#and also i don't think it's necessarily useful to posit things in terms of correctness when it's simply that the 'five stages of (whatever

[truecorvid]

the problem with having been active on the internet for over a decade and active on social media for just about as long is that sometimes i really realllly want to like. engage in healthy/casual debate about topics that i see being talked about but. i know it won't go that way. i know that if i engage in the way that i would like to (not just directly agreeing with what's being said) i'm going to immediately telegraph myself as some sort of chud trying to pick fights online over pedantic shit which in turn will immediately put people on the defensive. i've seen this play out. i know how this will end.

[doctorbunny]

The Curious Case of the Kashiki Family Discrepency

So, I'd thought that we'd had Yuno's family situation figured out for some time now

Her 7th question of her first interrogation Q "Tell us about your family." A "Grandpa, Grandma, Mom, Me, and my little brother <- Yura"

And her dad's not around. (In theory he could be dead, but given her lack of sentimentality around the whole thing.... He probably just dipped out, either just after she was born or possibly even before then. At Most he might've returned just long enough to help make Yura, then disappeared into the night like a deadbeat tomcat -which was irresponsible but isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Amane knows, not everyone is fit to be a parent and its not like Yuno's had anything bad to say about the rest of her family)

But then I was looking over old minigrams and noticed something odd

Yuno mentions having younger brothers, plural

At first I thought it was a typo, but in the Japanese she says 弟たち/達 Otouto-tachi Otouto meaning younger brother, and -tachi, making it plural

If this was an error, it'd be a pretty obvious detail to mess up not once but twice

So that begs the question: Why does Yuno only bring up One younger brother?

There's a few possibilities: A) Yuno Really Hates her younger siblings with the exception of Yura (I'd say this is Highly Unlikely but also the funniest option) B) Given her single mother, Yuno's younger siblings may be half siblings to different fathers, and given how full to bursting the Kashiki household is already, those kids might live with their dads Meaning Yuno had to keep them all entertained if they ever visited, but she might not consider them to be in her 'core family' so to speak, especially if they don't visit all that often (I'd say this is more likely than A, and could apply alongside C if she's got more than two younger siblings) [Japan doesn't legally have dual custody, but if both parents are on speaking terms and are fine with it, the kids can as much time with the non-custodial parent as they want] C) [and this is the one @archivalofsins was leaning on me most to talk about, but admittedly is also what first came to my mind] One of Yuno's younger brothers fucking died-

And if this is the case, then we may be learning a lot more about this in her T3... (her VA did say on milgram radio we'd get to see a very different side of her this time round)

We don't know much about this hypothetical brother, but given how Yuno expects her cat's cradle to impress Amane, it may be a good bet to assume he'd have been around 12 too.

Alas, beyond this minigram, things get a bit... circumstantial However if we work based on the assumption that C is correct, then how does that colour Yuno's attitude throughout milgram?

Well, some of that probably depends on how he died, but for maximum angst.... lets suppose he'd been terminally ill [looks at Mahiru]

For starters, it'd give some interesting contexts to one of the first things we learn about Yuno from her website bio:

誰のどんな話でもニコニコ聞いてくれるが、暑苦しい精神論���ようなものは嫌い。 No matter who, or what the conversation is about, she listens with a smile, but she despises stuffy ideas like seishinron.

If you've never heard of it, seishinron is the idea that anything can be overcome through sheer willpower alone. [There's lots of different ideas that are similar to this, in the US many people believe they can 'manifest' good health and future success, and that unhealthy/unsuccessful people merely didn't Think hard enough] There's many reasons one could consider this flawed. But an experience with terminal illness would be Sure to leave someone feeling angered at the idea if you had a problem you just weren't determined enough to solve it. Disease doesn't work like that.

It'd also explain why simultaenously Yuno talks positively of her family

But then also says stuff like this

Given that Yuno referred to meeting with her clients as 'reloading the warmth' I doubt the sex work was the main cause of her feeling so low... (In fact she seemed get into it as a means to distract herself From this coldness. And TBH if we try to think about depressing things that would take an otherwise good family's attention off you... I'd say dying younger brother ranks pretty high on the Bummer Scale)

Such a vivid experience with death could also lead into how Yuno says that she doesn't care about anyone, but then becomes one of Mahiru's main carers, seemingly round the clock

a role she takes very seriously to the point that Shidou suggests she get a career in healthcare (which she takes as such a serious role as to reject the idea outright, sure she's stepped up in milgram but in the real world, surely such positions would be filled by even more dedicated people-)

Only to then afterwards change her tune and say that Actually it doesn't matter at all, only murderers died, its her own fault for getting too close to the others.

Ever the Kazui foil, Yuno might be using apathy to defend her own heart. You can't be hurt by death if you don't get attached to anyone... Well you can try at least.

Or maybe I'm totally off lol... that's enough speculating for one night

Needless to say, I don't think Yuno's doing too well, it can be hard to admit you're struggling when your baseline for suffering is 'Well at least I'm not literally dying'.

[artfulacrostic]

okay so matt's entire treatment of and then defense of hector after their witness turns on them is based on his own personal experiences. he's (imo) super wrong to out hector's identity to everyone and their mother without even giving him the courtesy of discussing it with him first, but do you know why he does it? it's because he thinks that not only will it win them the case if he can spin it in hector's defense, but ALSO because he thinks that being outed to the public will force hector to stop being white tiger.

his thought process goes like this: if he, matt, had been somehow forced to stop being daredevil, maybe if he'd given it up post s3 or even sooner, then maybe the people in his life that he lost because of their connection to him and therefore his vigilante identity would still be alive. (father lantom, foggy, etc.) therefore he assumes that even though hector doesn't want to be outed, this will be the net good in the end, as it will 1) keep hector out of prison/get him off murder charges, 2) get him off the street as a vigilante before the people in his life are negatively impacted even more than they have been already, 3) allow him to find a different way to do good without the outlet of vigilante violence (which we know is to matt a self-destructive behavior, though it doesn't necessarily seem that way for hector). it's giving "i know better than you what's best for you" which is SO catholic of him. i can say this as someone who grew up roman catholic trust me i'm correct.

