personally am not a fan on it), but when both the "sad disabled person" trope and the miracle cure trope are used together, it's not a great look.

This is especially bad when the very thing that cures the disability, or perhaps the quest the heroes need to go on to get it, is shown to be harmful to others or the disabled person themselves. Portraying living with a disability as something so bad that it justifies hurting others, putting others at risk, loosing yourself or killing yourself in order to achieve this cure perpetuates the already harmful idea that disability is a fate worse than death, and anything is justified to avoid it.

I've also noticed the reasons the authors and writers give for wanting to cure their characters are very frequently based on stereotypes, a lack of research in to the actual limits of a person's disability and a lack of understanding. One story I recall reading years ago made sure to tell you how miserable it's main character, a former cyclist, was because he'd been in a car accident where he'd lost his arm, and now couldn't ride bikes anymore, seemingly unaware of the fact arm amputees can, in fact, ride bikes. There are several whole sports centred around it, and even entire companies dedicated to making prosthetic hands specifically for riding bikes. but no, the only way for this to resolve and for him to be happy was to give him his arm back as a magical Christmas miracle! It would be one thing if the story had acknowledged that he'd tried cycling again but just had difficulties with it, or something was stopping him from being able to do it like not being able to wear the required prosthetic or something, but it really did seem as though the author was entirely unaware it was even possible, which is an issue when it's the whole point of your story existing. This happens a lot more often than you'd think, and it's very clear when an author hasn't even bothered to google search if their character would be able to do something before deciding the only solution is to take the disability away.

There's also the frustration that comes from being part of an underrepresented minority, finally seeing a character like you on screen or in a book, only for that representation to be taken away. Disabled people make up roughly 16% of the population (though many estimate these numbers are actually much higher), but only about 2.8% of American TV shows and 4.1% of Australian TV shows feature explicitly disabled characters. In 2019, around 2.3% of films featured disabled characters in a speaking roll, and while it's slowly getting better as time goes on, progress on that front is very slow, which is why its so frustrating when we do see characters like ourselves and so much of their stories focus on wishing to be, trying to become or actually being "cured".

An finally, there's the fact this is just a really common trope. Even if we ignore the issues it can cause with your story's tone and stakes, the harm it can do to the community when not handled with care, the negative perceptions it can perpetuate and everything else. It's just a plain-old overdone trope. It shows up so often that I, and a lot of disabled people, are just getting tired of seeing it. Despite everything I've said, there are valid reasons for people to not want to be disabled, and just like how I made sure to emphasise that not everyone wants a cure, it's important to recognise that not everyone would refuse it either. So long as it's not done in a way that implies it's universal, in theory, depicting someone who would want and accept a cure is totally fine. The issue is though that this trope is so common and so overdone that it's starting to feel like it's all we ever see, especially in genres like sci-fi and fantasy (and also Christmas movies for some reason).

[ID: A Gif of a white man in a top hat nodding his head with the caption "Merry Christmas" down the bottom. /end ID]

Personally, because it's so common, I find even the few examples of the trope used well frustrating, and I honestly feel that it's at the point where it should be avoided entirely where possible.

Ok but Cy, you mentioned there are ways to use this trope well, what are they?

So, like I said, I'm of the opinion that this trope is better off not being in your work at all, but if, for whatever reason, you can't avoid it, or it's use is really that important to the story you want to tell, there are less harmful ways to implement it.

Don't have your only disabled character take the cure

If you really must cure your disabled character's disability, don't make them the only disabled person in the story. Show us another character who, when offered the same cure, chooses not to take it. This at least helps push back a little against the assumption of "of course everyone would want this" that these kinds of stories often imply and doesn't contribute (as much) to disability erasure in the media.

Don't make it a total cure

In real life, there are cures for some disabilities, but they rarely leave no trace. For example, an amputee's limb can sometimes be reattached if it was severed and they received medical treatment fast enough, but it usually results in at least a little nerve damage and difficulties with muscle strength, blood flow or co-ordination in that limb. Often times, these "cures" will fix one issue, but create another. You might not be an amputee anymore, but you're still disabled, just in a different way. You can reflect this in your fictional cures to avoid it feeling like you just wanted to avoid doing the work to write good disabled representation.

Do something interesting with it

I got a comment on my old tumblr or possibly Tik Tok account ages ago talking about their planned use for the miracle cure trope, where their character accepts the cure at the cost of the things that made her life enjoyable post-disability. Prior to accepting the cure, she had found other ways to be independent to some extent and her community and friends helped her bridge the gaps, but they were all taken from her when she was "cured" forcing her into isolation. Kind of like a "be careful what you wish for" sort of thing. The story was meant to be a critique on how society ignores alternative ways of getting the same result and how conforming to other people's ideas of "normal" isn't always what you need to bring you happiness. This was a genuinely interesting way to use the trope I think, and it's a perfect example of taking this trope and twisting it to make an interesting point. If you must use a trope like this, at least use it to say something other than "disability makes me sad so I don't want to think about it too much". Alternatively, on a less serious note, I'm also not entirely opposed to the miracle cure being used for comedy if it fits the tone. The Orville has some issues with it's use of the Miracle Cure trope, but I'd be lying if I said Isaac amputating Gordan's leg as a prank, knowing it could be reversed in a few hours did get a chuckle out of me.

If your villain's motivation is finding a cure for themselves, don't use it as justification for hurting people

Disabled villains need a post all their own honestly, but when a villain's motivation for doing all the terrible things they do is so they don't have to be disabled anymore, it's especially frustrating. Doubly so if the writer's are implying that they're justified in their actions, or at least that their actions are understandable because "who would want to live like that?" Honestly, as a general rule of thumb, avoid making your villains disabled if you aren't disabled yourself (especially if they're your only disabled character), but if they are disabled, don't use the disability as a justification for them hurting people while finding a cure.

So are there any examples currently out there to look at where the trope is used, if not well, at least tolerably?

Yeah, I'd say so, but they're few and far between. Two examples come to mind for me though.

The Dragon Prince:

[ID: A Gif of Ava the Wolf from the Dragon Prince, a light brown, fluffy wolf who is missing her front right leg. /End ID]

The Dragon Prince on Netflix uses the miracle cure twice, but I still really enjoyed the show (at least I did, up until my Netflix subscription ran out, so I've only seen up to season 4). The first time the trope is used in the series, it's actually a fake-out. Two of the main characters, while looking for someone to help them heal the dragon egg they're carrying, encounter a young girl named Ellis and her pet wolf Ava. The two explain their egg is not looking good and they need to find someone to help it, but no one they've found had the knowledge or ability to do anything to help. Ellis says she knows a healer who can help them, and tells them that this healer even restored Ava's amputated leg when she was a pup. When we actually reach this "miracle healer" however, she is revealed to be simply an illusionist. She explains that Ava is still missing her leg, she simply made it look as though she had restored it because Ellis's parents were planning to throw the puppy out, believing it would not survive with its disability and would only be a drain on supplies. This was not actually true and Ava adapted to her amputation very well, she simply needed more time, and hiding her disability and making her appear abled gave her the time she needed to fully recover and adjust. When they return to the healer with the main characters, she removes the illusion and explains why she did it, emphasising that the real problem was never with Ava, but with how people made assumptions about her.

