#where is the reading comprehension?? the common sense???

[jakeperalta]

hitting "not interested" on these posts isn't enough I need a gun

[postmanlinksbootyshorts]

i was gonna make an annoyed post about this dumbass i saw on my tl earlier completely missing the point of a tweet they qrt'd for nonexistent won argument points but honestly? her stupidity is between her and god. i'm gonna play tnc

[khalyesi]

I want to be as straightforward with this as I can, because it seems as though SO many people lack common sense, reading and comprehension skills, and just respect.

1: An author doesn’t owe it to you to release a book in your timing. It’s either you get quality over quantity, or quantity or quality. From the reviews of the last book SJM put out, it seems that you guys would rather have quality, but can’t be patient enough for her to come out with acotar 5…The same people who are complaining about how they’re done with SJM for taking too long, are the same ones who will be first in line to get acotar 5 when it releases. Another point to mention is that SJM is not only an author but she has a FAMILY. Her attention isn’t just on putting books out, which should be common sense, but we see where that has gotten this fandom.

2: I saw someone else say this, but I want to say something on it too. I’ll find who it is and tag them. They said essentially that Gwynriels base the ship off of evidence, meanwhile Elriels base the evidence off the ship. This is so true, and I’m tired of pretending that it’s not. The same elriels who go around and say that there’s no evidence for gwynriel and talk about how they can’t wrap their heads around why someone would ship them, could not have possibly read the book. I’ve seen so many people on here and other platforms who have degrees in literacy, use that to their advantage, and talk about where they think the story is going based on what is in the book. Everytime, their conclusion is the same.. that Gwynriel is going to happen. Now I’m not saying that it will, but I’m a gwynriel so I’m holding out hope for it. (This is not me saying that people with a degree are always correct, or people without one are wrong. It’s just an example that I’m using that I’ve seen a pattern with) But, to sit there and say you don’t understand why they’re shipped, is absolutely an insane statement, and ultimately shows that you’re either ignoring the evidence, didn’t read the book, or interpreted the book the way you wanted and have decided to live in lalaland. The same couple of pieces of evidence that’s used for elriel, is so easily debunked with basic reading comprehension skills. With that being said, I can understand why they want to ship them ( the forbidden romance trope), but with actually reading the book, I can’t possibly see them actually being together/being mates. But if SJM makes it happen, that’s what it is.

I know that this probably came off harsh, but most of the time everyone here says things the way they see it, and I’m doing the same. It’s so irritating seeing people (elriels) disrespect the opinions of Gwynriels, and getting nothing said back to them. It’s also annoying to see people claim that they’re done with SJM just because she hasn’t released acotar 5 yet. Instead of worrying about that, GET A JOB. Please also realize, that this ship war is based on FICTIONAL CHARACTERS, and people take it way too far when they feel threatened. To avoid that, GET A JOB AND STAY OFF THE INTERNET!

@gwynethberdarasupremecy is the person!

[gatheredfates]

WELCOME to Sea's Catch Up (For) Starlight Challenge! Also know as 'A FFIX Prompt?' (I just woke up), 'Is it Cosy or Cozy in Australia?' (Cosy) and bEANS (bEANS!).

Suffice it to say, there have been a lot of challenges this year—Gpose challenges, FFXIV Write, Down to Dawntrail and Seafloor Saints Wake (just to name ours)! I know from personal experience that I haven't had the time to get to every single prompt... but I've wanted to. I also know it can be really disheartening to miss out on prompts and feel like you're being weird for engaging with it later on in the year.

To that end, I wanted to open a challenge that encourages people to either tackle an existing prompt from any gpose/writing/art challenge that was hosted during the year (under the excuse of it being for this challenge) OR pick from one of the prompts above to make a Starlight-themed creative piece!

All of these words were chosen by various people within the SEAFLOOR Discord, and i have tried not to tie them too closely to Christmas so people who don't celebrate the holiday don't feel left out. If you want to change a word that is more applicable to your culture, but still embodies the same spirit of the holiday through family, humanity, spending time with your loved ones, etc. I highly encourage you to do so!

This challenge will run the entirety of the month of December and can be tackled in any way you see fit. If you want to do a prompt a day and mix in the words in amongst working on your old project(s), go for it! If you want to select some words and not others, cool! If you want to only work on your old stuff and leave this list in the dust, a okay! It's all about giving you a low-stakes way to engage with your creativity and an excuse to go back to stuff you might have missed, or take some time to celebrate the season and people who mean a lot to you (and your ocs)!

Please use the tag #catch up (for) starlight if you participate and consider joining our community! A more comprehensive FAQ is contained in the read more below. ☃️

But also:

Is the use of mods/shades/tools okay? Yes, of course! Whatever works for you to make your creative dreams come true.

What about NSFW (gore, sexual or otherwise)? Use common sense and appropriate tags as necessary, especially for common fears and phobias. I obviously cannot control what Tumblr sees as being too much, but the general rules for SEAFLOOR apply where possible. If your conservative boss wouldn't like to see it, consider tagging and content warning were necessary.

Where do I post works? Hopefully your Tumblr blog, silly, but you can also reblog them to the SEAFLOOR Tumblr Community or join us on Discord! If someone posts their work in either of those spaces, consider reacting with a wintery-themed emoji! It just lets people know you enjoyed it. ❄️ I am going to do my best to reblog prompts when I see them, but I am going away during the Christmas period so I may not be contactable in that time.

Is there a prize? There might be this time around, though I haven't given it much thought. Seafloor members will get a fancy cosmetic title.

[corkinavoid]

Hogwarts??? So you hate trans people then, if your supporting jk

First of all, it's 'you're', not 'your'. If you want to accuse someone of something, then at least do it in a grammatically correct way.

Second, that's a lot of conclusions for no apparent reason.

Third, don't like - don't look, the 'block' button exists for a reason, and I'm not here to provide a comfortable experience for you. You're the one responsible for that part.

With that out of the way, let me rant about how much I fucking despise J.K. Rowling.

Let me get this straight, though, her stance on trans rights is not the first or the main reason for my dislike. In all honesty, I don't have enough care in myself to touch internet drama with a ten foot pole, so all I know about it is that apparently Rowling hates trans people, which, yeah, fuck her.

By the way, what do you even consider 'supporting an author'? Buying their books or merch? Liking their Twitter posts? Defending them on social media? Because I've done literally none of that. I haven't even watched the movies, and I've never read the last book, because at the time it wasn't published (or written yet), and by the time it was, I was already into Eragon series and didn't care about Harry Potter.

Now, to the important part.

I fucking hate J.K. Rowling because of her absolute lack of comprehensive worldbuilding. She sucks at creating a logical system of magic, at her own world's history, economics, and politics. Nothing in her books makes sense.