HOWEVER. matt can't convince hector to stop, the same way foggy couldn't convince him to stop, and his assumption that being unmasked will force hector into retirement is also what signs his death warrant, since matt inadvertently put white tiger on fisk's radar as a vigilante that matt appears to be enabling (thus breaking their agreement in fisk's mind.)

on to the defense matt uses in his closing argument.

this entire section is matt asserting through the parallel of hector's life that his own decisions regarding his vigilantism are right. first, that his choice to go out as daredevil was made from a place of good intentions, and that he did accomplish good things. second, that his choice to hang up the mask was not a choice that meant he was abandoning his cause or the people he fought to help, but rather that he was doing it in a different way. the way foggy wanted him to.

by being forced to justify his own position, matt is also placed in the position where he has to acknowledge himself as a hero, even just internally, because he has to believe the argument he's making about hector, and that means for the first time, maybe he believes it just a little about himself. after all, he doesn't like being called a hero, he disagreed with that idea actively throughout s1-3, where the idea of who a "hero" is had a lot of discussion.

the only person who really knows both matt and daredevil and ever calls him a hero and means it is foggy, who does it twice. most telling: the first time is when they meet, and foggy says he was a hero for saving that old guy as a kid. matt is a hero for doing something years before he even conceived of becoming a masked vigilante. he doesn't need a mask to be a hero, foggy just acknowledges it straight up. the second time is after season 1, sometime in s2 when foggy tells him to go be a hero, just don't get killed doing it. this is an acknowledgment of the good he can do, but even here the mask comes with a caveat: it might get him killed. foggy knows that to do heroic things, it requires matt to put himself in danger.

all the other times people call him a hero, they only know his vigilante identity, not matt himself. and most people don't label him that way anyway; it's usually the term "vigilante"; people rarely throw the h word around. when they do, it's usually not both a) in reference to him and b) positive/sincere. frank rejects the idea that matt is a hero just because he doesn't kill people. karen decides that the real heroes are the everyday people surviving in society despite everything. maggie makes fun of him for moping in the basement like a brooding hero. and even foggy isn't afraid to call matt out for his complex when he thinks he ISNT being heroic, but not once does matt agree with anyone who labels him a hero.

but now, he's forced to face that his argument hinges on hector ayala, a vigilante, being a hero. putting himself in harms way over and over again, just because "it's the right thing to do".

just like matt did. and if hector is a hero, then despite it going against everything matt believes about himself, then there is some part of him that is a hero too. mask off and everything. a hero, still.

so while i think the parallels matt has drawn between himself and hector are not completely fair, i do think that it's a fascinating way to make him study his own beliefs about himself, and for us as the audience to get a glimpse into his internal process at the moment, when we lack any of our usual clearest conduits to how matt is feeling or thinking at any given time (his confessions to father lantom, his discussions with foggy, karen, even claire, etc). without them to serve as the interrogation device to give the audience access to his thoughts, the writers instead use hector as a mirror and make matt hold it up to himself and reveal things through his actions.

[transfemme-shelterdog]

could I get an opinion on this? (extremely transandrophobic and intersexist bingo board)

to clarify some of the vaguely iffy ones on here-

trans women often do get more visibility, positive or negative- (this does not correspond to violence rates)

male/female socialization as in people raised male or female have different, though not necessarily bad, perspectives + experiences.

guys/dude is generally gender neutral but if someone's uncomfortable respect that

this has like. 800 notes and most from transmascs that are agreeing with this sadly. the creator of this board is self described tme

I'll go point by point, left to right/top to bottom:

There's nothing wrong with they/them pronouns, or any pronouns honestly. This just comes across as exorsexist (which is on par for these people)

Wow, two points in and already contradictory. Honey, you're the one saying that you can't have a complex gender by shitting on people who are enby

The fact that I engaged once with these people just last night and I had self described TERFs in my comments and reblogs, shitting on me, and calling me a "he/him" and "male rapist" and other fun things says everything I need to know about this issue. I've never once seen a "transmisogynist" (read: transandrophobia poster) reblog from a TERF, and I'm very active in the disk-horse

Sis, you're the one shitting on trans men. These guys are just defending themselves.

You fuckers literally accused me of being a rapist/predator with a "laundry list of fetishes" who "has teen girls tell him about their fetishes", nice try

Ok, this is a complex one. Systemically, misandry (as used to describe cishet males being oppressed) isn't really a thing. Is there going to be individual instances of cishet men getting fucked by the system? Sure. But systemically, cishet men have a lot of advantages that others aren't afforded. That being said, we both know they mean "hatred of any men for any reason" which is bullshit. These people shit on trans men all the time.

Well, they are? They call trans men TME and trans women TMA and never apply it to cis people, thus it's just another sex based binary

We are? Just in different ways.

Refer to point 1 and 2, hypocrite

What's their point? So what's the minimum amount of examples that you need to prove a point?

I don't think any trans mascs say that, and those that would, probably would apologize and make an effort not to call a trans woman dude if she's uncomfortable with it. I do agree, it's not neutral, and hate being called it myself

My sister in christ, you likely use the term "theyfab"

n/a

Well, perisex trans women can't get pregnant, and trans men/mascs can, and have dysphoria around it. Not to mention corrective rape. It's a valid form of oppression that only affects perisex afab trans mascs.

Don't know of any zionist trans mascs, also did fucking TW make this?

Yes, you do, and you are. Good girl!

I've had these women hyperfocus on my kinks and shit on me for it. Never seen a trans dude do the same.

Yeah, well at least trans dudes are willing to fuck trans girls. Can't say the same for you lot (transhet t4t my beloved)

Yeah, we are hyper-fucking-visible. Look at any studies done on "trans people", and it's always trans women. Music wise? Typically all the traction goes to trans girls. Media? Mainly trans girls. Online? Mainly trans girls.

Really gonna act like you aren't taught "how to be a girl/boy" growing up? I know how to fit in with cis men, and easily boymode because of that.

Well, you can. This is Tumblr baby girl, make a post, tag it, and send it off to the world. I do it all the time, and people listen to me.

You girls are trans radfems and TERFs, sorry. Don't like the label? Change.

Isn't this the point you're making in the last box?

Trans men experience a shit load more misogyny growing up than trans women do after coming out. This is just a fact. Even more so in non-western countries (looking at you @that-satireguy my beloved non-western trans peep)

????????

[disquiet-dream]

I feel like a genuinely massive amount of gender discourse here - and elsewhere - is trying to grapple with the same idea of "it's pretty clear that even being assigned male, presenting as a man, and even identifying as a man does not necessarily actually stop you from being mistreated by patriarchy" and struggling (often including high hostility to other arguments engaging with the same concept)

Because to me there's like, at least three ways to try and reconcile that:

First, the bell hooksian "men are harmed by patriarchy too" position, one which I'm... probably less hostile to than a lot of people here, but I do still think fails pretty badly?

More accurately i think it's a very vague statement that can be correct by some interpretations, but is often taken in a way where it acts like men are harmed just as much as anyone else, or acts like they don't benefit from the. system made to benefit them.

...Or is very transmisogynistic by framing transmisogyny as, bascially, "trans women are treated like gnc men"

Anyway, with those in mind I do get why people tend to oppose the pithy lines associated with this position. To the point where I expect some would be mad seeing me compare it to the next position, but anyway-

Second, there's framing the whole thing through the need to acknowledge that a lot of the "men" who are mistreated are in fact, not men at all! And so trying to reconcile it by way of saying "actually, when I and/or the transfems I know were mistreated even when presenting male, it's because we always were trans, and people who hurt us could tell something was different."