While I do feel it was drawn out a bit too long, I do appreciate the use of the trope as the set up to an overall positive twist. Disability does come with down-sides, it's part of the deal and it would have been nice to see a bit more of that, but for disabilities like amputation in particular, the worst of our problems often come from a lack of adequate support and people's pre-conceived ideas about us, and it was nice to see this reflected, even if it is a little overly simplified.

The second time this trope comes up in the series is when one of the antagonists, Soren, is injured during a fight with a dragon, becoming paralysed from the neck down. His sister, Claudia is absolutely beside herself, believing it was her fault this even happened in the first place, but Soren actually takes his new disability very, very well, explaining that he understands there are things he can't do now, but that there's a lot of things he can still try, that his previous job as a soldier just didn't allow time for. It's possible this reaction was him being in denial but it came across to me as genuine acceptance. He is adamant that he doesn't want a cure right from the beginning because he knows that a cure would come at a cost that he doesn't want his sister to pay, and that he is content and happy with this new direction his life will be going in. Claudia, however, is not content. It had been shown that she was already using dark magic, but this event is what starts her down the path of using it in earnest, disregarding the harm it will cause to those around her. She ignores Soren's wishes, kills several animals in order to fuel the healing spell that will "fix" him, and Soren is pretty clearly shown to be horrified by her actions. What I like about this use of the miracle cure trope is that it touches on something I've seen happen a lot to disabled people in real-life, but that rarely shows up in media - the fact that just because we accept ourselves, our disabilities and our new limits, doesn't mean our friends and family will, unfortunately. In my own life, my mum and dad were always accepting of my disability when I was younger, but as I got older and my support needs changed, my body took longer to heal and I stopped being able to do a lot of things I could when I was little, they had a very hard time coming to terms with it and accepting it. I'm not alone in this either, a lot of disabled people end up cutting contact with friends and family members who refuse to accept the reality of our situations and insist "if we just try harder maybe we won't be so disabled" or "Maybe you will get better if you just do [xyz]". Unfortunately however, some disable people's wishes are ignored completely, like Soren's were. You see this a lot in autistic children who's parents are so desperate to find a cure that they hurt their kids through toxic and dangerous "treatments" or by putting them through abusive therapies that do more harm than good. Claudia has good intentions, but her complete disregard for Soren's decision still harm them both in the long run, leading to the deterioration of their relationship and causing her to spiral down a very dark path.

Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood

[ID: A Gif of Ed from full metal alchemist, a white boy with blond hair, staring angrily at a jar of milk on the table. His brother Al, a sentiant suit of armour, is in the background looking directly at the camera. The caption, spoken by Ed, says "So we meet again you little bastard" /end ID.]

The show does begin with Ed and Al looking for a way to cure their disabilities (which they gave themselves when trying to resurrect their mother as children went horribly wrong). However, when the boys discover that the object needed to do that - a philosopher's stone, can only by made through absolutely abhorrent and despicable means, and using one, likewise, comes at the cost of potentially hundreds or thousands of people's souls, they immediately stop, and shift their focus on finding the stones that had already been made so it can't fall into the wrong hands, and preventing the creation of new ones. The core theme of the show is that everything has a cost, and sometimes the cost is simply too great.

However, right at the end of the show, several characters are healed in a variety of ways. Ed gives up his ability to do alchemy to get his brother's body back, as well as his arm so he can save his friends in the final battle, but neither of the boys come away from this completely "healed". Al's body has not been used since he was a child, and so it is shown he has experienced severe muscular atrophy that will take a long time and a lot of work to recover from, acknowledging that he has a pretty tough road ahead of him. When we see him in the epilogue, he is still on crutches despite this being several months after getting his body back. Likewise Ed is not fully healed, and is still missing one of his legs even if he got his arm back.

The more... interesting use of the trope, however, is in the form of Colonel Mustang who was blinded in the final season. Mustang is shown to take to his blindness pretty well given the circumstances, finding a variety of ways to continue doing his job and reaching his goals. When other characters offer to let him use the philosopher's stone to heal himself however, he takes it, acknowledging that this is a horrible thing to do and that Ed and Al would be extremely disappointed in him if they ever found out. He uses it both to cure his own disability, and to cure another character who was injured earlier in the show. While I'll admit, I did not like this ending, I can at least appreciate that the show made sure to emphasis that a) Mustang was doing fine without the cure, and b) that this was not morally justified. The show spent a very long time drilling into the viewer how morally reprehensible using the stone was, and it didn't try to make an exception for Mustang - you weren't supposed to like that he did that.

When I talk about these tropes, I do try to give them a fair chance and discuss the ways it can potentially work, but I really do want to reiterate that this particular trope really is best avoided. There are ways to make it work, but they will still leave a bad taste in many of your viewer's or reader's mouths and you have to be exceptionally careful with your wording and framing, not just in the scenes where this trope is used, but in the lead up. If you really must use it, I highly recommend getting a few disability sensitivity readers and/or consultants (yes, even if you are disabled yourself) to help you avoid some of the often overlooked pitfalls.

[shattered-system]

The “Redefinition” of Systempunk

Updated version!

We're not typically an essay kind of blog, but there's something l've been turning over in my mind since l've seen it.

I have the post pulled up now actually, and about 11 hours ago @/the-alarm-system "recoined" (stole) the term systempunk in a long post, as well as designed a flag with its own meaning and I want to sort through some of it.

I also have a few personal pet peeves about their flag design, given that it's color palette clashes and the flag is way too busy. I don't expect it to spread far given that it violates several rules of good design (saying this as someone who has been to school for graphic design.)

I will not post it here, because I don't care to spread it any more than this post already may.

Their flag slightly predates my own version of the systempunk flag, but given that theirs was created for a separate concept with a stolen name, I maintain that we were the first.

We begin with their definition of systempunk.

“A term or Subculture surrounding the liberation of plurals and the critique of psychiatry."

First issue lies here. Both the destigmitization of dissociative disorders and critique of the psych field are extremely important discussions to have!

But they are separate discussions. There is absolutely overlap, but combining the two here is kind of shooting yourself in the foot, because then the conversation in that tag will be disorganized.

Have a systempunk movement AND an anti-psych or psych-critical movement. That way people can easily find the relevant discussions and terms.

This is followed up with a bit about the harm the psychiatric field has caused (not delving into that as that's not what this blog is about) and then circle back onto "the future is plural."

This is not one of the instances where OP means it in the "the future is destigmitization" sense, as they are pro endo. (On a side note, even ignoring the endo use of the phrase-- if I need to read about a slogan to understand the meaning of the slogan, it's a bad slogan. The point of a slogan is to communicate a concept quickly.)

The flag has black and brown stripes akin to the progress flag to represent systems of color, which is the only part of the design we have no critique for, but are describing anyway just as a bit of information.

The purple stripe stands for:

“Endo solidarity... endogenic systems are continuously harmed by antis who remain uncritical of psychiatry."

Once again, we are mixing two expansive concepts into one term.

The term anti-endo doesn't imply a position one way or the other on the psychiatry discussion.

Some anti-endos swear by the DSM5, others don't. Anti-endo is a term that means anti-endo/ endo-critical. That is all it means.

There is a difference between holding the DSM as the complete authority on mental illness and saying that a trauma disorder is caused by trauma.

I'm not sure if OP knows that and is choosing to cast anti-endos in a bad light, or legitimately confused. However, OP is a syscourse blog who is on a lot of blocklists and is spammy in the tags, and has likely been blocked by anyone who isn't also out looking to pick immature fights. (This is a system who made a post in all caps calling for an endo raid on #systempunk.)