Why do the wizards need wands? Why do they write with quills on parchment when there's paper and notebooks and goddamn ink pens and color pencils? Why don't they teach math in Hogwarts? Why don't the teachers have, like, some introductory lessons or at least books for muggleborn or muggle-raised students? What the fuck was that 'power of mother's love' bullshit? Where did that story about Peverell Brothers and Death come from, and why didn't anyone think to mention it when Harry first got the Invisibility Cloak? Why in the world is the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets in the girl's bathrooms of all places? Why is there a subject for Ancient Runes but no one fucking uses runes? Why didn't Harry sign up for Muggle Studies, it would have been an easy grade? Why was Hermione the only one to have a time-turner in the whole school, she was fucking thirteen, what was McGonagall thinking? Where are any kind of PE lessons? Why the everloving fuck was Triwizard Tournament held at a school, with teenagers participating? What's more, why couldn't they choose the champions beforehand so the visiting schools didn't have to transport their whole student bodies over for a year? Why were they fighting dragons when it's common knowledge that no sane adult person would dare to do that alone by themselves? What was that arch in the Ministry where Sirius died? What the fuck was even going on for the most part of the series?

None of it makes an ounce of sense. Every fucking event in the books is a product of poor imagination and lack of logic. Rowling is fucking dumb as a brick. I've heard five-year-olds come up with stories that had more reason than the whole Harry Potter series.

Have you seen the 'map of wizarding schools' she came up with? That thing makes me feel the rage of a thousand men. One single school for the whole damn Africa? Bitch, there are over fifty countries there, each with their own language, how do you expect them to communicate? Not to mention India and China having one school for both of them, do you have any idea of the population of both of those countries? That school must be, like, a size of a city, not to mention culture differences and language barriers again.

Also, what was that fucking thing about kids flying on whole ass trees instead of brooms in Koldovstvorets, that one offends me personally. Not to mention the actual name of that school, because it translates to 'magic palace', are you kidding me?

I can keep ranting about this for hours, and never run out, but this is getting rather long, so I'm going to wrap this part up. Just know that the whole of Rowling's worldbuilding is a ton of bullshit that has no right to be as popular as it got.

Yet, I do like the general idea that she had. The magic world that is hidden inside the real one, the whole charms and spells aesthetic, a castle full of secret passages, and all that old classic English vibe to it. It could have been good. It could have been marvelous, if Rowling had, like, a few more braincells. Alas, she didn't, and here we are.

A few years ago, I've found a fic on ao3, 'survival is a talent' by ShanaStoryteller. It's a Series Retold, and it's incomplete. If you haven't read it, I really advise you to, it's perfect in a way the original will never be. Ever since I've read it, I decided that that fic is my canon version of Harry Potter.

On a different note, I think that at this point, HP fandom and J.K. Rowling exist in two different dimensions. That woman had created a world, yes, but it doesn't belong to her anymore, it belongs to everyone who enjoys it. She clearly doesn't, she only enjoys the profit she is making from it.

If you've made it this far through my Harry Potter related rant, thank you, and have a beautiful day <3

[punkishtoxtricity]

a comprehensive list of problems with lily orchards pokemon video

there is a point to where my criticisms just repeats so they’ll get different down the post

generation 1

-she claims that blue is a friendly rival when the whole point of him is that he’s a dumb kid. he’s a cocky 11 year old who thinks he’s better than you and grows to realize it’s not all about strong pokemon

-complains about length of dungeons such as lavender tower and silph co but for some reason likes rock tunnel??

-complains about other youtubers strategies for gyms that are usually meant for nuzlockes and challenge runs when she’s playing casual

-acts like she is so much better than everyone else for her strategy when it’s been done to a more extreme degree before

-acts like having butterfree on her team is some feat of strength

generation 2

-thinks silver is the worse character ever and all around a jerk

-complains about the ai of the game beating her when in reality her team just kinda. sucks

-complains about having bad pokemon and then doesn’t catch the good ones that the game literally hands to you

-straight up does not do kanto. has me thinking she just didn’t wanna fight red

generation 3

-this is the start of her being very weird about gardevoir. she calls ralts her child and then throughout the video has art of her being romantic with it which is. eugh. apparently she has incest accusations so i’m not that suprised

-calling magma and aqua the best teams of the series because “they don’t impede on the story”

-complains about the legendaries

-complains about the water routes and proceeds to throw out ideas that don’t make sense for an ocean

generation 4

-this is the start of her hacking in ralts as her starter. it’s very funny because it’s legitimately obtainable in every game she plays besides gen 5

-complains about parts of the game being too hard when she’s using ralts. which dies if it gets touched by a slight breeze

-whines about there being too much dialogue and then genuinely does not understand the story. common theme around all the story driven pokemon games

-she’s VERY annoying about the rivals. like they’re there for a reason

-the start of her acting like her calm mind strategy is the best thing ever. calls other youtubers stupid once again for their cynthia strategies. she can’t choose between gardevoir being the most broken pokemon and blaming ralts sucking on the game(the whole video is a big contrarian fest)

gen 5

oh boy. there’s a lot

-complains about there being too much story in the game and calls the game a peta reply. which is funny because peta is an american company and pokemon is japanese. (also the peta criticism of pokemon didn’t come around until AFTER black and white)

-compares a character who is a victim of abuse and has been indoctrinated by what is basically a cult to a podcast alpha male incel. looking at the allegations against her this also makes sense as to why she doesn’t like him

-whines more about there being too much reading. at this point i started believing she was straight up illiterate

-whines about the amount of rival fights and how it’s “impeding exploration” i don’t think she wants to play an actual video game she just want a pet sim

-misunderstands the whole moral of the game, being that not everything is black and white

generation 6

-complains about not being able to get gardevoirs megastone before the post game, so obviously she hacks it in.

-goes on a tangent about shiny pokemon and how their community is stupid, misunderstanding that people just do it FOR FUN

-also complains about something she calls “damage inflation” with the opponents being able to 1 shot ralts. this is all actually because ralts has god awful defenses, which she ignores.

-loses to what is one of the easiest gyms in the entire series. not really anything wrong with this i just honestly think she sucks at the game(skill issue)

-says x and y are the best games because there’s not much dialogue

gen 7

-once again spends the whole hour complaining about the amount of talking and then doesn’t analyze what the characters are actually saying. still believe she can’t read

-compares gladion to a hitler youth which is??? he’s hawaiian and light skinned but he’s still just an abused kid trying to find his way in lofe(doubt she actually read his dialogue)

-complains about team skill being “an unfunny joke” when the whole point of the team is that guzma was an abused kid who took in those in need and just formed a group of thugs

-still complains about “damage inflation” instead of actually changing her strategy or stepping out of her comfort zone pokemon wise because ralts sucks against the water trial

-goes on a tangent about how lillie should have been the main character while still choosing to mash through her dialogue

generation 8

-whines about dexit and calls dynamax the worst mechanic when it is in fact loved by vgc players

-calls milo a twunk (she doesn’t know what that means)

-a lot of the same problems of the previous gens, can’t read and doesn’t understand the story

-she’s also weird about gardevoir in this one. i think she just REALLY wants to fuck it

generation 9

-whines about dialogue some more

-literally all of the complaints at this point are the same. she can’t form an actual opinion of it bc she can’t FUCKING PAY ATTENTION TO WHAG THEYRE SAYING

overall

-she’s a racist creep to japanese folk outside of the video so hmmm

-has apparently assaulted someone so i see why she has no sympathy for the characters that are victims of abuse

-the weirdest about the pokemon and the characters. compares them to nazis a bunch

-is unfunny

anyway thanks for reading all the way through. the vid made me loose 200 brain cells and i will never stop hating

[cry-stars]

Komaeda and Dementia: Part 1 of 5: Introduction and Overview of FTD

Hi everyone!