And while I want to be very clear that I am sympathetic to this position - I get where it comes from, i promise - it's just so... idealist. I just don't think you can like, actually analyze this position and make it work unless you believe that being a trans woman is not only some kind of spiritual essence you're born with, but one that other people can detect.

And of course, it requires you to ignore the idea that someone who really does consider themself a "man" may go through this kind of thing, and also to basically think if someone's self narrative is e.g. "I wasn't born trans, I decided I was trans as an adult." then they're either wrong, not allowed to also go "yeah I was mistreated for gender stuff as a kid", or both.

(Which. well, I frame these as negatives but ime "Yes being trans IS something you're born with, no this kind of experience has literally never once happened to a man and if they think it did they're lying or wrong, and yeah anything but a 'born this way' conception of your gender is just wrong" is like. No yeah a lot of trans people do just think those things. So I guess from that angle it is easy to accept this position.)

And finally there's the third position - which I'm not going to hide, I think actually does resolve it: To think about gender as a whole in a way that at least resembles sizhens's gender ternary. The reason these things happen is because it's never been about "man" or "woman" in the first place! The category of "Power" is largely made of what could be termed "cis men", but that's not a stable position at all, and it's not at all strange to believe one of those "cis men" (or more relevantly - I'll get to it - "cis boys") could be demoted out of power, or to the position of faggot.

In this context there's no need to reconcile "sometimes men are hurt by gender maybe" with "ok but they still benefit" - members of the "power" class being within it at times and outside it at others is a feature of this lens already. People move around on the hierarchy depending on context, that's just how it works.

And similarly there's no need to engage in any kind of idealism to explain the targeting of future trans women, even when they should in theory be considered "boys" (or, of course, to explain trans women who didn't experience that). Gender is a thing that is done to you, not by you. Your internal identity has minimal impact on if you will be placed at the bottom of the heirarchy and subject to faggotization (or, if you prefer, transmisogynization)

I also think like... Maybe I'm wrong, but in my observation it's basically true that a lot of children assigned male experience gendered mistreatment largely arbitrarily, but in adulthood it targets, at the very least, more overt femininity (whether that's transfemininity, homosexuality, or just kind of being a little faggy depends on context a lot, but still). Which makes perfect sense to me, since imo it makes sense to say in many contexts "boys" are not men, and they're already effectively in the not-power class - which is to say, if they're being threatened it's already with being labeled a faggot proper.

(And of course "girls" are also in the not-power class and this kind of threat serves different purposes there - the threat of "act like a man be treated worse than a woman" is different from "accept your subservience as a woman" - but still, the point is I think a child is in a similar position regardless of sex assignment.)

Anyway, I don't have any proper conclusion here. Just some thoughts I've been turning over. At the very least, I think this helps me understand why this whole discourse tends to annoy me from multiple angles?

(and frankly "let me figure out why the fuck this annoys me so much" is part of my motivation for writing most of my long posts, so. Y'know.)

Also, Apologies to anyone who holds any of these positions who feels misrepresented by my description of them. If you think I sound like I don't understand, you're probably right! And extra apologies to tumblr user sizhens if she like, idk, searches for gender ternary talk and sees I misunderstood something mentioned here, lol.

Ok, bye bye.

[midnightstargazer]

y'all know I like Regulus morally gray, prejudiced, etc. If you didn't know that (hi, new followers!), now you do. But I also like him redeemable. I'm all for dragging that boy out of the lake, forcing him to live, and making him deal with the fallout of realizing he was on the wrong side.

But... why Regulus?

By that I don't mean why Regulus and not [insert other morally gray character here], because I don't do the "only my problematic fave is valid" thing. More like why Regulus and not Random Death Eater #5? For a character with such a small role in canon, what makes Regulus specifically so appealing? Because I do think there are reasons he's gotten to be so popular.

First of all, he's not a complete unknown. He's Sirius's brother, and Sirius is a popular character. Also, because he's Sirius's brother, we know a whole lot about his childhood and family. Several chapters in books 5 and 7 are spent in the house where he grew up, and we even see inside his bedroom. There's nowhere near that amount of insight into the backstories of Mulciber, Avery, Rosier, etc.

Being raised by Orion and Walburga probably wins him some sympathy points, as well. While he was apparently the favorite son, it still can't have been pleasant to grow up around such unpleasant people.

When Sirius discusses his family, he is critical of Regulus, but he speaks about him in much softer terms than their parents or Bellatrix. He calls him an "idiot" for joining the Death Eaters and suggests that he was influenced by their parents' ideology. He notably doesn't call him cruel or evil, and given how blunt he is about the rest of the family's shortcomings, it wouldn't seem out-of-place if he did. I know I'm not the only one who interprets his description of Regulus as being just a little bit affectionate, in a begrudging sort of way.

By the way, what did Regulus actually do as a Death Eater? We don't really know. He definitely 1) joined, 2) expressed blood purist views, 3) loaned Kreacher to Voldemort, and 4) betrayed Voldemort. Other than that, anything goes. Which also means that he didn't necessarily kill anyone, use the Unforgivable Curses, etc. Each individual fic writer can pretty much pick and choose to what extent they want him to be guilty of typical Death Eater crimes. (My Regulus is pathetically bad at the Cruciatus Curse for exactly this reason.)

Also, he's not just a blood purist and a Death Eater; he's given positive qualities, too. He's courageous, clearly. He's willing to die rather than keep serving Voldemort after losing his faith in him. He's got a bit of hubris in thinking he could handle the Horcrux all on his own, but it's oddly mixed with humility, realizing that he won't be the one to kill Voldemort and being content to simply make it possible for someone else to do so.

And then there's Kreacher. No, I don't think Regulus was some sort of proto-SPEW activist campaigning for house-elf rights in between Death Eater meetings. But he did drink the potion himself rather than ordering Kreacher to do it. He brought Kreacher along to the cave because he couldn't do it alone, but he did the worst, most painful part himself and made sure Kreacher would survive. This is emphasized when the full story is revealed, with Harry initially assuming he did make Kreacher drink the potion, only to be corrected. There are very few characters who show any amount of decency toward house-elves, so it stands out.

There's another little moment from earlier in the same chapter that I think also does a lot to make Regulus seem more human. And that's the photo of the Quidditch team. It's such a small thing, but the kids in that photo are described as smiling and waving, which is very atypical for Slytherin students. Usually, they're shown scowling, sneering, glaring, and otherwise being unpleasant. A picture of Regulus smiling and waving with his teammates, especially just after they saw his Voldemort collage and the family crest painted on his wall, softens those details somewhat and shows a different side to him.

Oh, and speaking of Quidditch, let's talk about parallels to Harry. Because there are a lot. They both play Seeker, yes, but more importantly, they're both 17-18 year old boys who go to (what they believe will be) their death, hoping to destroy a Horcrux so that Voldemort will be made mortal. Neither of them expects to live, or to kill Voldemort themselves, just to make it possible for someone else to do so. I have criticisms of how Regulus's death is portrayed in the books (namely: redemption-by-heroic-sacrifice kind of falls flat when it doesn't accomplish anything), but his trip to the cave does parallel Harry's walk into the forest in a very poetic way.