Continuing directly from the last quote:

“[Antis] are against the liberation of plurals and deny a plural future in order to push singlethood onto others."

It's possible OP is referring to final fusion, which the anti-endo community is not a monolith on either. Most people we've interacted with are supporters of functional multiplicity (including ourselves.)

Most likely however, they mean that anti-endos "push singlethood" by telling endogenics that they can't have a trauma disorder without trauma.

And I could go into a whole tirade about that, but dozens of systems have done it before and I doubt any pro-endos have gotten this far. I am writing this for the anti-endo and on-the-fence audiences.

Visit @antimisinfo's helpful masterpost for a list of legitimate sources.

OP seems to believe that by “forcing” this singlethood, we are contributing directly to the oppression of systems. Hypocritically, OP themselves are contributing directly to the oppression of trauma victims.

Endogenics are not part of the "diverse experiences of plurality” (we are diverse, but united in origin) given that they don't exist. And if they did, they would have such a fundamentally different experience than trauma-formed systems that both groups would need separate language and tags to have space to themselves.

And endos already have a well-established punk tag for themselves. It seems they won't be happy until they chase trauma victims out of every space they create for themselves and steal every term. They've already stolen even the medical terminology used for CDDs.

The yellow stripe of the flag is meant to represent those with actual CDDs. Once again, psych stuff is brought up. However, I do agree with OP that those who do not want final fusion should not be pushed into it.

The pink and white stripes of the flag are entirely dedicated to anti-psych points. I think this would do wonderfully on it's own flag. But bringing the large range of discussion the anti-psych movement encompasses and the large range of discussion the CDD community has into the same tags is going to make it monumentally difficult to find the conversations you're wanting to have, and weaken both communities considerably.

There is a line of barbed wire across the flag that is partially for the same anti-psych movement as well as in favor of protecting and defending endogenic "identities." The ampersand stands for plurality.

There are fangs on the flag as well, encouraging systems to be loud and proud about their existence. And I agree that systems should make themselves known. However, endogenic systems don't exist, and their promotion will continue to drag us down.

I have read testimonies about traumagenic (real) systems being fakeclaimed or denied treatment by healthcare experts who, through exposure to endos, came to the conclusion CDDs are fake entirely.

Real systems seeking treatment and help after a lifetime of horrific abuse are being denied care.

Not to mention the setback of social acceptance by endos.

“Force plural liberation down the throats of others. Force the future to be plural."

[msunitedstatesjames]

Rating Veilguard companions based on their living spaces:

I'm coming up on the last handful of missions in Veilguard, and I noticed that I hadn't really spent all that much time looking around the rooms of the companions. I pretty much burst in and out, only staying long enough to hear whatever they have to say. So I decided to do a more in depth look. (There will be some moderate spoilers ahead if you haven't worked your way through most of Emmrich's companion quests.)

7. Lucanis

Okay, we've all heard the reasoning behind Lucanis's room of choice, but this "room" is still sad. As awesome as access to the kitchens is, this is just a straight up trauma room. That's without even mentioning the perilous number of candles near the bed of such a haunted (literally) man. But, at least he has somewhere to sleep, unlike some others, and he has plenty of supplies of citrus fruit, so scurvy won't be an issue.

6. Emmrich

I hate to rank this one so low. Not only is Emmrich my romance of choice, but I'm a huge book lover in real life, and I love this aesthetic. But this man doesn't have anywhere to sleep! He's in his 50s and has nowhere to sleep! Much has been said about where he might be sleeping every night. Does he sleep on the corpse slab? Does he sleep in the big red chair? Does he curl up in front of the fire like a hound? If he was 19 maybe those options would be feasible. But I'm in my early thirties in real life, and the idea of spending a night on a hard floor/slab is already unbearable to imagine, and sitting upright all night is only done if I'm so ill I can't do otherwise. No bed is just unforgiveable. Also, he's stuck with the skull and spirit of his former friend/rival seemingly listening in on everything and critiquing him constantly. Imagine just minding your own business and having a skull call you "moldering" while implying you're too old to be with your partner of choice. On the other hand, I envy the shelf space, the spiral staircase, and the gorgeous balcony view.

5. Taash

Maybe Taash likes having a gloomy room, I don't know. But sometimes this room looks like a straight up dungeon. Also, though there is some good functionality for training and such, the room lacks daily functionality due to the sheer amount of stuff everywhere. I get that Taash is a Lord of Fortune and treasure hunting is like their whole thing, but like, does Taash really need multiple huge stacks of silver bars and random sheaths of fabric here in their temporary Fade bedroom? What's the point of having so many tables if none of them have any more room to set things on when you actually need to? Some of these rugs are fantastic though. And Taash is one of only two companions with a real bed, so that counts for a lot.

4. Bellara

This is more workshop than bedroom, which I guess suits Bellara well enough. But there's a couple of issues here. First, there's some pretty spiky tools a little close to her cot. God forbid she has a nightmare and jerks upright out of a deep sleep, she'd get slightly impaled. Also, imagine trying to sleep with the smug face of the Archive looking out at you all the time. And don't forget the room is just full to bursting with mirrors. That seems like a confusing, hazardous, headache inducing horror. There is some cool elven decor though.

3. Neve

Neve has a pretty tiny space compared to some of the others, but I guess it's fitting for a noir style detective. She does have a bed, though it's only a less than stellar cot. She also has a bunch of wisps stealing her stuff all the time. But she has a beautiful view, more privacy than some of the others, and a nice desk, which is essential to a detective. And in the end this room is kind of gorgeous.

2. Harding

This whole place is fabulous. The plants are amazing. The magic butterflies are enchanting. The giant ceiling flower is beautiful. Harding doesn't have a real bed, but she has a canopy and a bedroll, which she's probably pretty comfortable in by now after 10+ years of being a scout. I also like that this room grows and transforms over the course of the story. Personally, I think this is the most aesthetically pleasing of the rooms, and I imagine there's some crickets in there to give you that peaceful summer evening soundtrack.

1.Davrin

Davrin's biggest advantage is the simple fact that he has a private sleeping area with a real bed. No one else has both of those things. On top of that, it's a functional space for he and Assan. It's open and has a nice perch for easy Assan access. It has shelf space for his carvings. He has lots of cool knick knacks. He has lots of natural light and a great view. But after looking more closely at his space I almost dropped him down a spot for one reason. NUGS. Did I miss a dialogue line about his love for nugs? Because there's A LOT of nug memorabilia in this place. There's a taxidermy nug with a face only Leliana could love. There's little nug carvings. There's bigger nug carvings. There's drawings of nug anatomy. I don't know if I'm more freaked out by the idea that Davrin brought them or the idea that Solas left them. Still, he does have a cozy fireplace/chair combo, as long as you don't mind being watched by the empty stares of a thousand lifeless nugs.

[decepti-thots]

🔥

Oooh, dealer's choice. Okay. Hmmm.

I think that MTMTE does not ever really manage to coherently bring together its ideas around things like functionism or the cold construct/forged idea, tbh. As ideas, it's very easy to latch onto in transformative fandom and try and do something with them- but on the flip side, I think that when you really try and just look at what the comic does with them in the text, they do not ever come together in a way that has a clear narrative goal, or is always well executed.