I’m an aspiring Komaedologist with an interest in dementia. I often see people doubting Komaeda’s stated diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia, since it presents differently in him than in the common portrayal of dementia in the media. While his portrayal may not be completely accurate, there is a lot of truth to it, and there are many symptoms visible in-game. I wanted to share a few posts about dementia symptoms that we do see canonically in Komaeda’s portrayals in SDR2 and DR:AE, and share some information regarding his specific diagnosis as opposed to Alzheimers, for example.

I work with people living with dementia as a recreation worker. This means that I see them living their daily lives, and know about difficulties they might have with recreational or day to day activities. There are a lot of observations that I might make that can’t be backed up scientifically yet, but do make sense in a practical way. Everyone with dementia is different, and since I work with seniors for the most part, some observations won’t transfer onto Komaeda. However, I’ll do my best to back up whatever I can with sources.

This post is just for fun and to give people ideas. It means a lot to me to see a fascinating and endearing character like Komaeda portrayed with dementia, since it is a sad and terminal disease, and I usually see it end badly in my job, so I hope to give people ideas on how to portray it, or just to notice things in a different way they might not have before!

My main sources for this post and the following ones include “Dementia Diaries,” which is a really cool project where people with dementia talk about their experiences, National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association, Alzheimer’s Society, and my own work experience. I plan on doing more posts about specific symptoms that we see in Komaeda later, but I would be happy to hear from other people who have dementia knowledge, or to answer any questions that I can.

For the most part, I'm only going to be talking about SDR2 and a little bit of DR:AE. I haven't finished watching the anime yet and have not read any of the manga. If anyone has ideas from any of those sources, I would love to hear about them!

Overview of FTD: Which Variant does Komaeda Have?

There are two major forms of frontotemporal dementia. The first, which Komaeda likely has, is the behavioural variant (BvFTD), which is also the most likely for young people to develop. This variant of FTD mainly affects behaviour, empathy, judgement, and planning.

Komaeda is less likely to have the other variant of FTD, primary progressive aphasia. This form of FTD mainly affects language skills, including speech and comprehension.

Komaeda doesn’t seem to have very much trouble with understanding the concrete content of what people say to him, but he does occasionally seem to have trouble fully comprehending hidden meanings behind statements (for example, taking statements literally rather than as sarcastic). To me though, this is less connected to him not being able to understand the words or content of statements, and more not picking up on the emotions hidden in the statements (which I’ll address more in the behavior post). He does seem to have some trouble with word-finding in the Japanese version of the game, but again, it doesn't inhibit his ability to express himself given enough time to speak.

Another thing to note about FTD is that, in its early stages, it mainly affects behaviour and language processing, as stated above, rather than memory. In later stages, memory does start to be affected as well, but it’s different from Alzheimers (probably the most well-known form of dementia) in that memory loss isn’t the main symptom.

FTD’s prognosis is about 6-8 years. Komaeda states in his fifth free time event that his life expectancy is between half a year and one year. However, he is also referring to his lymphoma diagnosis, meaning he expected to die from a combination of both illnesses within that time frame. In SDR2, Komaeda is probably in the early to middle stages of FTD, since he was diagnosed right before entering Hope’s Peak, and was a Remnant of Despair for some time without treatment, so while we can see evidence of memory issues (which I will address in another post), it’s something he’s able to cope with and isn’t a debilitating symptom yet.

One more observation: while dementia as a whole is usually seen in elderly people, Komaeda’s specific frontotemporal dementia diagnosis has an earlier age of onset, usually between ages 40-65, and is rarely seen in elderly people. Even though being diagnosed in high school seems unlikely, it is not impossible. According to Alzheimer Society Canada, early-onset or young-onset dementia (between ages 18 and 65) accounts for 2-8% of all dementia cases.

Thank you for reading! I plan on making five posts total. The other post topics will be Outward Behaviour, Judgement/Thought Processes, Other Symptoms, and Writing Ideas.

[anaconda-creates]

Throwback to the time in seventh grade english class where we were taking some dumb reading comprehension test and the material we were given was this "short play" about "sherlock holmes" and I got so ticked off because the idiot writer behind this awful "short story" was depicting Dr John Watson as an absolute buffoon, an oaf of a man. And so middle school me writes a whole paragraphs-long rant in the margins to my english teacher all about how John Watson is a medical doctor and an army veteran and the one with all the common sense and how the author of this rip off probably hadn't ever even read the source material because his take was just so so terrible I don't even remember the grade I got for that test, I just remember the righteous fury and the scribbling pencil Anyways I'm an unapologetic John Watson stan and I always will be

Watson appreciation post <3 <3

[sophieinwonderland]

Debunking Anti(-endo's)Misinfo. AKA: How are anti-endos so bad at sources????

(The original)

Oh, well good on you for trying to cover everything! Nice of anti-endos to finally start trying to use science to prove their arguments. I'm sure these sources will totally be reliable and will prove your points beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that you won't just be falling flat on your face with every single attempt at basic reading comprehension, and end up repeatedly make a complete fool of yourself.

Let's go!

Off to a pretty strong start, acknowledging that many endogenic systems don't have DID or OSDD. Sadly, that basic fact is something that seems to escape most anti-endos. So with this in mind, I think it's safe to say the goal of this post is going to be to prove...

You can't possibly have DID without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.

Let's read through and see how they'll do at proving their points by the end. I promise you, the results... won't surprise you. 😉

Well, there goes that strong start.

The source here is a Carrd and so-called "common sense."

Meanwhile, in the World Health Organization's ICD-11, alters or dissociative identities are described as "distinct personality states." In the same page, it's stated that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder.

This is information from the World Health Organization affirming that you can be plural without a disorder. And I think that prevails over your so-called "common sense."

See also these screenshots from the plurality chapter of Transgender Mental Health, a book published by the American Psychiatric Association:

Finally, I really want to put a focus on this line of logic: "you cannot have alters without having a disorder, this is common sense as it's not normal to have alters."

Normal has multiple meanings in different contexts. The ICD-11's boundary with normality uses normal to mean "non-pathological." But this post seems to be using "normal" in the lay way to mean "common."