And, of course, I think this goes without saying, but he does turn against Voldemort. Whether or not he fully abandons the ideology that led him to join the Death Eaters, it's not what he prioritizes in the end. He turns against Voldemort, presumably knowing that Voldemort's downfall would be a setback for the blood purist cause. Because Horcruxes are a step too far? Because Voldemort hurt his house-elf? Because being a Death Eater isn't all it's cracked up to be? Whatever the reason, there's something that matters to him more than his own life and more than his loyalty to the cause.

And if he survived, what then? How does he move forward? Does he somehow remain a Death Eater? Go into hiding? Join the Order? Does he cling to his prejudice or allow himself to be de-radicalized? Does he regret the things that he did? In a more peaceful world after Voldemort is gone, what sort of man might he grow up to be? How would the events of his youth shape him, for better or for worse?

There's so much to explore.

Again, I'm not saying he's better or worse than any other morally gray character. But he's not just some random first war Death Eater with an attractive fancast. Even with what little bit of characterization exists in canon, there's so much potential to craft an interesting character out of it. He has a backstory, he has hints of a personality, and he's portrayed with a degree of sympathy and nuance that the other background Death Eaters don't get. He's pretty much tailor-made for redemption arc potential, which makes sense, because the story of his death in canon is pretty much framed as a redemption arc. I'm not sure I agree - I think it's more like the beginning of one, cut short before it really gets going - but maybe the feeling that it's not quite all it should be is another thing that makes him so appealing as a fanfic character. After all, a lot of fic comes from a place of "no, canon didn't get it quite right - I'll do it myself."

[brazenautomaton]

hi hi ^.^

no amount of me reading Marx changes the fact that communists are wrong about everything they say, in a very predictable way

i want to complain about this. i want to say that its unfair, or overly harsh, or something like that... its hard to do that though since i basically agree XD

the thing about communism is that its an idea with very broad appeal, that many different kinds of people end up identifying with. unfortunately, as with any popular idea, a great many of the people who identify with it will have terrible opinions.

so i can understand why you feel the way you do, but i hope you're able to keep your mind open to the possibility of communists having worthwhile insights sometimes.

(disclaimer that many people would probably think of me as a communist, even though i don't necessarily identify with that term and merely have an appreciation for some ideas related to it. i just want to be clear that i'm not trying to like trick you into an ideological betrayal of your ideals or something, i just feel like you've over-corrected in response to many communists being insufferable idiots.)

okay I'm gonna say your intentions are probably pure, but every other communist can also say that, and a lot of them do, and all of them are wrong

other communists aren't crazy and wrong because they're bad people in addition to being communists. they are always wrong because communism is a belief system that cannot make accurate predictions about the world, and they have adopted that belief system to try and make predictions about the world. it is not a moral issue, communists are not wrong because they hate the rich too much instead of hating them the correct amount, communists do not become wrong when they "take it too far" -- if you look at the world the way Marx did, you are incorrect. You will explain things in terms of capital and class interests, and those explanations will be incorrect.

Marxism has a worse track record than astrology, as far as making predictions goes. Astrology has no insight to offer, not because believers in astrology are evil, not because some people take astrology too far, but because the world does not work the way astrology says it works. Whatever ideas associated with it that you appreciate are incorrect, and they're incorrect in a very very deep fundamental way, they made a bunch of very wrong assumptions before you even noticed them saying anything.

"Poor people should be able to live nicely" is not a communist insight, it's a nearly universally held position. Communism claims to be synonymous with the well-being of poor people because people who are always wrong like to fall back on "well, all I'm saying is this uncontroversially and universally agreed on thing, so if you disagree you must hate the thing everyone likes." Communism is also a set of beliefs about who the poor are, what situation they are in, what causes that situation, what will change that situation, and what will benefit those people-- and every single one of those beliefs is incorrect. They don't know what is happening or why or how or to whom or how to change anything to get the outcome they want. That's not an individual moral failing, that's what happens when you try to use communism's worldview to answer questions.

[innerchorus]

A question popped up as I thought about some future chapters of my AU regarding Saam. How much is actually known about him in the novels? I don't think there is much about him like family, his past and such, right?

(Do tell me if I already have asked somehting similar)

I can't recall if you asked this before, maybe it came up when we were discussing Sam in general at some point? In any case, your suspicion is correct, Tanaka doesn't provide any other details. We don't know his age, which part of Pars he's from, any details about his past or his family, nothing. The only thing we know (and this is mentioned in the manga, too, when Sam visits the imprisoned Andragoras in Chapter 56) is that he was made Marzban by Andragoras.

However, I think we can infer a few things and speculate about a few others based on that scene. One being that while Sam is a noble, I don't think he necessarily comes from a line of high-ranking generals like Kishward. It feels like Andragoras recognised his talents. And its these talents that Sam defines his own worth by, stating "I am a man of no ability, except to fight." His honour as Marzban and how his position allows him to serve the country he loves are what matters most to him and what gives his life meaning, and also the source of his loyalty to the Parsian royal family.

In terms of his military past, again there are no specific details other than what we're shown in canon; at the time the series opens he is entrusted, along with Garshasp, with protecting the royal capital of Ecbatana. I've theorised before that this is a prestigous position given only to those with a wealth of experience who are trusted completely by the Shah (because after all, when the king leaves the city to go and fight, he must know that it is in good hands). We know Sam is an expert at attacking and defending fortresses, and is familiar with Zabul (but presumably visited rather than being stationed there for a long time; perhaps he was sent to advise, or perhaps to reinforce temporarily when it previously came under threat?). He must have taken part in plenty of siege battles on both sides of the walls which means he's most likely participated in campaigns outside the borders of Pars, as well as potentially in taking back Parsian fortresses that may have fallen to the enemy.

(Personally, I headcanon that he was with the troops Andragoras led in Badakhshan. Maybe he proved his worth in the swift taking of the capital, Helmandus?)

Regarding when he became Marzban, it's tempting to say 'after Osroes died' but it could even have been before then. See, when Osroes became Shah, he actually instated his younger brother Andragoras as Eran and turned over control of the entire army to him. It's possible that he even allowed Andragoras to select his own Marzbans, subject to approval, of course. So there's room for various headcanons there. Either way, Sam feeling some loyalty specifically towards Andragoras even before Osroes's death fits with the fact that Andragoras did have the overwhelming support of the military in general, and it may have been a factor in him choosing not to believe in the rumours that Andragoras killed his brother and burned Prince Hilmes alive. It's clear in his later questions to Andragoras that he longs for it not to be true but can no longer deny the likelihood that it is.

The fact that he recognises Hilmes even years later tells us that he had contact with him in some form, presumably within the grounds of the palace. He's also familiar with Gotarzes, specifically the flaws that overtook him at the end of his reign. Of course, it may be that he simply has knowledge of this through having heard it, but it's also possible he spent some time at court and witnessed it first hand (this may be where his distrust of sorcerers comes from...).