This feels weird to say when both concepts are incredibly necessary to the comic itself. They aren't superfluous elements you can take out and the comic is still what it is! Despite that, if you try and do a close read of the comic itself, it quickly feels apparent to me that a) in universe, diagetically, they are not very consistent and you often find yourself going 'wait, what?', and b) non-diagetically, in the realm of 'is this a stand in doing real world social commentary', it's straight up a mess much of the time. As worldbuilding, it's wishy-washy and inconsistent; as allegory or anything like it, you often wind up going 'hm. well. that doesn't really work'.

Is cold construction supposed to be a commentary on classism? Maybe- but the degree to which the text reinforces that a degree of real physical difference exists makes that touchy, frankly. Is it then using that to talk about class and disability as it relates to class? This would be an interesting angle- but the comic has too many issues around its treatment of the latter to invite uncritical use of that lens, in my opinion. Sometimes, racism gets invoked, but of that I can only say I think it is an ill-advised approach the comic does not explore well! Functionism, meanwhile, gestures at a lot of stuff, but never really convinces me the comic is quite sure what it's getting at there. Again, the question of classism comes to mind, and it's all clearly a response to the stuff set up early on in IDW1 by Megatron: Origin, which invites such commentary and critique. But there's just too many holes in its treatment of certain characters to make a lot of sense. The inconsistency means trying to do an actual read across the whole comic winds up maddening. (Source: I've tried.)

And if we justify this by saying 'not everything is allegory, sometimes worldbuilding is just worldbuilding'... well. It just still doesn't add up! In the moment, it seems to make sense, but attempting to extrapolate out into an actual consistent sense of how that world works, or worked pre-war, quickly falls apart for me. Which brings us back to the idea it's not literally consistent but is Doing Thematic Work, which... see above! We run into The Issues again!

This is not to say I think there's nothing interesting to be gained from engaging with this element, to be clear. But I find it's most productive for me when I engage with it from the baseline that it's a fairly muddled, inconsistent, and ultimately difficult to pin down element that, while very important to the comic, is not one of its narrative strengths. Very much a part of the comic where I think admitting the meat is in doing work as a reader to make it work for whatever reading you want to do is a good way to approach it, rather than assuming the comic itself has done that leg work. (And sometimes, that will mean being critical of it; I really do think there's stuff in there that deserves unpacking in how it's handled.)

[hamliet]

Do you have any thoughts on how RWBY handled the white fang storyline?

Unpopular opinion: it's decent?

Now, now, before people come at me with pitchforks: yes, it's overly simplified. The entire story is a fairy tale, though, so that's not out of place. It also complements the rest of the story thematically, and manages to incorporate nuance and complexity in despite the simplification of issues.

I think it's a mistake to look at the White Fang as a 1=1 of the real life struggles of marginalized groups. That said, there obviously are parallels, and so people aren't mistaken to note those. I just think it's not meant to be an instructional manual and shouldn't necessarily be viewed as one, but rather a conversation starter in some ways. And yes, those conversations can and should include critiques.

So I'll go over the points that I think it did well and how those ties into real life, but also specifically how they work for RWBY's overall story. This does not negate criticisms, especially those by marginalized groups.

In contrast to some other fictional depictions, RWBY actually is better as well because it avoids the number one pitfall of such issues: the X-Men fallacy. I've talked about this in terms of Attack on Titan before, but essentially it's the idea that the problem with depicting discrimination against superpowered people is that, well, there is a logical reason for people to be concerned about superpowers; hence, it almost justifies that very discrimination it seeks to condemn. This isn't present in the faunus/human divide. They are both capable of superpowers.

It also doesn't fall into another common pitfall: the idea that people have to be perfect to be victims of discrimination. The White Fang... has senselessly and cruelly murdered people; doesn't mean faunus discrimination isn't also cruel and senseless and doesn't justify it. And this is something that we do see in real life too--people trying to either completely whitewash the actions of radical anti-oppression movements, which can do awful things, or trying to use these awful things as evidence that these people deserve discrimination when really it's a result of rage and desperation at a society that refuses to give them anything. That doesn't justify the pain of the victims of the awful things (see, Weiss) but nor does it negate the righteousness of that anger.

It does portray the faunus as a fairly diverse group too, when fiction often portrays marginalized groups as a monolith. That's not true. People from one group have very different ideas about what liberation looks like, and what they want to achieve. People in marginalized groups are people, and they can be motivated by a variety of selfless principles and egotistical validation, and neither negate the other. See, Sienna vs. Ghira vs. Adam.

Now, of course within RWBY Ghira's more nonviolent principles more or less win out. That's because RWBY is again a fairy tale where you have to fight to live, but that also doesn't endorse violence. If you expected otherwise, wrong genre. Of course the real world is far more complex, but it's not as if there is no real world basis for this either. Peacemakers exist, and nonviolence has accomplished a lot before. Whether or not that's the be-all-end-all of the faunus struggle in RWBY isn't even clear, so I don't think it's intended to be the be-all-end-all preached moral as it applies to the real world either.

Story-wise, the White Fang functions as a Jungian shadow of society. If you do not take charge of your own life, you are letting others decide for you. The faunus who disagree with the White Fang take it back, because they have to acknowledge it to move forward in society. They have to integrate with it, and accept their own humanity: capable of good and what they might rather deny.

This faction--the faunus who don't like the White Fang--are represented in Ghira, who becomes passive and steps back from aspects of the movement. However, when Blake arrives in Menagerie, this changes, because Blake's entire arc is about integration. Ghira then becomes active, working for the rights of the faunus and for the White Fang to be better rather than simply disavowing the White Fang in an attempt to be a good person, because doing nothing isn't exactly good.

On a more character level, the White Fang exists for Blake's arc. Her Jungian archetype is the Shadow. Like, it's literally her semblance's name. Hence, the idea of the shadow is gonna be important. If you want more on this, @aspoonofsugar has written a meta on it here and another here.

So, for Blake, on a personal level the White Fang (especially under Adam) represents the parts of herself she doesn't like. The part that ran from her family. The part that is violent. And yet, she cannot abandon it or simply disavow it. No, the answer is instead:

We’re not going to destroy the White Fang. We’re going to take it back.

She has to integrate with it, take the good--the righteous anger, the focus on justice and equality.

The White Fang also comments on the microcosm/macrocosm of alchemy.

For the unaware, RWBY is an alchemical story, and the principles of alchemy are represented in the symbol for the philosopher's stone, as seen above. Microcosm: the smaller circle enclosing two people in the center who come together (hence chemical weddings). The square is the four elements: water, earth, fire, air. The triangle is body, heart, and mind. The larger circle is the macrocosm.

The Shadows for Blake on a personal level--microcosm--is Adam. The Shadow on a worldwide, big picture scale--the macrocosm--is the White Fang. Integrating with the shadow isn't only an individualistic endeavor, but also one that benefits society as a whole and brings life to the entire world. The main point of alchemy's philosopher's stone, which Blake, along with the rest of RWBY, are symbolically being transformed into.

I think the main issue with the White Fang, by the way, is its handling of Adam. Typically you don't kill the shadow, though I do think Blake kinda had no choice. Still, I don't think the show fully explored him.

Yet what does work with what we have is that Yang has to face Adam, Blake's shadow, to be with Blake. Yang losing her arm to Adam parallels her being upset about losing Blake to fear, because symbolically Blake can hurt her deeply in the way only a lover can. Blake has to stop running from her shadow and allow herself ot be known and seen by Yang to be with her.

[psudopod]

There's some back and forth about that post about how men are unwelcome in leftist spaces and I've reblogged from both sides cause both sides are right. The world is big and diverse and I've seen it both ways.