And that makes this particular rhetoric extremely dangerous and harmful to many communities. "If it's not common, it's a mental illness," was the basis for homosexuality and being transgender being listed as mental illnesses. "Most people don't think this way, so there's something wrong with them."

This could also easily be used to pathologize Otherkin and other alterhumans as mentally ill because it's not "normal" to identify as an animal.

The modern World Health Organization and American Psychiatric Association recognize the fact that simply thinking unusually or differently isn't an illness or disorder.

Statements like yours do not exist within a vacuum, but harken back to decades past when any non-typical thinking would have you labeled as having a disorder that needed treated.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Let's be thankful to live in a world today where our differences aren't considered disorders. And let's not resort to ideologies that threaten to return us to those days past.

Wait... who suggests this? Who are they? I think I need more info...

So... "some researchers."

Also, can we talk about how this starts off with "sometimes called multiple personality disorder." I checked to see if this was before the name changed in the ICD (which I believe was 2015) and it doesn't seem to be! Oldest archive I can find is 2020!

Rethink.org is a charity.

These are not peer-reviewed papers.

The page references "some researchers" without names or sources.

I have no idea who authored this or if they're qualified at all in this field.

This is a terrible source. A web page by an anonymous author citing other unnamed authors with no reason to think anyone who wrote this had any idea what they were talking about!

This says DID is caused by many things, and lists trauma as only one that's included. This doesn't back up the idea DID/OSDD can only be caused by trauma, and suggests the opposite.

Oh, and "it's also known as split personality disorder." 😔

Go home WebMD.

Usually associated with doesn't mean it's a requirement, and in fact implies that it isn't always.

"Is associated with." "Can be a response to trauma."

Reiterating that the first two goals here were to prove you can't have DID or OSDD without trauma. And these aren't doing that.

An association doesn't mean there's a causation, and it doesn't mean that association is there in 100% of cases.

"often develop."

Like with "usually", you wouldn't use the word often if if something always happened. The choice of wording implies you can have dissociative disorders without trauma.

Are... they messing with us right now???

I swear, you can't have a post that sets out with the goal of disproving the existence of endogenic plurality, and then use quotes that seem to consistently imply there can be other causes for DID and not pick up on that theme!

Oh, yay! We finally got a quote that's actually trying to argue the point we started with.

But, again, this runs into a similar issue to the ReThink.org one. This is a random independent organization. There is no author for this article. It hasn't undergone peer review like an academic paper would.

There is no evidence the person who wrote this article is actually educated in dissociative disorders.

And finally back to "usually."

You must be so proud...

Source Round-Up

There was a lot here, so let's just recap.

6 out of 8 of these sources only say that DID is "usually" or "often" or "can be" caused by or associated with trauma. These actually imply there are cases where it's NOT caused by trauma, going against the original goals of this post.

Finally, there were two sources, Rethink and Mind.org, which did suggest DID is just caused by trauma, full stop. But both of these are extremely questionable as sources.

Neither named their authors. There's no indication what the review process is for their websites. And "Rethink" merely said this is what "some researchers" believe.

So let's double back to those goals set at the beginning.

You can't possibly have DID without trauma: One source says this, but the reliability of that source is questionable. Another source says some researchers are saying this but doesn't name any researchers or cite those sources. Meanwhile, the other six sources imply that it IS possible for DID to exist without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma: Neither of the two sources that suggest DID can only be caused by trauma mention OSDD at all.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD: None of the sources suggest you need DID/OSDD to be a system or to be plural.

So far, you've failed to prove you can't be a system without DID or OSDD. You've failed to show you can't have OSDD without trauma. And the case for DID being exclusive to trauma frankly looks weaker than before you started talking.

Incredible work so far!!!

And I mean that in the way that nothing about this is remotely credible!

Ugh. There is SO much wrong here. First, no sources for their claims about tulpamancy.

Now, tulpamancy draws its name from a Tibetan Buddhist practice called sprul pa.

This is not the same practice though. And the Tibetan Buddhist practice is NOT CALLED TULPAMANCY.

Something which should be obvious to anyone who knows even the most basic facts about language, with the -mancy suffix being derived from Latin. And tulpamancy as a practice generally isn't religious.

From Dr. Samuel Veissiere of McGill University:

The community is primarily divided between so-called psychological and metaphysical explanatory principles. In the psychological community, neuroscience (or folk neuroscience) is the explanation of choice. Tulpas are understood as mental constructs that have achieved sentience. The metaphysical explanation holds that Tulpas are agents of supernatural origins that exist outside the hosts’ minds, and who come to communicate with them. Of 118 respondents queried on the question, 76.5% identified with the psychological explanation, 8.5% with the metaphysical, and 14% with a variety of “other” explanations, such as a mixture of psychological and metaphysical.

When discussing the research into tulpamancy, we're not discussing a religious or spiritual practice that's been validated by psychologists.

We're talking about a primarily psychological practice that's been validated by psychologists.

And as for the DSM quote, it confirms that religious practices aren't a disorder. Cool. But it also implies that religious practices can result in multiple distinct personality states. Hence why they needed that criterion. It's not stated as explicitly in the DSM as in the ICD, but the implication is there, especially when taken together.

Whether you call these "alters" or not is up to you. Most endogenic systems aren't using the word "alter" to describe their headmates.

But regardless of the word, what the research is showing is that there are multiple phenomena which can result in people having multiple self-conscious agents sharing the same body.

I mean, you've still done a really bad job at showing DID and OSDD form purely from trauma, with many of your sources straight up saying the opposite.

And remember, a lot of mixed origin systems will say that their other headmates aren't caused by or related to their disorder. And there are documented cases of people with DID both having alters associated with DID, and having non-aversive entities they commune with outside of that, as Kluft references in this paper:

The woman he describes here, who experienced ceding control to another entity who talked through her, would qualify as a mixed origin system in the modern plural community.

SIX OF YOUR EIGHT SOURCES LEFT THE DOOR OPEN FOR DID TO FORM WITHOUT TRAUMA!

NONE CLAIMED OSDD COULD ONLY COME FROM TRAUMA!

NONE CLAIMED YOU NEEDED DID OR OSDD TO BE PLURAL!

Your sources are NOT claiming what you think they're claiming!!!!!!!

If this is "all the proof you need," to say endogenic systems aren't valid, it's clear you were only ever interested in confirming your worldview.

But surely you can't seriously think this will convince anyone who isn't already indoctrinated!

Not even addressing this in full. It's such a blatant strawman that it's not worth my time.

There are similarities between plurality and being LGBTQ. Especially to the many trans systems out there who are seeing anti-endos use the same rhetoric that transmeds have. Or like you did earlier, are endorsing the same types of views that led to homosexuality being pathologized until the 70s. But nobody is saying it's the exactly the same!