Like I said, his family is a total blank in true Tanaka form so we can imagine whatever we want there. I always felt that Sam seems like someone who would at least spare a thought for his loved ones during the turmoil that Pars descends into, and even though I know it's just Tanaka not seeing fit to mention stuff like this, I can't reconcile it with how I see Sam's character, which is why I ended up with a headcanon that he had a wife who died (sorry to heap yet more angst onto this man, but there you go).

I don't think I have anything else to add. Maybe just that in terms of his familiarity with Prince Arslan, they obviously know each other but not well. I assume he didn't personally have anything to do with Arslan's education etc, and they just saw each other from time to time in the palace or at functions, etc.

[idsfantasy]

I'm sorry if you've gotten this kind of info already, but one of the points you used in that video about Burntrap/Glitchtrap being Afton was him saying "I always come back," which you claim is something the Mimic wouldn't know, but it did know that. Fnaf 6 is shown to be a game in universe just like the rest of them.

Glitchtrap is likely a different branch of the Mimic1 code specifically designated for copying William long term.

There's also a line in Special Delivery. Luis says that Vanessa searched up "How to induce compliance in human subjects" which not only implies that what's possessing her isn't human in any way, but it's something that William would never need to do given that he's a master manipulator.

As for the memory plushies, those likely either come from the Mimic giving you the data it got about them from the VR game, or it's Glitchtrap giving you your own memories that you lost to place you in a vulnerable position given that those memories are likely traumatic ones.

We saw how Afton died anyway, his Agony and Remnant was cleansed by the Puppet in Fazbear's Fright's. There would be nothing left to bring him back. The Princess is going after the monster copying the murderer, not the murderer himself.

Also I'm like 90% sure that the devs of Security Breach thought that Burntrap was supposed to be Afton. I recall Baz saying once when he met Scott at the fnaf movie set that there was a miscommunication involving one of the games endings.

Sorry if this is a mess. Just thought all this was worth pointing out. Have a good one.

The video for those interested:

I don't think that Mimic was plugged into Pizzeria Simulator like it theoretically would have been into Help Wanted. It's possible I guess, but I still think it doesn't make sense for it to latch onto that line, or know what William heard in UCN.

When would that designation have been made and by whom? It wouldn't have been for Help Wanted based on Tape Girl's descriptions nor Mr. Burrows's.

Technically there are other things you can try to induce compliance in. A dog or other pet for example. "Human subjects" just specifies the search. Not to mention, it wouldn't necessarily be literally Glitchtrap doing the searching. Vanessa was talking to computers in AR, and we hear her talking to Glitchtrap in the og HW. He manipulated her mind to make her listen to him, but I think that was more Vanessa looking something up in order to do what Glitchtrap asked her to.

The unused lines specifically refer to the memories as belonging to "it", not the player, so I doubt that would be the case, and where in the VR game would it have specifically gotten the data for all 5 MCI kids and Charlie? Why would they be called its memories if they weren't actually Glitchtrap's memories. Who's code remains if the "his code" isn't William's?

If you're referring to William getting dumped in the lake at the end of the Frights epilogues, there are quite a few reasons I think Frights and Stitchline are a separate continuity from the game timeline. Why would the Princess be around to find out about a copycat and care? He's not the one who she's mad at in that case.

I personally recall a misquote/misattribution of some sort that spread around on that topic. I'll need the timestamped video to confirm that preferably, but in any case, I highly doubt Scott didn't even glance at Burntrap's design before release to notice that something was wrong, and as I mentioned in my video, if Steel Wool was trying to correct things and connect the Mimic to Burntrap, they would have at least made the two have more visual connection than a hand that isn't even actually identical and was already reused from a nightmare animatronic.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think any of those points negate the evidence I have in the video that you didn't address, though the video was long so I understand why you wouldn't bring it all up. Either way though, I personally think it makes a lot more sense from both an evidence, narrative, and storytelling perspective for Burntrap to be William. Totally cool if you believe differently though! I hope you have a good day as well :D

[houseofbrat]

Still so William let his cancer stricken wife being trolled online for the mother day pictures as well have her carry bags during at the farmers market. William sigh

That's the worst part. She had cancer all along and William was like "all right under the bus you go Cathy!"

Meanwhile the stans are calling him a hot zaddy and lusting after him.

Granted we are on Reddit so I guess the bare minimum is expected for men.

They have an entire press office and people that they pay to be their mouthpiece to the public.  Why the hell didn’t they just hand all of this off to them to have a plan to roll out to the public?  How did this go so badly?

Honestly, I'd love to know the whole story. Just to be clear, I mean the whole story of the PR fiasco, not Kate's specific medical problems.

This might be an incredibly unpopular opinion, not sure, but I really disagree with everyone saying oh she shouldn't have had to tell us about her cancer, she should have full privacy, etc. I agree with those thoughts for celebrities and influencers, but for people supposed to lead a country and whose lives are being fully funded by taxpayers, I do think they owe a duty of transparency around their health. I'm in the U.S. and we've all seen outrage because Biden's defense secretary kept cancer a secret for like a day, because Trump refused to release his physical results, I could go on.

I think it’s a really hard judgement to make because royalty is such a unique role, and there really isn’t much to compare it to.  Not to mention that there are 2 separate questions: what was she obligated to announce and what should they have expected as far as levels of curiosity about a high profile public figure.  I do think that there would have been strategies that they could have used to better preserve privacy in the face of public curiosity.

I agree. I tend to think royalty doesn't get to be totally private about major life events but that doesn't mean they don't deserve ANY privacy. I just feel like the outraged comments about how sad it is she was forced to tell people because of their evil speculating ways are going too far in the other direction.

I don't think she necessarily has to share a diagnosis, but expecting that she could disappear entirely from public view and no-one would ask any questions is ridiculous. They had at least two months to come up with any plan besides complete silence.

I never wanted them to discuss her medical issues but transparency would have helped. Don't treat people like idiots. They mishandled this, and there were a million ways to keep things private but not have things turn into a cluster. Prayers for Catherine.

in terms of prognosis...

"preventive" chemotherapy is a positive sign here

the fact that the surgeon did not recognize he was looking at a cancer tumor in the OR is a positive sign here

the fact that it required a complex biopsy (it took 5 weeks) for the pathology to find the cancer is a positive sign.

Having been through this recently with a spouse, what you’re saying sounds correct to me too.  She would have had the best of diagnostic tools, so that would have ruled out large masses.  The language also indicates that what they found was small.

whoever ran the PR definitely did it poorly. Part of the reason the mother's day photo blew into a bigger news event was all the major news agencies put out a kill notice on it. and they only did that because Kensington palace declined to share the unedited one when asked.