I've certainly seen spaces that have too much bioessentialist "yes all men" rhetoric, it is stupid. It gets nowhere and just indulges the worst impulses of enforcing binaries and fear based policy discussion. Like, damn people we're not different species we're not actually that different at all.

At the same time these spaces that have developed this attitude did so in response to interlopers who would enter the conversation, not interested in how they can help the movement but how the movement can help them. Feminists can't solve male incarceration just like the audubon society can't solve net neutrality. Sorry, good luck with your thing, genuinely.

I've also seen a rebuttal that said that the right doesn't actually value men, so men shouldn't be drawn to it. Well, their messaging says they do and they make a show of it so functionally they do.

This is just like the situation of the left and ex-muslims. Either pick the left where, in many public facing spaces, critiquing islamic countries for basic things like assaulting women for not covering up right is hushed as islamophobia (tbh I've seen a lot less of that recently. A lot of open support for that college student recently and open discussion), or pick the right where critiquing islam is welcome. Even when "critique" goes well past the point of discussing cultural practices that need to stop all the way to condemning people to die for being savages (fuckin asmongold.)

If people tell men they are immutably bad, nothing to be done, then the men will do nothing and move on. That being said if there are no spaces on the left that serve the needs of men, trying to co-opt existing spaces will just result in hostility. People can make new spaces, we can welcome that. WhiteDudesForHarris, I think it was? Seemed productive.

[notomys-mordax-blog]

I've let my thoughts marinate for a while after finishing up Dragon Age Veilguard. In the spirit of contributing to a fandom that I love, I'm going to be shouting my general thoughts about the game into the void instead of having the decency to keep them in my head.

TLDR: it's complicated. Better than expected, but still pretty flawed.

Things I liked:

I was initially pretty meh on the toonier direction they took the character art in. It felt like ... knock-off overwatch. However the style really grew on me as I played the game and I found that the character models were really expressive in a fun way.

The environment design was really colorful and fun! One of my biggest critiques of DA:O was how ... brown and ugly the game was. While I think it was probably the right artistic choice to remove the hilariously over the top post-combat blood splatter effects, I do miss it. This game had some really interesting visual design.

Watching Solas's worst memories like episodes of Real Housewives with the crew.

The combat was also more fun than expected. I definitely prefer tactical combat in games, and don't generally enjoy action games, but I had fun with it and felt like it struck (for me) the right balance between difficulty and frustration.

There were some really interesting and subtle things in some of the writing (especially when combined with character expressions). There were little characterization details that I thought were really well done (for example: the fact that Lucanis was obviously the most rattled at weisshaupt) . The prison of regret was a high point in the series.

I really liked a lot of the big lore reveals.

It was fun seeing some of the environments that we've only heard about. in the previous games.

I actually really enjoyed how direct Taash's gender adventure was. There was no room for "well actually, they aren't non-binary, they are this unique fantasy term that isn't actually queer". I also enjoyed how it acted as a vehicle for the other gnc characters in the story to have their moments. Bonus points for also having non-binary characters doing something other than gender with their lives.

The game was functional, complete and ran well on launch! I had to put down BG3 for like two months because it was unplayably buggy when I picked it up, and the ending of DA:I really doesn't have any impact without Tresspasser, which came out much later.

Things I didn't like:

The writing was very uneven and pretty awkward at times. The number of times the phrases "Gods, Rituals and Artifacts" were uttered by different characters, often without any further explanation, really made me itchy. It was really weird to me why the characters kept calling the Evanuris Gods (especially with a non-elven Rook). I also wanted to grab Neve by the shoulders and shake her whenever she talked about the venatori doing a ritual. WHAT KIND OF RITUAL? GIVE ME SOME JUICY LORE TIDBITS BEFORE I CHEW MY ARM OFF.

The venatori and the antaam were straight out of Saturday cartoon villains. Their motivation also made absolutely no sense from a world-building point of view (maybe if they leaned more into the fact that the elven gods were also the Tevinter old gods ...?). This whole conflict really felt ... underbaked.

I can respect the game design choice to want the player to be completely heroic, and frankly -- given that most people don't pick the "evil" path, it makes sense to devote more effort in creating permutations of the good path ... but I do feel like they really could have pushed the themes of "as a leader, sometimes you won't have any good choices" a little bit harder (idk -- I think it would have been interesting if instead of the blight dragon, you would have to chose whether or not you'd ally yourself with the venatori and leave Treviso to the Antaam or vice versa).

DA:I does a good job convincing me that Inky is creating complicated alliances between different powerful factions. DA:V falls flat in this regard. I think they were aiming for the different factions to feel small and scrappy, but with the exception of the Shadow Dragons (and maybe the Lords) ... the Wardens, the Mourn Watch, and the Crows are major political forces ... which feel weirdly small.

All of the companions were pretty ... unobjectionable and straightforward heroes. As someone who personally loved the dynamic between Anders and Fenris in DA:2, I was pretty disappointed by the lack of inter-party conflict. Serious cultural conflicts between characters such as Emmrich and Tassh were resolved .... without much fuss. I didn't feel like any of the conversations about the fact that Lucanis kills people for money had any teeth.

In that vein, I felt like the worldbuilding was also pretty defanged. Topics of racism and religious oppression were very prominent in earlier games. I think it's pretty obvious why having an oppressed racial minorities gods being the main villain would be a bad look. Heck, I can also understand and respect these themes being less fun for the writers to explore in the hellhole that is 2025, but I think this could have been handled in a more elegant way. Instead it felt weird and hand-wavy.

The crows really must've hired a PR team after that whole incident with Zev. My headcanons really had to do some heavy lifting.

We finally get to see Minrathous, the biggest magical city in Thedas ... and the area we explore is just a generic fantasy fishing town? We see the cool floating canons in the intro sequence! Give us more of those.

The game was inconsistent about incorporating bits of Rook's origins into the dialog. For example, the seer in Rivain explaining their relationship with spirits felt really weird with a Lord of Fortune Rook. Another (minor) example, Mourn Watch Rook eats the fish, it would have been neat to have the option for him to be vegetarian (given that this is common in Nevarra).

Romance is my favorite part of dragon age, and I felt like all of the romances were very ... paint by numbers.

Dreadwolf would have been a much better name.

Some of the comments from people involved in the game (specifically the AMA -- but also the whole "this is the most romantic dragon age game ever") had a weird vibe.

Where are Solas's agents? What happened to them?!

We were not betrayed by any of our apostate companions, 0/10 this is an important aspect of any dragon age game.

Rook felt like the boss that nobody wanted to invite to do anything fun. The companions seemed like they had a lot of dynamic with each other, but they never really directly spoke with Rook. It was weird how you couldn't talk to them. You had to awkwardly listen in on their conversations. Pretty much all of the companions have more chemistry with each other than Rook.

I have more thoughts about specific characters and plot points that I may share later, but I needed to expunge this from my mind like an exorcism.

[transingsomeformers]

the rescue bots if they were sims players

Boulder: Creates the most intricate and beautiful houses/community lots youve ever seen. Fully functional. His lots are always in the most popular all time downloads. doesn't spend too much time playing with the actual sims themselves, but he does has a simself thats in the artist career track.

Blades: Goes down the weird sims lore rabbithole, also Spends hours downloading cute and cool cc/mods for his game. but never plays with any of it, but he might need it one day for this specific look or playthrough guys listen LISTEN-

His game takes 4 hours to load then crashes in create-a-sim.