I'm not sure what this is specifically referring to. But it might be about the line in the differential diagnosis for DID in the PTSD section where it's stated DID may not be preceded by trauma or have co-occurring PTSD symptoms.

It does also say in another section that DID is associated with trauma, but it never actually says that's the only way to get DID.

This is a straight-up lie. Most sources used by endogenic systems are less than a decade old, with some being as recent as 2023.

Here's the breakdown of some of the dates in @guardianssystem's doc, for reference:

I mean, I feel like part of the reason nobody has been able to disprove it is because a lot of its more specific claims have been really hard to test.

But that's neither here nor there.

The bigger issue you'll run into is that the creators of the theory you're citing have stated that there may be other ways for people to be plural. Or as they phrased it, having "conscious and self-conscious dissociated parts."

The above quote is from two of the three authors of The Haunted Self, the creators of the theory of the structural dissociation.

The TOSD is made to propose a way trauma can cause dissociative disorders to develop. But it does NOT suggest you need to have dissociative disorders to be plural, and I doubt the authors appreciated their work being twisted like that

Final Grade:

F-

This started with three goals.

Let's look back at them one last time.

You can't possibly have DID without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.

By the end of this, have any of these claims successfully been proven?

I don't feel they have.

The first claim is what all the sources tried to focus on. But most of the sources didn't say that and didn't support it. All but two implied that DID could possibly form other ways.

And for the others? Nothing suggests OSDD can only be caused by trauma.

And you failed to provide any sources that suggested you couldn't be plural without DID and OSDD.

You completely and utterly failed to find decent sources to back up your claims, and to make a compelling case for them, at every conceivable juncture.

If I were you, I would be embarrassed to have put out something of such poor quality.

What have we learned:

Non-disordered and endogenic plurality has been supported and validated across the psychological field, including the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and Trasngender Mental Health which has been reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

The creators of the theory of structural dissociation believe it might be possible that "self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality" might form without trauma and that this needs to be further researched.

Tulpamancy is a mostly psychological practice that has been studied and validated by psychologists.

Anti-endos are really bad at sources.

Conversely, the majority of endogenic sources are actual peer reviewed academic papers. And contrary to false claims here, many of the papers are actually very recent.

(Tagging some tags from the original post)

[copperbadge]

RE watching thoughts: I’m not 100% sure, but it might be that the whole “I am not my thoughts” is about engaging and identifying with your metacognition MORE than your initial thoughts. Because I get where you’re coming from - what is a consciousness but a collection of thoughts and feelings? But you can also have thoughts about your own thoughts that are more useful for dealing with whatever situation you’re in, I guess. (Random aside - every time I start thinking about thinking about thinking my brain inevitably starts thinking about Tiffany Aching and The Wee Free Men.)

I really should have replied to this ask sooner because it's going to seem like a non-sequitur now (this was sent much earlier in March) but I'm kind of glad I didn't, because I've been chatting with people about this and I think I understand more why there's an emphasis in some therapies on the idea that we are not our thoughts.

(I uh, haven't read the Tiffany books so I'm not much help there.)

I am coming to understand that many, perhaps most, people judge themselves, comprehensively and harshly, based on their thoughts. Perhaps it's just a lot of people who struggle with mental health, but given the commonality of the sentiment I don't know if I'd confine it that tightly; generally it appears that people cannot conceive of themselves as anything other than a binary of good or bad. So many people I've talked to about this portion of DBT, the watching-questioning-identifying thoughts portion, say that it helps to snap them out of a spiral of "I'm a horrible person, I deserve to suffer/die, I can never be redeemed" after they've failed at something, or had a negative thought, or reacted poorly to an unexpected event.

That is not something I've ever experienced. I mean, jokingly maybe, but not in a real, internal sense.

And that's not to brag -- I'm not saying I think I'm a good person, either, because I don't think I'm a good person. I don't conceive of myself in terms of good or bad. I never cuddle my cats and think "I'm such a good cat dad" or forget to feed them and think "I should die now." I have a perpetual morally neutral attitude towards my own existence; my thoughts and actions might trend me one direction or another but I'm aware of the temporary nature of that. If I fuck up I'll worry about who I might have hurt or whether I'll be fired or what's going to happen as a consequence, if I am polite to someone who didn't deserve it I know I was acting kindly in the moment, but I don't make an inherent moral judgement of myself based on that. And it seems like the vast majority of people do. Which you would think would make me feel pretty good about myself, but honestly...I don't know.

A lot of people I know who have ADHD or are Autistic have talked about seeing themselves as other, as alien -- like that one webcomic artist who draws themself with little antennae to indicate they're strange and different. I've always understood why one might do that, but I never felt that way myself, before or after the diagnosis. After all, let's remember, I was The Normal* Child of my siblings, and if I was The Normal One before the diagnosis, why wouldn't I remain Mostly Normal after?

* As ever, I'm using "normal" as a cultural term, to indicate what we think of as mainstream, not because normal is a thing that really exists.

My life has been relatively solitary -- I have friends and family and I love them but I'm rarely part of a large group, I don't spend a lot of time out in public interacting with people, I'm not a big socializer. Before the Adderall, I really couldn't be, I took too much psychic damage from interpersonal interaction, so I chose those very carefully. And now my DBT class has been a rare moment when I'm encountering contradictions to a lot of my assumptions about the way human beings in our society interact, react, and behave. I just...don't fit that mold very well. I think of it as having crossed wiring, not in the sense that I'm faulty but just in the sense that I'm very, very different. Not Normal. It's not exactly a bad feeling but it's certainly not a great one, internalizing the sensation of alienness.

DBT is proving to be a mixed bag but not in the way I or my therapist intended -- it seems to be either things I was already instinctively doing or things that simply do not apply to me. In one way it's disappointing because it means there isn't much help to be had (we're a little over halfway through the course and I keep thinking "Maybe next class will be useful") but on the other hand it's validating that so much of what I came up with myself as unconscious coping mechanisms is literally what I would have been told to do anyway.

Sometimes it's a combination of both, though, which really blows. I guess most people, if they reframe another person's actions, actually find emotional relief in that, and I don't. An example from the class is that if someone is rude to you, you can consider how they might be having a hard day, and be polite in return; that's great, in terms of defusing a situation, and it's something I do a fair amount of. But apparently it's also something that for most people results in feeling less awful about the interaction, and that's not the case for me. Which is why so much of DBT feels to me like lying to oneself. It's not lying for most people.

So, yeah. I'm going to finish out the course and keep trying things with the therapist but I suspect given everything, I might already be at "as good as it gets" in terms of emotional work. Which isn't the worst thing in the world, and there is still the option to try medication that could help, but I think there will come a point where I'm going to have to deal with the fallout of just how different I am, and how that has impacted my life. Might end up a good thing; something I've really been trying to resolve is unhappiness over being unpartnered and highly likely to remain that way, and at least if this provides a better understanding of why, then perhaps I can process that and put it to rest in a way I've been trying to do but not succeeding well at.