Chetwynd said news agencies asked Kensington Palace to provide the original photo, but they did not receive a reply. That’s when they decided to issue “kill notices,” something that is very rarely done.

but they didn’t stick to the timeline.. they decided to reveal a doctored image and then make Kate take the fall for it. even if she did edit the picture on her own just for fun, they didn’t have to put it on her alone? the whole thing was so odd.

They could have skipped the fake photo release. They could have reacted to the swell of interest by putting out a statement that there have been developments and they will communicate when they are ready. To pretend nothing happened since the Jan announcement is disingenuous and PR is about real time handling

[amoreuxi]

I don't know if this is the type of advice you give, but I LOVE your blog and your vision, so I'll try, and feel free to not answer.

I've (19F) been talking with this guy (22M) for over a year now, online most of the time but we went on a few dates, kissed and everything else, and we message every day, and he is always loving in his texts, but we are not an official couple. My friends have been telling me that he is not interested in me, that he is using me, and that I will never get out of this situationship. I can't really ask him about it because I don't want to seem desperate, but at the same time I can't believe my friends because they don't know how he is with me when we talk and when we're together. I want to have something official with him, I think we are in love, so how would you act if you were in my position?

Love, A.

hi, A! thanks for the message. of course I'll answer; relationship advice is actually one of my strong points, I think, because I consider myself to be in a very good position to talk about what a good relationship looks like

if I were in your position, I would discard the idea that it is "desperate" to ask a man what his intentions are after a year of being intimately connected. or after any time being romantically involved, actually. you deserve to know from the starting line who you're dealing with, what their intentions are, and if they are aligned with your expectations and desires

from what you described, your friends seem to be correct, unfortunately. I can't think of any reasonable answer as to why a man in love would act lovingly, text lovingly, make love, but not want to actually commit

but we can't really make assumptions, you have to get answers. if what you want is a committed relationship, you need to make this clear to him. maybe he doesn't believe in committed relationships, maybe he's not looking for that, or maybe he does actually only see you as a casual fling, an affair he's having while he doesn't find "the one" for him. either way, you need to know who you're dealing with

so, in your place, I would simply ask him what he wants. I would state clearly that I am in love, and that I no longer want to be in a "situationship", that I am looking for a committed relationship and nothing else. if he doesn't want any of that, or if he doesn't want it with you, I don't think that makes him a bad person necessarily, but it does make him a person who is not meant for you, and who you should stop being involved with in intimate terms. it's as simple as that

personally, I am a bit conservative when it comes to relationships in the sense that I do believe that if you love somebody, you will tell them, and you will work to make them yours. I'm not even talking about monogamy specifically, but I don't think a person in love, truly in love, will make a secret of it. I think love makes us bold and courageous and explicit. so I think it would be important for you to also ask yourself if you truly are in love with this man, since you are more concerned with things such as "sounding desperate" than with revealing your feelings and intentions to him as well as knowing his feelings and intentions. there is a big chance you're just going through the motions and expecting this relationship to become official because that is the "order" of things, or maybe you want to prove your friends wrong. I'm not saying that's what it is, but it is worth considering

to sum it up, if I were you, I would first find out if I really want this relationship, if I really am in love, and if I decided I do and I am, I would give him an ultimatum, basically

hope this helps, and please come back to tell me what happened next! ♡

[jingerpi]

@matmat99 moving since the original post is already very long

I understand this difficulty and thought it might be worth discussing. while I can't fix this I can maybe provide some perspective.

this issue if "what makes good, good" has been a philosophical issue for a long time. pretty much the only groups which have a consistent answer are religious groups which say it is ordained by God as Moral. there are reasons to see certain things as good outside of religion though. as someone who left religion, I had to come to terms with no longer having a "hard coded" framework for morality built into my ideology.

In part, it was easy, not being religious didn't make me suddenly want to murder people, but in part it was also difficult, because I'm someone who likes to understand things very deeply and it was something I gave a lot of thought to.

what I've come to understand isn't that you can never have ideas about morals, but that there is no absolute consensus for morality and it's simply something you have to decide on and work towards. generally it's easiest and likely best for you as an individual to value human society generally, because if you don't, human society will turn on you and you will suffer.

I genuinely believe we can come up with rational/logical reasoning for any "moral" concern which may typically be brought up. it can even be self interested, I don't think we explicitly need altruism to want good for all those around us.

there is an emotional aspect to what comes easiest though, to me it is easiest to think in terms of overall suffer reduction and pleasure maximization. that being said, this emotional easiness doesn't necessarily justify it, so I've taken steps to understand justifications for my actions distinct from my emotional biases towards them. one thing I've noticed is I can ground almost any piece of argumentation I have to my own self interest rather than to morality. I never have to make appeals to morality with my framework for understanding the world. I think capitalism should be overthrown because it oppresses many people including myself, and I will oppose anyone who wants to keep it. not because it's morally wrong but because it hurts me and the people I care about.

If we want to address how to handle morality when something may not directly benefit us, we can still understand how it may help in an indirect way. For an example, I am white and I live in the imperial core. I naturally due to no specific choices of my own benefit from racism and imperialism. So you may ask, if you justify your beliefs on self interest, why do you advocate for and participate in anti-imperialism? This is because I understand Capitalism as a force which subjugates society not just into classes, but into class stratifications. Capitalists will give us (white people and other privileged/oppressive groups) concessions or temporary/marginal power over other stratifications of our class as a way to keep us from uniting with each other against capitalists. I deeply believe that any benefits I could get from embracing racism/imperialism/etc are outweighed by those I stand to gain from solidarity with said groups in our fight against Capitalism-Imperialism. this is especially apparent to me as I am myself multiply marginalized.

It's not a position I came to hold purely out of self interest, I do genuinely also just think it's correct in an emotional sense, but I believe my emotions are founded in materialist reasons, not abstract moral ones, and the above passage outlined the materialist reasons I align myself with other minorities and turn away from things which may appear to interest me in the short term.

I do think the bourgeoisie would and do have fundamentally different conceptions of morality from me, but instead of trying to convince them through abstract argumentations with regards to morality and emotional appeals, I will instead argue rationally that their empire will fall and that they will face the wrath of the Proletariat. Proletarian victory is all but inevitable, you don't want to fight us, and plus, would you feel better if you weren't responsible for countless murders? notice that last part, you can still use emotional moral appeals, but they have to be backed up by real, rational appeals. Call them threats if you want, or arguments or whatever, power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and the concept of morality simply doesn't help with that, Materialism does.

it's far from a single absolute and concrete answer but I think this will provide enough information to provoke further thought. it's genuinely worth thinking about and it's something philosophers have argued about for centuries (take a look at the is-ought problem for example). overall I hope this was helpful and I appreciate your response to my post. have a lovely day/night/etc