Chase: Rotational gameplay style with a spreadsheet documenting whats going on where. Follows the tutorials and little hints to a T. Treats his sims families very well. Has a lot of critiques and complaints about how unrealistic some of the careers are. Learned how to mod and creates custom careers that are more true to real life. Very good at finding loopholes in sims challenges.

Heatwave: tried it for like 5 minutes. Got bored. Opens it occasionally when he and kade argue so he can make a sim that looks like him, then take away the doors and pretend hes in jail.

bonus round

salvage: cc creator. Does beautiful recolors and mesh edits of the in game stuff + plus some custom functional objects/cc. Low poly counts so that the game will still run smoothly if you download them. Updates and restores old mods/cc that have either been lost to time or no longer maintained by their orignial creators

Blurr: All the crazy shit happens in his game cause he messes with the cheats too much. Downloads mods but never reads the description and now he doesn't know which one is breaking his game. finally relents and attempts cleaning up his mods folder only to lose focus and do something else.

quickshadow: didn't get the appeal at first but then she got realllly into it. Did a lot of in depth research about its development, and how the game works so that she can master all the challenges other players create. Plays it for 6 months straight then doesn't touch it for a year.

Hightide: Doesn't play, But servo does! (gamer dog :D) and he'll watch him sometimes when they have some downtime

Optimus: its the reason hes not answering heatwaves calls.

[fantasy-anatomy-analyst]

Do you have any critique for the designs of the Mudwings or Rainwings (from the Wings of Fire novels?)

okay, you know, i think i am going to just use this as a chance to talk about the most common pitfalls for dragon wing designs.

Wings of Fire designs are fine. the style is nice, the dragon designs are each unique enough from each other to stand out in their context. i can handwave some things about their anatomy because of the more cartoonized style and i will ignore the trope of making the evil dragons look distinctly more animalistic because it's clearly a series made for a younger audience.

but it still falls into the exact same dragon wing design problems i see absolutely everywhere. I've done it, you've done it, every single person who has ever tried to design a dragon in any style has done this. my points here are all based on the most common dragon wing type, which is the bat-like wing.

lack of patagium (the membrane between the shoulder and wrist) the Wings of Fire dragons are a bit awkward because some of them do have it and some of them do not and there does not seem to be a reason for this difference. the patagium is important! you really should have it on any dragon with that bat-like wing shape.

wing fingers extending past the membrane, especially with claws included. why are they doing that. when are those claws going to get used. wing fingers are built for the specific purpose of moving the wing. the only finger that should be extending out on its own with a claw is the thumb. unless you want to do pterosaur wings, in which case there are a few forward-facing fingers and one very long finger acting as the wing frame. honestly, more dragons should have pterosaur wings, they're an actual real life flying reptile and some of them were huge. please, we need more pterosaur-winged dragons.

membrane being way too deeply scooped between the fingers even when the wing is extended. this one makes me think people just don't actually know how wing membranes work. they are not a stiff material at all, but a very flexible type of skin. it should fold up between the fingers and near the body when the wing is withdrawn, but stretch out tight when the wing is extended. i know the scooped shape Looks Cooler but it's not very functional.

wing fingers being too stiff. those things move! they bend! they're very bendy! bats fly with a lot of finger curling. here are a few videos in slow motion that show the fingers and the flexible membrane really well: video 1. video 2. video 3. a lot of dragon designs i see just use the shoulder of the wing as the main point of motion. they won't even change the elbow angle. now, the elbow will never be fully straight in flight, but it should move too! I think one of the reasons people don't do this right is that it's just easier to use fewer points of motion in animation and obviously all dragons in motion are animated ones. but when you see it even on the hyper realistic style of dragons in things like Game of Thrones, it gets pretty frustrating. make those wings flex more. (and by mentioning the GoT dragons, I know they do move more than just the shoulder, but even their wing finger motion is very stiff, like the fingers only have one joint and the membrane doesn't move as much as it should)

elbow strut. you know what i mean. that weird little bone strut on the elbow on like every dragon design ever. it gets in the way of some very important membrane motion. it does not exist in any real life membranous wing that i am aware of. the closest you can argue for is that the yi qi, a dinosaur that might have had a membranous wing and also feathers, does have an odd strut-like bone and we don't know exactly how it was positioned. but from what i've seen, there is at least a consensus that it was connected to the wing hand, not the elbow. it might have been positioned parallel to the forearm and thus would create a strut-like shape extending at the elbow, but that's not how people draw the elbow strut on dragons. it always looks like there's just a weird stick attached to their joint. it serves no purpose. the reason people do this on their dragons is because they design the membrane poorly and need to add a strut to give the wing a bigger membrane. but this can be avoided if you just attach the membrane lower on the body to give it more surface area, and also let it stretch taut instead of making it scooped like it's slack even when the wing is extended. just do more studies of bat wings in motion and you'll have a better understanding of how your bat-like dragon wings should work.

[gabessquishytum]

Dream's a software developer (I could see either as an architect for that large-scale view mentality or as the Senior level dev that keeps getting asked to move into management type positions and just straight up refuses because he's been doing code happily for the past fifteen years and doesn't plan on changing that now).

He enjoys his job enough. He likes computers and code. It functions exactly as told (for better or worse) and appreciates the straightforwardness of it all. He's a bit insufferable to work with, but if you have an issue, he'll readily help (just be prepares for critiques on your code in the process).

Hob works at the same company as Dream, but as a front-end dev. The work he does for his day job is kinda boring. All standard corporate style web design. No fancy scripts or fun colors. But in his spare time, he weaves Javascript and CSS like a wizard and creates magical, animated scenes across the page. Would it be easier to just make a video and play it on the page instead? Sure, but where's the fun in that?

Dream and Hob get paired together on a small side project for work. Hob does the front-end work, Dream does the back-end. They get on each other's nerves at first, until Dream spots Hob tinkering with his personal code on their lunch break and is honestly a bit in awe. He's found code beautiful in its own right (the way one appreciates a well-oiled machine) but he's never seen it wielded in such a fashion before. This is the moment he falls just a little bit (read: a lotta bit) in love with Hob. He was already starting to fall for that endless charm and wit of his anyways.

The company hits the first quarter of the New Year and with it come layoffs. Hob gets fired along with some other devs from Dream's same team (a younger pair of devs: Matthew and Jessamy). A fellow named Will comes along to help Dream finish the project in Hob's stead and Dream hates every moment of it. He misses Hob, more than he ever thought he would.

So, in an impulsive rush of anger and longing, he quits the company because how dare it toss someone as good as Hob Gadling out the door without a thought? He's halfway to the café he and Hob had started frequenting together when he realizes that he's just thrown away a career fifteen years in the making. But when he finally gets to the café and sees Hob tapping away on his laptop, he knows he's made the right choice.

Dream slides into the seat across from him and proposes that they build something wonderful together. So they create a small business of their own. They become a freelance web dev team (and steal Jessamy and Matthew as well) and with their skills combined, they take off. It's not huge, but for their size, they're incredibly popular. And Dream's certain he's never enjoyed his work more than when he's working beside Hob.

Later on, Hob proposes to Dream via a custom website with the most beautiful web animations he's ever seen before. And of course, he says yes.