So, we'll see. But I find it both fascinating and kind of horrifying how many people can believe they are irredeemably bad, even if the belief is only temporary, simply because they had an uncharitable thought or impulse. It makes me somewhat grateful for the crossed wires, at least.

[art-of-a-ghostie]

People editing Rapunzel's final cut to make it look longer and more "FeMiNiNe aNd BeTtEr" are either hilarious or have level "How dare you say that we piss on the poor" reading comprehension skills or both. Imagine you make a comic with a red blob with a mustache as a protagonist and make it about how this red blob with a mustache is more than their mustache. Red Blob with a mustache comes from the end of its journey with a different mustache and literally everyone else loves them anyway because Red Blob is still the same and any person with common sense sees Red Blob as more than a pretty bag of mustache.

And then people make fanart where they look the same except with a bigger mustache just to make them hotter/look better.

[transmutationisms]

hey, since you've mentioned before that you're learning french, i was just wondering if you have any thoughts on the science behind second-language acquisition --- specifically on stephen krashen's theory of 'comprehensible input'. obviously i agree that the more CI you get the better but i have some misgivings about an approach that completely rejects any sort of explicit grammar instruction. i think it's possible to develop an intuitive sense of a language's grammar through CI and at the same time be aided by some explicit grammar instruction where necessary. and while i respect that not everybody's goal in language-learning is to speak with perfect grammar, i have to say there are a lot of people who take the 'CI purist' approach who still make fairly basic grammar mistakes that could have easily been fixed by going over grammar. and if they don't mind that then that's perfectly fine but my problem is that they often misrepresent how much grammar you can naturally 'aquire' through CI only. and obviously if your native language is english you can probably get by with not studying spanish grammar (though you will likely still make mistakes) but you're gonna have a much harder time if you decide to not study the grammar of, say, mandarin. anyway, sorry if you're not familiar with the debate and i've just bombarded you with information that you couldn't care less about but i thought i'd ask anyway.

i don't know this particular person's work lol but yeah i think you and i basically agree -- the skills a person needs to learn depend on what they're using the language for, but yea if your goals include knowing the grammar then you just are going to have to do some amount of explicit grammar instruction... like it cuts both ways sometimes (hearing common constructions in films & podcasts sometimes cements them way better for me than parsing them out on paper or whatever) but i just don't think it's possible to like intuit the entire grammar that way lmao.

i guess with french this is maybe a particulr concern to me because there are a lot of homophones so often when i hear a word out loud, i only know which it is based on context (vers/ver/verre/vert...) so like my listening comprehension & grasp of grammar are mutually complementary skills. like i basically only used reading knowledge for many years & in retrospect that was kind of foolish because i read better when i hear better -- i think this is probably true of pretty much all languages lol. again though which skills matter to you does just depend on what you need to be able to do with them. so

[coldresolve]

How to Write a Schizoid Character

Schizoid Personality Disorder (SzPD) affects an estimated 1% of the population, similar to rates of autism, but is widely overlooked both in real life and in fiction - to the point where it is often colloquially labelled "the silent disorder". This is a somewhat comprehensive guide in how to write a character with SzPD, from someone who has it.

Quick research guide

I'm writing this guide with the underlying assumption that you've already done some cursory reading into the basics of SzPD. At this point, you need to understand two things: One is that this disorder is incredibly poorly researched, due to schizoids often not seeking treatment for the disorder itself (they sometimes seek treatment for comorbidities like depression or anxiety); and two, as a result of this, there is a lot of over-simplified misinformation out there about SzPD. This disorder often gets boiled down, even by mental health professionals, to the DSM-V or IDC-10 diagnostic criteria, which are criticised widely in the schizoid community for being incredibly superficial descriptions of overt SzPD. This is the kind of case where you need to seek out the SzPD specialists or the schizoids themselves for information about the disorder.

Akhtar's profile is a good overview. Psychologist Elinor Greenberg has a quora where she answers all sorts of questions about SzPD, and she typically hits the nail on the head. Other resources include Schizoid Angst, a youtube channel run by a man who has SzPD (this convo in particular is really good). If you're interested in a deep dive, I recommend reading The Divided Self by R.D. Laing for a deeper understanding of the inner workings of schizoids, as well as the relationship between SzPD and the rest of the schizophrenia spectrum.

Understand the "root" of SzPD

SzPD typically forms as the result abuse, neglect or abandonment in childhood. Schizoids have learned through trauma that emotional intimacy, vulnerability, and dependence on other people all have the potential to harm them badly, and as a result, they tend to avoid those things. In that sense, schizoids don't have a problem with other people, per se. Understanding this fact can help you write your schizoid character with more realism and nuance.

For example, it's a common misconception that all schizoids are averse to having sex. Many schizoids are, to be fair - but plenty of schizoids also frequently engage in hook-up culture, or form other sexual relationships. Physical intimacy can be entirely seperate from emotional intimacy, and thus pose no real risk to a person with SzPD. It's also possible for schizoids to form good relationships with other people, if those relationships are based on non-emotional grounds, such as recreational interests, work, religion, etc.

You can show this in your schizoid character by thinking about which of your other characters your schizoid might gravitate towards. In general, they will feel safest with characters who place few (or no) emotional demands on them, don't place high value on phatic gestures, don't pry into their emotional state or background, respect their need for independence and agency, and so on.

Overt or Covert?

Once you've researched the disorder a bit, you need to decide whether your schizoid character is overt or covert. The overt/covert split is about 50%/50%, so neither is more likely than the other.

Overt schizoids tend to be a lot more blunt about their indifference, visibly detached and aloof, and are typically way less likely to engage in social settings (or be in social settings at all). These are the characters who have blunt affect, ie. won't have much of an emotional reaction to their surroundings, even if it directly involves them (ex. getting praised/criticised). They may have odd speaking patterns, such as stilted or vague speech, and can sometimes come across as cold and uncaring. Overt schizoids are noticably reluctant to reveal what's going on in their internal world, so they might also come across as enigmatic, secretive, or mistrustful.

If your character is an overt schizoid, think about how their behavior and personality are percieved by other characters, what kind of reactions might arise. Think about how your schizoid character might navigate these reactions - after all, they're probably used to getting comments. How do they react if someone comments on how disinterested/moody they seem? Do they tell the person to fuck off? Do they raise an eyebrow, and that's that?

Covert schizoids, or "secret" schizoids, experience the exact same symptoms as overt SzPD, but they hide it behind what's called a false-self system. You can think of it as a form of compulsive masking. Apart from perhaps vaguely eccentric behavior, you typically won't be able to tell that a secret schizoid has SzPD unless you know what you're looking for. If your character is a secret schizoid, they will behave in a way that seems socially engaged and interested, maybe even extroverted, but they will be emotionally withdrawn and safe within an internal world.

