#Avoiding generalisation

[o4o41]

"You like pink because all girls like pink."

"No."

[keithbwrtuk]

Intrusive Thoughts...? For Professional, Private & Confidential help contact Keith at BWRT UK, in the world of therapy since 2000. Tel/Txt 07958 508482 keith@bwrtuk.co.uk https://www.bwrtuk.co.uk/intrusive-thoughts/

#BWRTUK #BWRT #NeuralBlocks #intrusivethoughts #Anxiety #Fear #Trauma #SocialAnxiety #HealthAnxiety #GAD #GoalAchievement #Success #SelfSabotoge #ImposterSyndrome #LowSelfWorth #Confidence #limitingbehaviour #PTSD #stress #Resilience #avoidance

[squiddleknitted]

There's nothing wrong with being new to the community or unfamiliar with the discourse, but at the very least if you are going to post about the discourse you should be aware of if the hypothetical you're posting about has already been the case. This is a very very old take that has been repeated in a genuine way for years.

[schizowitchic]

realised why "neurodivergent people relate to x" "all neurodivergents when y" statements and the like really bother me. it's because they attempt to generalise neurodivergency & it's many ways of presenting, usually based off the common internet narrative of what adhd and autism is, completing excluding mental illnesses & neurological conditions that do not fit in to those statements, and thus making the term "neurodivergent" not an "all-inclusive" term because almost everything geared towards "neurodivergency" is actually just for low support needs autistic or adhd people

common things are statements like "neurodivergent people hate the big ceiling light" or "neurodivergent people cry when their stuffed animals fall off the bed" or "neurodivergent culture is jumping topics super fast and the neurotypicals can't keep up"

buddy. not every neurodivergent people have light sensitivity. not even every autistic or adhd person has light sensitivity. (This is just one example). and the tags on a post about, say, light sensitivity and neurodivergency will usually exclusively be #autism #adhd. hmm idk i reckon there might be another neurodivergency that's associated with light sensitivity that constantly gets left out of discussions about neurodivergency.... could it be.... epilepsy?

i like the concept of neurodivergency, as something meant to bring all people with different brains together. but i don't see that. what i do see is people conflating having a differently structured brain with autism and adhd, continuing to demonise severe mental illnesses, and leaving neurological disorders out of the conversation completely

[leaving-fragments]

i need to have a fight with someone, i need to exchange violently held beliefs with someone, i'm so sick of everyone just not caring, just looking away,

[sp00ky-scary]

someone should discuss doctor who's relationship with religion and faith, not me though, im fuckin stupid, but someone

[wise-falafel]

a guide to modern feminism:

1. classes don’t exist. the oppressors and the oppressed don’t exist. each person can only be viewed as an individual.

2. a person cannot be influenced. each action and decision exists in a vacuum. avoid causal relationships, patterns and parallels.

3. avoid generalisation like the plague. if it seems like a group of people can be generalised based on their actions, come back to points 1 and 2.

4. under no circumstances you are allowed to hurt someone’s feelings.

5. staying inside your comfort zone and not trying to change anything is feminism. feminism is about doing what you like.

[homeboundmonsters]

Javert: Prison and Desire.

Struggling to formulate this but here it is anyway, a mini essay. This is a very abridged version of some ideas that have been percolating in my mind.

I think something not often discussed is the effect being born and raised in a prison would have on Javert’s understanding of affection and love. I think a lot of Javert’s confusion over his desire for Jean Valjean come from his early experiences and upbringing.

Javert’s desire for Jean Valjean is often expressed through violent imagery: tiger’s claws and teeth -leaping to bite; a spider catching a fly in its web; a cat toying with a mouse in its claws. Javert struggles to process desire as something that can be tender or intimate. He struggles with gentleness and affection. This can even be seen in how when he finally realises and recognises his own desire for Jean Valjean it is considered a form of destruction or forced change: claws being made to unclench, ice being melted; or as a form of submission: a dog submitting to a master. For Javert desire can only be expressed by violent taking or through complete submission of oneself to another. The roots of this can be found in his childhood.