(If you're curious about what inspired this, here's the website: http://www.species-in-pieces.com)

This is such a good concept for a story!!! I really really love aus where Dream and Hob are coworkers. Dream being the grumpy, awkward guy who hides behind his coffee mug while Hob is the popular, chatty one who tries to get Dream involved in fun office activities or socialising after work - it makes so much sense to me.

And Dream quitting his long-term dream job because he's mad that genuinely talented people have been laid off? I love it. Dream just has this inate appreciation for hard work and good art, and that's exactly what Hob (and Jessamy and Matthew) do. How dare the stupid company not understand that they're firing people who deserve to thrive and grow in an environment which actually appreciates them? Everyone is shocked that Dream has quit (not only that, he sends around an email to everyone in the company from the ceo all the way down to the work experience guy, outlining exactly why he quit) because he seemed to be the type to play by the rules and never leave his comfort zone. Apparently, Hob has really helped him bloom into a much more confident person, able to express his principles and strive for better.

And Hob isn't surprised, because he always knew that Dream had the courage, talent and ambition to strike out on his own. Maybe he just needed a bit of love and understanding. Which Hob is only too happy to provide.

Their work together sometimes involves long hours and stress, but Dream wouldn't ever want to go back to the slightly soulless corporation where he used to be. Even if he's tired and a little frustrated by Hob’s disorganised workspace, Dream is perfectly content. There's nothing better than curling up in Hob’s lap while he taps away on a line of code. Plus, he has a great time building their wedding website. Hob got to propose, so Dream gets to celebrate their upcoming marriage with his own expression of love through code. The theme colours are, of course, black and red <3

[drdemonprince]

Just chiming in to agree that that person is not a selfish bitch. I'm also really put off by moralistic performances of emotion, and I know in my case it's because it was part of a pattern of abusive behaviour that my mother did.

Anytime you expressed to her that there was a problem with her behaviour, she seemed to genuinely believe that if she put enough effort into weeping and crying on her children's shoulders, and verbally denigrating herself for being an inherently bad an immoral person, and stressing so much that she developed physical illnesses from it, then she could follow that up by asking for forgiveness - as if it would be cruel for us to continue her suffering by denying her that forgiveness. Except that to her, "forgiveness" meant "it's all swept under the rug, I have Atoned By Suffering Guilt, so now it doesn't matter and I can keep doing it again." (I really wonder how much the religious background of her parents' generation came into the formation of this worldview.) And at the same time, she refuses to read news that's "too upsetting" and never engages with literature or media about dark themes "because there's enough of that in real life."

It might be cynical of me to read this pattern into the way people talk online about genocide. But I keep seeing parallels. My perspective is that a) if you're not regulating your emotions well enough to function, then you have less capacity to offer practical help; and b) people who are actually trying to survive genocide want unnecessary human suffering to END, so you're not aligning yourself with that hope by engaging in rumination etc that compounds suffering with not practical benefit to anyone.

But also, watching my mother's behaviour has led me to add perspective c) that a lot of people (in Christian cultures?) haven't developed enough understanding of the complexity of the world and how to relate to it, and genuinely believe that an overblown emotionally affected reaction, followed by helplessness and thereby inaction, is the only possible way for them to respond when they're confronted with upsetting information that demands action from them. Being raised to think in a black-and-white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and thinking about people as "either morally good or morally bad" rather than thinking about people as neutral and behaviours as either ethically helpful or harmful... it doesn't give them a conceptual framework to integrate upsetting information and then carry on getting things done, it's like their moral anxiety gets them stuck and that keeps the emotions escalating.

I see people discussing this pattern in the context of religious trauma, and in the context of the cultural construct of "whiteness" - the discovery of something morally bad has to be followed by an extreme emotional reaction that basically amounts to protesting your own innocence and helplessness to deny responsibility for your direct behaviours (in my mother's case) or complicity in a corrupt system (in the case of overwhelmed average people learning about genocide).

Maybe I'm rambling more than I'm analysing here, but the comparison stands out a lot to me and it's troubling to watch.

yo anon no this is gold, thank you for sharing. This is remarkably astute.

I will add the quick caveat that hyperempathic people who are debilitated by their sensitivity exist, of course, and have very real struggles and none of this is intended to denigrate them. In practice, their behavior can have the impact of silencing criticism or distracting from the issue at hand but being wired that way certainly does not doom a person to behaving in a counterproductive, manipulative manner.

This critique is more about performative over the top empathy as a tactic (conscious or not) of offloading responsibility, and as a pseudo-religious ideology that makes predominately white western cultures particularly ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of their global plundering. almost certainly by design. Most moral teachings that we encounter in the west promote this tactic and ideology, and it gets very deeply ingrained in most us if we don't devote a ton of attention to uprooting it.

thanks for this great response.

[librarycards]

Is there a word for like, the phenomena of many people in academia positions calling themselves "anti psychiatry" but having a really shallow take on it that is openly reactionary and hostile to disabled people. Like they'll say "adhd isn't real" not in a "the way mad people critique and reformulate concepts of adhd takes precedence over the way the medical establishment does" way but in a "stop whining addict you are not medically corrupt but morally corrupt" way that is really obviously hostile to the self-actualization of the disabled. Or they have tunnel vision on deligitimizing all pharmaceuticals. Which seems like a very unthorough and flawed way to critique the medical industrial complex. Companies are lying about drugs, mis-prescribing them, AND with-holding them. You can't just ignore the last one. Entire countries are held hostage by threat of pharmaceutical copyright embargo, and these types could care less. Anyway what's their deal. They seem like fash wellness types in "anti psychiatry" clothing.

this is a dangerous pov that has been embedded in the antipsych movement for a very long time, and continues to be perpetuated by people whose antipsych scholarship doesn't have a strong disability studies conceptual framework. the most (in)famous figure representative of these views is Thomas Szasz, who believed, in short, that "mental illness" was an abdication of patient "personal responsibility" and an excuse for "malingering." He correctly identified mental illness as a sociocultural + medico-legal construct, but chose to blame persons experiencing psychosocial distress/difference for the insufficiency and danger of pathologizing labels, rather than the structural violence that undergirds both discourses and material realities of what is understood as "mental illness."

Personally, I think that this genealogy of antipsychiatry is libertarian in origin, distinct, though not disconnected, to bodymind fascism / wellness-reductionism. Szasz and his ilk are notable in that they believe/d in absolute bodily autonomy and self-determination, with the caveat that such autonomy is predicated upon the absence of social supports for people experiencing distress, and on the absence of compassion for those using violent language in an attempt to make sense of their lived experiences. The reason that I make this distinction is that Szasz is Jewish, and fled Hungary for the US in the 30s. He made the (correct) connection between the Nazi genocide of "undesirables" (including psychiatric patients) and state classification, incarceration, and "slow" genocide of Madppl globally and transtemporally.

But to return to your question: with this, as with pharmaceuticals, there is a fundamental discomfort at all levels of scholarship and discourse with identifying neoliberal capitalism as the enemy of self-determination, joy, community, and, like, an actual future for all life on this planet and beyond. The claim that pharmaceuticals are uniformly evil is a hackneyed way of attacking capitalism for those not yet ready or willing to acknowledge that, even absent a given pill or brand name, the structural violence that we associate with them would remain and simply morph. The fundamental danger of any and all medical "treatment," particularly that which involves significant alteration to an individual's bodymind and/or potential incapacitation, is that medico-psychiatric institutions function as zones of exception for many of the "rights" we are taught that we enjoy. Under the sign of patient, typical assumptions around autonomy, dignity, and equality –– while never fully existent in the first place –– completely vanish. Of course, it is far easier to blame individual people, companies, etc. than understand that disabled/Mad liberation will never exist without total abolition.