If your character is a covert schizoid, your other characters might not notice that anything is out of the ordinary with them at all - until they learn more about your character's lifestyle. Secret schizoids are not as used to being confronted about their odd behavior as overt schizoids are, and, depending on the character overall, might respond to these confrontations with awkwardness, defensiveness or confusion. Many secret schizoids are also unaware that they have SzPD, but are instead just vaguely aware that their behavior and preferences seem strange and different to other people.

Figure out the internals

An intricate internal fantasy life makes for a well-thought-out, sharply self-aware character. Schizoids spend most of their time in their own heads, so you need to have a good understanding of your character's internal world, fantasies and reflections, and how these things affect their behavior, priorities and decisions.

For many schizoids, their fantasy life is rooted in their own lives, either their past, present, or future - what-ifs, what-if-nots and could've-beens. They'll have internal "interactions" with other people they know, play out entire conversations and scenarios, and respond and react much more vividly than they tend to in real life. For other schizoids, their fantasies exist in a world entirely seperate to our own, with its own rules and structure, which they can explore to their own liking. For others yet, they think up fictional stories, sometimes inspired by real life, sometimes not.

Themes in the internal world often reflect the schizoid's own struggle with independence and intimacy. A lot of schizoids use their fantasies as a safe and sufficient way to feel "connected" to others. Others have violent, vengeful fantasies, which often juxtapose the indifferent demeanor - these fantasies tie in to the need for independence and emotional control, sometimes referred to as schizoid omnipotence.

Beyond the intricate fantasies, consider your character's moral beliefs. Schizoids tend toward idiosyncasy - we're in the "odd and eccentric" cluster for a reason. Akhtar described this quality as "occasionally strikingly amoral, at other times altruistically self-sacrificing." Take some time to figure out how this might express itself in your character, and how it is percieved by the characters around them.

Schizoids and relationships

You know how borderlines have their favorite person, and narcissists have their chosen person? A schizoid might just stumble upon someone who will become their interest person, or IP.

An IP is someone outside their immediate close family who the schizoid feels safe enough to be vulnerable with, are genuinely interested in, and who the schizoid forms an honest-to-god emotional connection to. This relationship can be either romantic or platonic in nature. If you choose to give your schizoid character an IP, make sure to emphasize how much this relationship stands out as uniquely meaningful to the schizoid - this is the one person they are even capable of having a genuine bond with, and that bond alone can keep them grounded against feelings of cosmic isolation. Your schizoid isn't likely to take this for granted.

An interesting tidbit of information is that schizoids paradoxically tend to gravitate towards relationships with highly extroverted, emotional people, to the point where the schizoid-hysteric relationships are an entire category of psychological research. Here's a really good snippet that describes how that dynamic tends to play out.

(Also keep in mind that just because a schizoid doesn't have an IP does not necessarily mean they are miserable. A lot of schizoids are capable of finding their own peace with whatever tools they have available.)

Another notable term for schizoid relationships is the controversial stock friend. A stock friend is a person who considers themself friends with the (typically covert) schizoid, and who thinks they have an emotional connection with them, but who the schizoid feels no emotional connection to, has no real interest in, and only interacts with out of convenience or happenstance. Is this immoral? Are schizoids leading people on, or are we justified in masking to avoid a constant stream of awkward confrontations, that have the potential to hurt other people's feelings? Who knows.

Splitting

You might have heard of idealization/devaluation-splitting as it pertains to borderline PD (bad/good) or narcissistic PD (worthy/unworthy). Splitting happens in SzPD as well, along the axis of safe/unsafe.

Schizoids will occasionally cut other people out of their lives, and this usually happens when they get overwhelmed with another person's attempts at emotional intimacy, or their boundaries have been deliberately or repeatedly crossed. They will often view the person as relentlessly prying, controlling, demanding, or dangerous, and will desperately seperate themself from that person as a way to avoid being consumed, or "smothered". At this point, if the other person doesn't let the schizoid get away, the schizoid might become overtly hostile. This is a fear response.

If you want to write a schizoid splitting, be aware that a split with a schizoid usually marks the end of the relationship altogether - especially if the relationship hasn't lasted for very long, and double especially if the person isn't the schizoid's IP. Once a schizoid has lost trust in someone, that trust is very, very difficult to build back up, even if both parties agree to try. Your schizoid character is going to be incredibly wary of the other person, and the relationship is probably never going to feel like it did before.

Beware of stereotypes

Every once in a while I'll encounter a story that features a character who has very obvious schizoid traits, and almost every single time, their arc leaves me disappointed and frustrated. Here are some tropes I would personally avoid writing for a schizoid character.

"He just needed love all along." Kill this trope, no exceptions. Strong emotional intimacy can erode or overpower a schizoid's sense of self, and usually leads to feelings of smothering, being trapped/crushed by the other, and losing autonomy and independence. A schizoid is capable of love on their own specific terms, but if it's on the terms of other people, they will strongly feel like it's something being forced on them against their will. They might still outwardly "accept it" as a form submission or compliance, but it will not be out of love. This trope gives me psychic damage.

"He sacrificed his life for others, which proves that he cared all along." This trope isn't necessarily bad, it just always leaves me with this impression that neurotypicals can only interpret caring when it happens in the extremes. And while it's true that schizoids can sometimes be altruistically self-sacrificing, it's kinda depressing to see schizoid-like characters die all the time. There are other ways you could show schizoid altruism that would also leave the door open for more closure for the character themself.

"He turned evil and violent." While this trope isn't quite as common as it is with other disorders, notably those from cluster B, it does still exist. So here's your friendly reminder that mentally ill and neurodivergent people are more likely to be the victims of violence than to be perpetrators, by far. I'm not saying you should never write a schizoid bad guy, you certainly can - I'm just telling you to be very careful about how you go about it, so you don't end up sending the wrong kind of message.

Conclusion

Schizoid characters are cool, and I wish there were more well-written canonically schizoid characters out there. But I'm also clearly biased, so what do I know

[narhinafan]

whyyy do ppl hate naruhina Soo much the haters main reason is that “it’s forced”

and the SAME thing for Sasuhina like to me I can kinda see the vision here like the haters main reason is that “they don’t talk” like okay?! So did Naruto and hinata like they really haven’t talked as much but hey they still gotten closer am I right? Soooo like I don’t get what’s the big deal? And they use the same excuse for Borusumi is that “they don’t talk” or “they don’t have much dynamics than borusara” or “they don’t make sense” or mainly “they aren’t close”

like okay?! LOOK AT NARUTO AND SAKURA they were close but look where did he end up with? Like of course they are close bc they are teammates and so is boruto and sarada like just bc they are “close” don’t mean boruto possible might not end up with sumire like I don’t understand those excuses like sasuke and hinata do have some things in common when it comes to their family background that plays part of their story. Like it also make not sense on how ppl dislike Narusasu like I don’t like it much either but dang they sure are haters but LOVEEE borusara?! Like it’s literally sasuke and Naruto together if sasuke was a girl?! But really got me messed up is that “Narusaku makes more sense” but how do they make more sense than naruhina like I can see why but at the same time it’s a no like they are bound to be teammates and friends

Cause those haters are Sakura and NaruSaku fans who feel insecure and hate Hinata cause they see her as having stolen Naruto who they see as Sakura's trophy.