We see the effect of prison on Jean Valjean: it takes a normal, loving family man and turns him into a man capable of murder, a man who interacts with society and processes his emotions through bouts of anger and violence. Javert has experienced what changed a grown man into a potential murderer in his most formative years. We know from his pre-suicide letter that Javert spent sometime in a woman’s prison witnessing the abuse of female prisoners who were given more space between bars most likely in order to facilitate sexual favours that would be coerced from them by guards. It is highly likely that during his developmental years he witnessed acts of sexual violence alongside acts of generalised violence. His small skull is associated, during the period Hugo was writing, with childhood neglect as it was caused by a baby being left too long lying on their back. This suggests that he lacked motherly attention or affection. Not to say that his mother did not love him, but it is highly likely that due to her circumstance she would not have been able to give him the input required. This was common for many children of the poor, but combined with growing up in a hostile environment surrounded by violence, sexual violence, and the removal of freedoms as a punishment for non-compliance we can begin to understand how Javert might grow up to associate violence with desire or love.

Javert’s natural submission to authority, his ability to disappear, his acute observational skills, his unwillingness to criticise those in power, the correlation he makes between destruction of identity (giving up his career and leaving into obscurity) and punishment can all be tracked to his experiences in childhood. Javert has spent his formative years living in fear, learning to make himself small and becoming hyper aware of what is around him at all times to avoid abuse. This has left him a damaged and vulnerable individual with no solid sense of internal security. He has never had love or stability, he has been deprived of affection, and has lived in an environment of constant physical and psychological abuse. We know from modern studies that these things quite literally change the brain anatomy of children growing up in these conditions. For a newborn baby the earliest form of love is being fed by their mother, and so food comes to be one of the earliest forms of comfort. Javert was no doubt seeing sex traded for food and for safety from physical violence, hence it would formulate in his mind not to equate to love or emotional intimacy but as a form of currency. Affection too, feigning love or preference, a tool for survival. How, in these conditions, can we expect him to develop into a psychosexually healthy individual? Hugo states that Javert is a virgin and, although we know Hugo did this because of his weird hang-up about virgin= good person, we can suppose that Javert’s virginity stems from a deep-seated trauma associated with his development within a sexually violent environment.  

Then, as young adult, Javert moved to working in male prisons. In France, during the 1800’s, prisons had some of the highest rates of recorded homosexuality in the country and it is likely that all throughout his career as a prison guard Javert was witnessing acts of sexual violence, or acts of consensual but unlikely to be safe sodomy. As he went through puberty he would have been only interacting with male/male acts of sexual violence. Whatever he might have felt would have been confused with fear and awareness of the inherent danger that existed within male/male sexual relationships in prison. Male/male sexual desire, although legal in France by the time of Les Mis, was still something considered morally reprehensible and as belonging in the underbelly of French social life. When Javert desires Jean Valjean, he desires him through the framework of violence because he has spent a lifetime witnessing sex as an act of violence or as a framework through which power and control can be expressed. He wants to have power over Jean Valjean- that is to say arrest him- and at the same time experiences this strange conflicting but also correlating desire to possess and ‘devour’ ‘his convict.’

When he finally recognises his desire for what it is, and detaches it from his desire to arrest Jean Valjean, his desire transmutes itself into a desire to submit. This is because, for Javert, submission has been his norm: one must submit to authority in order to survive it. When he sought to destroy Jean Valjean, he was secure in his understanding of male/male desire, when he realises what he desires is something more tender- a dog licking the intruders hand- he finds himself adrift unable to process his feelings. How can male/male desire be tender? How can it be loving? How can it mean devotion and choosing to submit in the understanding that you will be safe and unharmed? This is outside of Javert’s psychological vocabulary. This is also why Javert cannot understand Valjean’s freeing of him at the barricade: authority means violence. Valjean has authority and chooses mercy. Javert has no previous experience with or understanding of love and so has no groundwork on which he can build. Valjean at least had familial love in his sister/mother figure, his father, and the love of his nieces and nephews, but how does one begin to approach loving another human being when they have lacked even that? Love is not a natural occurrence it is a learnt behaviour and one Javert has never been taught.

I think this is part of what I find so interesting about Javert, so often he is criticised for not living up to modern moral expectations and yet so little consideration is given to the traumatic circumstances that existed throughout his childhood and which formulated his rigid perspective of the world. How can one who has never experienced mercy be expected to know how to give it? How can one who has never been loved be able to offer it? Javert has lacked the basic structure of society and has learned to survive under tyrannical rule, that is not something so easily shucked off in adulthood. Despite leaving prison, prison never left Javert and it shapes every decision, every flaw and every fault he struggles with throughout his life.