Equally, however, it's important to understand that "academics" discussing the abuses of big pharma or questioning the ontology of mental illness, as it were, are not somehow magically separated from psychiatric survivors. The academics dismissed as being unaware of the "real" struggles of psychiatrized people are oftentimes psychiatrized themselves, and their perspectives, writings, and movements are grounded in lived experience. People with academic degrees are not immune from emotional reactions rooted in trauma and anxiety, and in fact, to try to separate "emotion" from academic "reason" is a dangerous eurocolonial practice. In short: many who write, correctly, of the dangers of pharmaceutical companies and practitioner pocket-lining are and have been subjected to these abuses firsthand. This doesn't mean that a wholesale rejection of all medication is, like, "good." But it means that scholars are people –– people with more specialized knowledge in a given area than your average random person, but people nonetheless.

So, to conclude: there are a bunch of things going on that lead to the pervasiveness of reactionary antipsych perspectives. Sometimes, in the case of libertarian or fash (to say nothing of religiously-specific fascism) approaches, there is a willful refusal to distinguish pathologization from material need/suffering, and the assumption that eliminating diagnostic markers will simply neutralize the problem of mental illness-qua-human vulnerability. Other times, conscious objection to myriad genres of oppression under the (neoliberal capitalist) Med/Psy industrial complexes are shoehorned in with these reactionary approaches.

Overall, there are longstanding movements designed to oppress/abandon/eliminate disabled / Madppl in which scholars, wittingly and unwittingly, participate, and given the average joe's utter ignorance of any kind of antipsych thought, it is very difficult to address these issues with rigor and honesty.

Lastly –– I highly recommend doing more reading in critical Mad studies if you're interested in well-thought-out perspectives on Madness, antipsychiatry, and disability justice! Scholars like Liat Ben-Moshe, Jijian Voronka, Margaret Price, La Mar Jurelle Bruce, J. Logan Smilges, sarah madoka currie, Bren LeFrançois, Alexandre Baril, Cameron Awkward-Rich, Eric Stanley, Therí Alyce Pickens, Erica Hua Fletcher, and many others do incredible Mad work explicitly informed by disability and abolitionst frameworks! (and so do I –– at least, I'm trying!)

[isfjmel-phleg]

So this is a pretty whimsical rather than information-seeking question - feel free to skip if it doesn’t work.

If Elystan, Tamett, and Josiah switched bodies for a day (your choice of who looks like who), how would things play out? And just for extra fish out of wateriness, let’s say they not at school. They’re each at their counterpart’s home.

Oooh, this would be fun!

Let's explore all the options.

If Elystan were to switch bodies with Tamett, he wouldn't be able to get over how freeing it would be to exist in a body that lacks the limitations of his. He'd do a lot of running and climbing and bicycling and whatever other physical activities he could think of. I don't think Tamett's family would be too thrown off by this; Tamett's usually pretty active. But Elystan would probably have a hard time suppressing his talkative, argumentative tendencies to pass as Tamett, who is quieter and more laidback. He wouldn't know what to do with Tamett's relationships with his sisters. He'd probably end up getting Tamett in a lot of trouble.

If Elystan were to switch bodies with Josiah, he would be surprised at its problems. He tends to assume that Josiah is pretty healthy and active (at least in comparison to himself, and he's kind of jealous, which is where the mean comments come from), so he'd be shocked to find that Josiah's body is exhausted and in pain. But that's nothing he isn't used to. What he'd have a hard time with would be keeping up Josiah-like behavior. He'd enjoy doing a caricatured imitation, but convincingly portraying a dutiful, "well-behaved," tidy excellent student and gifted musician for twenty-four hours is a bit out of his range. He'd be too sociable with Mikaiah and Tamett (if he's there) and the sisters, and he'd definitely butt heads with Odren. His brattiness has a different flavor from Josiah's (more "I'm entitled because I'm fragile and precious" than "I'm entitled because I'm flawless and superior"), and that would be noticeable. The sheer weight of responsibilities and expectations would be more than he could handle, and he'd probably be relieved to return to his own body.

If Tamett were to switch bodies with Elystan, he would be miserable. He's very active, and suddenly becoming a severe asthmatic with a heart condition would be so frustrating. He'd initially enjoy having access to Elystan's vast array of extravagant Acceptable Indoor Activities, but after a while, he'd be bored out of his mind trying to keep himself occupied. Interacting with Elystan's family wouldn't be a problem, but he'd resent being fussed over. The upside would be that he wouldn't have to repress his anger as he usually does; if he's Elystan, no one's going to think it odd if he's petulant or has a tantrum (as long as he doesn't scream too much), so that might actually be cathartic. He could say whatever he wanted. That's a scary amount of power. Not enough to make him like this switch though.

If Tamett were to switch bodies with Josiah, he, like Elystan, would be surprised at the condition it's in. He'd be able to navigate Josiah's life socially pretty well, because he lives in that household, but like Elystan, he doesn't have the same skills, and that would definitely create suspicion--he'd have to feign illness or something to get out of lessons so no one would notice. He'd also get along better with Josiah's siblings, and Mikaiah would be absolutely delighted to have an elder brother who finally spends time with him. He would be shocked by some of the interactions that Josiah and his father have; I think he tends to assume that Odren does nothing but dote on his Favorite, but to find out that Josiah is subject to a lot of private critique and control from his father would recontextualize the real Josiah's behavior for him. It would be an eye-opening experience, but ultimately disappointing.

If Josiah were to switch bodies with Tamett, he'd be pleased at how strong and functional it is (Tamett is clearly the prime real estate here). He'd like a lot about Tamett's home life--two living parents who have a solid (if still flawed) relationship with their children, four sisters who adore him, free time to amuse himself. He'd struggle with the humbler living conditions--the Lȧsryggs are pretty comfortable compared to most Noriberians but obviously have nothing like the height of luxury that Josiah is accustomed to--and the expectations to help with some household chores, and Tamett's parents would be shocked by the sudden superior attitude. He'd have a hard time acting like Tamett, and as much as he'd appreciate the family's love and acceptance, he would have no idea how to reciprocate, or he'd be so overcome that he'd have to leave suddenly before someone catches him crying because it's so much like how his mother was with him. He wouldn't have a bad time as Tamett, but he wouldn't be ready to deal with it long term.

If Josiah were to switch bodies with Elystan, he'd be surprised at the extent of its ailments (he tends to think that Elystan is exaggerating or making it up most of the time, but no, it's actually worse than Elystan lets on), but he'd be able to adjust to a sedentary life pretty well. Welcome it, even. With everything that's expected of him, he finds the notion of having nothing to do but rest and read appealing--but it's not what he expects. He can't enjoy reading or any other quiet activity because he's too distracted by feeling awful. He can't get much rest because he keeps getting woken up by asthma symptoms. He'd be in a horrible mood constantly and would totally take it out on anyone within range. And the real Elystan is capable of that, especially during his post-Book 2 era, but the way Josiah goes about it would be noticeably different from Elystan. He'd be a jerk to everyone, and Delclis and Amarantha would avoid him (Amarantha would give him a piece of her mind first, and that wouldn't go well), but Bethira would probably be able to get through to him. He would let her mother him in a way that the real Elystan resists. But on the whole, a negative experience.