NaruHina was never forced anyone with reading comprehension knew it was ends game as soon as Hinata was introduced. Hinata was always the love interest heroine her feelings for Naruto were made clear from the start and she perfectly filled the heroine role when she uplifted Naruto with her proud failure speech.

Whenever Naruto starts doubting himself its Hinata who supports him and makes sure he doesn't go back on his ninja way.

NaruHina don't have many panels together, but the ones they do are impactful and important showing just how much of a positive effect they have on each other. You can also tell with NaruHina that the way they interact with each other even in part is different to how they are with anyone else.

Its the same with BoruSumi they want BoruSara to happen to use the ship to justify that NaruSaku should of happened and to use as a trophy to make Sakura look better. When Boruto and Sumire did talk you can see the impact she had on him, plus there is an entire anime arc where Boruto saves her not to mention its quite clear they have chemistry in both the anime and manga.

BoruSara on the other hand is a train wreak Boruto lost an eye cause of her stupidity. As friends and teammates they work, but even then a lot of negative where its pretty obvious if they weren't teammates they wouldn't be that close. They don't work as lovers their dynamics aren't positive, but rather negative. It was the same with Naruto and Sakura they work as teammates and friends, but their dynamics and effect on each other are more negative in nature hence why they never happened. The ships don't work unless you completely change their characters and if that's the case it only proves they aren't meant to be.

[batbirdies]

I just feel the need to remind people that when you’re getting upset about bad rep of your blorbos in fic please remember that 90% of fic is just badly written. Almost ALL of the common complaints I see about fanfic are because most unprofessional writers just aren’t very good at it. I promise you that the people writing two dimensional versions of your blorbo aren’t doing it on purpose. They just literally aren’t good at this.

If they totally misrepresented your fav in order to prop up their own fav it’s probably because they couldn’t think up a more balanced way to represent what they wanted to showcase because that would be complicated and multi layered and difficult and this other way is simpler and straight forward and doesn’t require the same level of skill or comprehension, dedication or effort.

Like… I don’t like to bring this up much because telling people “yeah I mean most fic is just bad” can be discouraging to people who already worry that their writing isn’t very good. But that’s just not the point.

Fanfiction isn’t published. There are no rules and its purpose is to be fun! For the writer just as much as the reader (if not more) and readers can just go away if they don’t like the thing. They don’t have to read it!

I just see so many posts complaining about how fandom does so many things wrong and it’s like… yeah this is like complaining that hobbyist artists work lacks depth and imagination and being disgusted by how bad the perspective and shading and color choices are. Like?? They’re not a professional and they are out here doing this for fun. MOST PEOPLE ARE BAD AT ART.

I just want people to stop and think sometimes before they jump on certain fans or fandom tropes as the root of all evil in their fandom. Like is it the trope or is it that the trope is being written clumsily and without skill?

In which case… does it make sense to complain that hobbyists just aren’t as good as you wish they were? That their free content is obnoxious to sift through on the hunt for something good?

Maybe you don’t think they should be allowed to have a fun time if they aren’t good at the thing.

Maybe you should think about what that says about you.

I’m not saying never complain about stuff you hate seeing, you’re still allowed to hate it. But the vitriol directed towards the writers is where I get confused and caution people to think about how much sense it makes to get mad at people for not being good at their hobby.

[gwensy]

Hi!! I was perusing your blog and I like your insight on 65-Gwen Stacy. I've read an absolutely obscene amount of 616 Spidey comics, including every appearance of Gwen up to her death, and then of course the epic highs and lows afterwards (Spider-Man "unreliable narrator Peter" Blue, Clone "what a twist!" Saga, Clone "Dan Slott, why" Conspiracy... the works).

ANYWAYS. Needless to say I'm a big fan of main universe Gwen... I've always been intrigued by her 65 counterpart, and though I read a good chunk of the original Gwenom arc, I feel a little lost as far as where to jump in for 65-Gwen.

Do you have any recs for an enjoyer of catty, bull-headed, but caring and ultimately tragic Gwendolyn Stacy? I've got to believe both Gwens have more in common than a lot of the fandom would lead me to think.

hi there!!! always glad to hear. my brain has been latched onto spider-man's dead girlfriend since i was like seven years old so needless to say i am irregular and dedicated 🙂‍↕️👈. i've gotten asks about reading lists for gwen-65 in the past, my most comprehensive list of comics i recommend people read when looking to get into her character can be found in this ask answer.

I think it's important to note with Gwen-65 that she is a different person, if anything [and multiple people criticizing Latour's Spider-Gwen for this when the comics were releasing also said this] I think that Gwen-65 acts alot like Peter Parker, which reads as an intentional choice with the amount that she mirrors him.

Gwen-65 would not have turned out like 616dolyne even if the spider had never bit her-- pre-bite she was already a reckless, selfish and traumatized kid. even down to the way her life had played out pre-bite, she's next door neighbors and childhood friends with Peter Parker, her mother died when she was three, characters like May Parker, Ben Parker & even people like Foggy Nelson and Jean DeWolff have all been involved in her life since she was a child. and this all makes sense, it's an alternate universe and I think it's unfair to criticize this version of Gwen Stacy purely on account of "not acting like she did in ASM" (<- although [at least in early issues. don't ask me about recent ones i have not read them] I do think she acts similarly to Ultimate Gwen Stacy, so. shrug.).

-- but something that *is* very integral to Gwen-65 [and uniquely tragic, I think.] is her own personal thoughts on this; she feels So Strongly about the fact that she is so unlike her deceased counterparts. through her eyes, her survival is what causes everybody else in her universe to suffer in the ways that they do; she is entirely under the impression that her dying at nineteen or twenty would've been a better outcome than turning out the way she did. she is constantly praised as being somebody lucky, somebody special, but she still has to face an entire universe where she is almost always dead. like its awesome, doesn't that suck so bad can you imagine being like 19 and knowing all that. Check it out

Gwen-65 is essentially haunted by her own ghost and she is eternally angry and dejected towards this fact-- even down to the title of 'Spider-Gwen' only ever being used in a way that either demeans her or specifically differentiates her as "the alive one". she is somebody who is both dead and alive at the same time and never truly feels okay with it, she is not 616's Gwen Stacy and those are shoes that she is acutely aware she cannot fill. so like, if anything I think the undiagnosed ptsd, kind of a bad person version of Gwen is Interesting as her own person regardless. because she's *not* her own person, nobody will allow her to be.

-- but anyways this was super long I apologize for that. i love talking about Gwen Stacy though so feel free to send more asks + I hope this helped you! smiles