[anocana]

the pre-history of mathematical structuralism pointed me to linnebo & pettigrew's two types of abstraction for structuralism, which compares dedekind and frege's ideas of abstraction in the context of non-eliminative structuralism. it's a worthwhile read, but even setting aside my eliminative leanings i have some issues with their presentation and conclusions. some thoughts

they do a p good job laying out the desirable properties of a non-eliminativist system of abstracted structures -- "instantiation" (the structure we abstract from a system is isomorphic to that system), "purity" (positions in the structure have no "fundamental" properties except structural ones, with the definition of "fundamental" being a crucial question for structuralists), "uniqueness" (e.g. the cauchy and dedekind reals both abstract to the same "pure" complete ordered field). In the dedekind section they also introduce "self-occupancy", based on shapiro's "places-as-objects" vs "places-as-offices" dichotomy

they focus excessively on isomorphism of structures. this seems partly to be a standard convention among philosophical structuralists, and additionally their paradigmatic structure is the real numbers as a complete ordered field, which is categorical (its models are all isomorphic). but imo any structuralism worth its salt needs to handle non-categorical structures, it's incomplete without an account of what we're doing when we say "this is an abelian group" or "this is a group with an n-element generating set"

instead of isomorphism, we want something that we can abstract out in a consistent way but we don't need to be able to reverse it. for "group with an n-element generating set" we clearly want something that behaves like the free group on that set — there are many non-isomorphic groups with the same generating set but all of them can be embedded into the free group by "forgetting" that certain products of the generating set are equal. with what we might call the "free abelian group", otoh, i don't know how we'd even formulate it set-theoretically. this is a case where category theory can be useful as a language for talking about these things even if we don't build our whole foundation on it like awodey et al.

frege-style abstraction seems to be founded on an isomorphism condition, for which they bring up difficulties (first it has to be embedded into set theory to avoid paradoxes, then it runs into a problem with counting isomorphic objects). they allow that it works for "rigid" systems with no nontrivial automorphisms.

dedekind-style abstraction is more like, we set up the dedekind cuts to define the structure of the real numbers, then we abstract away everything except that structure and posit new entities which have that structure. the problems they pose for it are basically also about automorphisms

however i think they've got a bit of conceptual sloppiness where they define certain properties in terms of the existence of an isomorphism between a system and its abstraction, and then notice that the properties don't necessarily function when they're set up with different isomorphisms as the witnesses to these properties. but this is just a problem of bad definitions that don't maintain coherence!

it seems like most of their problems fall out of the idea that there is precisely one correct way to abstract a system. certainly a non-eliminative structuralist will want to say that, if we abstract a system, we will always get the same structure from it. but the same system can be abstracted into the same structure multiple ways. they treat this as absurd, for some reason.

take lengths, for an example. we can map lengths to the real numbers (with natural interpretations for ordering and addition but not multiplication), and indeed this is one of the key motivating examples for the real numbers, but the same length can be mapped to 1 (as meters), 100 (as centimeters), 3.28084 (as feet), and 39.3701 (as inches). addition, ordering, and geometry will remain untouched as long as we maintain a single consistent unit across our measurements and thus a single isomorphism/functor/whatever. (once we've chosen a unit we can define multiplication as well.) many other structures behave similarly in one way or another, like the interchangeability of i and -i.

[vigilantempathy]

Ethics of Fandom?

(I'm sorry for the long post, I don't know how to put the "break" in, please feel free to comment with advice/instructions!)

I've been seeing more and more comments/posts related to fandom arguing that, basically, fandom works and fictional works in general need to have positive, non-problematic content in order to be allowed in fandom spaces... or viewed as morally correct.

I'd say I had some thoughts on that, but I'm straight up stealing most of those thoughts from Aristotle. So instead, here's my interpretation of fandom ethics, mostly through the lens of Aristotle's Poetics.

I'm generally a big believer that art in general and fandom in particular exist as avenues of catharsis. I don't think art (or fandom) exists to be positive or morally correct or make a better world. But I believe the act of creating art/fandom is a positive, prosocial way of exploring possibilities, choices, characters, and outcomes that might not necessarily be positive in reality. Some works of art have positive content, or impart moral lessons, or depict a better world, but many of them don't-- and they shouldn't have to.

Essentially, I view art and fandom and their contents (whatever those contents are) as morally neutral, but I see the act of creating art or fandom as morally good.

The more problematic or "immoral" the content, the more firmly I believe that the most positive option available is choosing to create art about it instead of choosing to explore it in real life where there could be real adverse consequences to real people.

I read Aristotle's Poetics in high school and still agree with his idea that societies and the individuals in them create and share art as a safe way of exploring impulses or desires they can't safely explore in real life.

Poetics focuses specifically on the importance of tragedies (and their narrative structures) as a means of letting an audience of everyday people explore how the uglier impulses of mankind can play out and experience emotional gratification of these immoral actions using art rather than having to take these actions themselves in reality to achieve the same emotional gratification.

"Catharsis" is Aristotle's term for the emotional release that occurs when viewing emotionally provocative art.

Fandom especially has made me rethink the necessity of uglier impulses of mankind as a motivator for art. A lot of fandom works exist as "fluff" --content that is purely emotionally positive and conflict-free-- and as "fix-it"-- literally creating a more positive outcome than is offered by canon.

Many fandom works, per comments and notes by their authors/creators, are created as a way of coping, processing, or dealing with the creator's own ongoing real-life challenges or negative past experiences. Like. How many author's notes are about "I should be doing [stressful real life thing] rn but instead I'm working on this fic." Or, "sorry for the delay, I just had [massive major personal misfortune] happen." Or, "sorry if this is triggering to anyone, I'm trying to use these characters to work through [negative past experience]."

I see these varieties of author's notes as demonstration that the act of creating fandom works is positive. The art they create doesn't need to have content that explores the hardest parts of being human in order to help them and their readers deal with the hardest parts of being human. Lots of people write fictional fandom "fluff " to deal with having a hard time in real life, and that's awesome.

But lots of people also create content about the ugliest impulses of mankind ("Major Archive Warnings Apply") in order to deal with the hardest parts of being human, and that's also awesome.

For many people, creating art or fandom about the worst things that can happen to people, or the worst things people can do to each other, is the most positive option for exploring these possibilities... or for dealing with them.

The interactive aspect of posting fandom works can be especially valuable, helpful, positive, and often therapeutic, especially with works where the content focuses on an uglier impulse of mankind, or a harder part of being human. For example, the main AO3 warnings, "major character death", "underage", "rape/noncon", and "graphic violence" are experiences that, when they occur to real people or their loved ones in real life outside of fiction or fandom contexts, can be extremely isolating. The acts of creating art about these topics and sharing it with others help to combat that isolation for people who have actually experienced these things, had proximity to these things... or simply have to deal with the fact that these things happen to others in the world, and the possibility that these things could happen to anyone, including them.

Sharing depictions of these experiences with others, even if those depictions are purely through art/fiction/fandom and not coming from firsthand experience, can help make these experiences feel less isolating for people who do have firsthand experiences with them.

Even if use of these tough topics are just to explore storytelling around the major archive warnings ("major character death", "underage", "rape/noncon", and "graphic violence"), that's still probably the safest way, for the author and for the rest of society, to get to explore these ideas.

Or, for the sake of argument, let's say somebody is writing stories about death and violence and SA out of a genuine interest or proclivity towards these things: wouldn't you rather they were writing stories about it than out in the world doing it?

If creating art about really vicious, cruel, awful actions can help the artist explore the possibilities or outcomes and achieve the catharsis they seek in those actions without actually having to do any of those things, wouldn't we prefer they keep making art?

Especially if being able to create art and post it in a socially interactive way lets them use their more problematic impulses as a way to engage with other human beings? Nothing fosters compassion like having to actually interact with others. Especially in the context of a shared interest like fandom, where they have common ground with their audience and might be inclined to feel kinship, commonality, or empathy with the others they interact with in fandom contexts.

You know how the uglier impulses of mankind turn into the uglier actions of mankind? When those impulses are kept in isolation, without context, perspective, or feedback from others. When the person experiencing those impulses lacks the social engagement to develop compassion for others that might discourage them from acting harmfully. When those impulses have no outlet where they can be explored without coming to fruition in actuality.

Writers killing their fictional characters and artists depicting murders can help save real lives. Experiencing catharsis through art and fandom can help people deal with the worst aspects of reality.

The author who has to apply all the major archive warnings didn't do all the major archives warnings; the author chose to write. They chose to create art about the ugliest parts of the human experience and share that art with others, and that's really rather beautiful of them.

And also a hell of a lot better than pretty much any other outcome where murder is involved.

Keep sharing your work. Keep the catharsis and compassion coming. Keep making this world better in the act of creating other worlds.

Fandom saves.

[nothorses]

Hi, I'm not sure if this is necessarily something you have advice on, but do you have some advice on talking to parents about being trans? I've already told them that I'm a trans man, but it doesn't seem to have stuck. They don't seem to really understand that I'm a guy, my dad in particular. And it's not even that he or my mom doubt the existence of trans people, or even my transness specifically, so much as they doubt my masculinity? I think that they figure since I'm not a rough and tumble sports meathead type of guy that I'm not fully a guy at all. My dad in particular doesn't really understand why I'd choose to be a guy when gender is a construct that doesn't mean much of anything, which I'm pretty certain has to do with his own baggage that I won't get into. How do I navigate telling my parents that yes, I'm sure I'm a guy, and that using they/them pronouns and referring to me in gender neutral terms is incorrect?

I would really recommend asking questions first, for that sort of thing; since they're actually doing something you can comment on (misgendering you) but seem overall willing to understand and support you, you might just try asking them, like, "I've noticed you use they/them pronouns and a lot of gender neutral language for me, even though I'm a guy. Why is that?"

The purpose is just to get them to self-reflect without making them feel defensive, and to understand where they're coming from and what's feasible/relevant before you start making requests. Maybe they have a well-intentioned reason for it, maybe they don't really understand what you've been trying to convey, or they think gender neutral language is a good "stepping stone" while they "adjust", or maybe there's another reason. Asking first allows them to explain themselves while feeling like you're really interested in their reasoning, and opens up that conversation in a productive way as a result.

Whatever their answer, you can then explain and correct without it being an argument or lecture. You can validate and acknowledge whatever positive intent they had, and then offer something more helpful to you: "thank you for explaining, and for trying to support me. I would actually really prefer it if you could use he/him pronouns for me, because they/them feels like you're still saying I'm not actually a guy, even if that's not what you mean."

Or, if it is that they think it's okay to use that language to "adjust", if nothing else you can ask if they can try to mix in masculine language more often. You can explain that it helps you remember that they're really, honestly trying, in the moments that they do forget.

You can also try asking them more about how they see you and why they feel that need to adjust, and you can ask them how they think it might make you feel, but just be aware that it might also hurt you to hear those answers. Make sure you're asking questions with an honest desire to hear their answers; if you come into it just trying to make them feel guilty, it can often feel more like an attack, and the conversation can easily go in the direction of an argument rather than a genuine dialogue.

That's just one approach, though- I'm sure you'll work it out in a way that suits you. Best of luck!

[gynandromorph]

hey how did you learn about dog training? are there any books you would recommend?

"a lot of IRL dog training classes" has been my primary source of learning unfortunately. my last dog mawkish went to obedience training classes as a puppy.

let me link you to the book recommendations of the dog training subreddit first so you don't have to wade through walls of text here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Dogtraining/wiki/books

there's tons of stuff on youtube by dog trainers with different philosophies. best results searching are achieved by looking for dog training to teach a dog x trick. most often people want to know how to have fail-proof recall or off-leash obedience. i've watched guys with training techniques i find morally abhorrent and guys i find embarrassing and babyish as much as dog trainers i think are both good people and good trainers.

it's useful to know that you will find dog trainers with ANY technique who are successful in training dogs because dogs have a natural inclination to cooperate, especially when they have no means of escaping the situation. there is no secret technique that works the best bc any technique will work for most dogs.

the other good thing to know is that techniques that work in the moment don't necessarily yield long-term success, so trainers that claim their technique works may only be talking about the next 2 hours or month. they don't have to show you anything after the immediate results.

the actual treatment of animals is highly political, and how you choose to treat a dog is political in nature. for this reason various keywords denote the politics of the trainer. keywords are super useful for searching up things on your own time and freely choosing what sources you get info from.

R+, or positive reinforcement, often also called force-free training, is used by more left-leaning trainers. positive reinforcement is widely known as the most effective training method for long-lasting behaviors and many well-known organizations like AKC and IAABC advocate for exclusively positive reinforcement.

you will often see the term "LIMA" thrown around especially in R+ circles. it stands for "least intrusive minimally aversive" methods and it's kinda what it says on the tin. here is a hierarchy of humane training methods by the IAABC, which defines intrusiveness: https://iaabc.org/en/humane-hierarchy

balanced dog training refers to techniques that tend to use a mix of R+ and P+ -- positive punishment. positive punishment involves behavior where you do something to make a dog not do something, such as hitting the dog, yanking its leash, pinning it to the ground, or yelling at it when it doesn't listen.

there are less extreme forms of positive punishment such as verbal correction cues like "ah ah," "bad," "stop," or "no." these are the most common kind of positive punishment used by people who identify with balanced dog training. they are largely more politically centrist who see P+ and LIMA trainers as pansies who don't assert boundaries with dogs.

dominance training or alpha training is an aggressive form of dog training that largely uses P+ because rewarding the dog is seen as degrading or teaching the dog that you are not the alpha. primarily men who may also feel threatened by their wife or children disobeying them use these methods to train dogs. this is seen as abuse by the majority of animal behaviorists and dog trainers.

also, ANYONE who will talk about training cats, all their advice is extremely applicable to dogs. unlike dogs, cats have no innate desire to cooperate with you. anything that can shape a cat's behavior will shape a dog's behavior.