[enemywasp]

Alright so someone on tiktok sent me a link to a compiled list of arguments against proshippers and so I wanted to put a sort of brief response of my own thoughts of each point.

Long post warning!

"Proshippers are non-offending minor attracted people in a fresh paint of coat"

What a start, am I right? Okay so first off this is a huge generalisation, not every proshipper engages with or is even comfortable with anything that sexualises fictional children, or ships them with adults. And of those that do ship adult/minor ships, it doesn't always mean they're attracted to the character themselves or gains any sexual pleasure from that.

They then went on to say that although they might be non-offending, they still fantasise about and romanticise children- in the case of proshippers by creating art and stories. And I am not personally educated enough on how people's minds works to go in depth here, but I do know a lot of pedophilic thoughts can be intrusive and unwanted. And I would much rather people engage in this and deal with their thoughts through fiction where no actual children are harmed, than actually go touch a real child or engage is any form of CSEM.

“People can draw and ship whatever they want!”

Here they went on to say that surely to ship and create content you must justify these things in some capacity regardless of them being fictional. And immediately I'd argue, the justification it that they're fictional. And that sometimes you want to read about things you'd never approve of in real life, it's a natural curiosity. And again, regardless of what the dark content is I would take someone engaging in fiction over harming a real person any day.

They compared this to alt-right groups and dark humour justifying racism and transphobia, etc. And whilst I think something we should always be aware of in fiction is stereotypes and how we may be representing people. Youtube videos like this are usually a type of propaganda that AIM to change people's mindsets and turn them against groups. Whereas fiction tells a story, some may have meanings and connections to real life, be a political piece, etc. Not everything is that serious and has a clear distinction from reality.

Think for example, reading/watching about murder and gore. More on that in a second.

"Fiction doesn't affect reality!"

I'm going to be honest I rolled my eyes at this as their main example was slenderman. If you don't know about that, those girls were schizophrenic. Anything could of set off and caused delusions, it just so happened to be fiction. Those girls needed help- not to just read purer content. They also basically brought up propaganda again, which is again deliberate and designed to warp peoples perceptions. Its based of lying and spreading misinformation and passing it as facts. The only thing I strongly believe can be directly harmful is stereotypes if not handled with care. But I think that's something for anyone who writes and consumes content should be aware of regardless of their stances.

Again here they implied that all proshippers are peodophiles. And that they normalise abuse of children. I'd also like to point out that most proshippers I've interacted with online have age boundaries to avoid interacting with minors depending on how graphic or sexual their content is.

"What do you think all stories about murder should stop existing?"

Here they basically argued that killing in media isn't the same as its not romanticised or condoned. YA Novels disagree- mafia stories being the most immediate example to spring to mind. Furthermore, morally grey villains. One of my favourite films is Mr Right. It's about a hitman killing people. Anna kendrick falls in love with him and its framed as a romantic comedy. Funny how its only fanfiction that's criticised like this? I actually have more thoughts on this if anyones interested.

Again they bring up kids not knowing adults pursuing children is wrong, and I'm questioning why children this young are unsupervised on the Internet. How young were you when you were allowed to watch anything with graphic blood or violence? This content isn't made for kids! Especially not anyone so young they can't seperate fiction from reality as most sites have a specific age you have to be to join. And I'm sorry to say it, but on websites and social media where adults can interact with kids, anything can be used to groom kids. (The real thing you should be mad about here is how there's no websites aimed just for children and safe spaces on the Internet anymore cause it can't be monetised as easily)

"Artists are allowed to draw and write about dark people"

They basically said, yes but it's not the same as promoting. Writing something under a romantic light and not saying "Don't do at home!" Isn't promoting. No ones encouraging these things in real life. Or rather, if they are its not because they're a proshipper but rather who they are as a person and their intentions.

The trans example they used is very extreme and honestly something I agree with a little more, fiction can definitely be used as an excuse to say and act out hateful and discriminatory things. Whilst I do think it's something we should discuss and unpack more, I'm not certain of my view on how I would fix this without risking silencing people talking about their experiences.

"Its not my responsibility to look after other people, just block me and the tags"

Here they threw all kinds of accusations. And says that we're making traumatised people jump through hoops to avoid getting retraumatised. I hate this argument, you know people have actual triggers they may not be able to avoid in real life? The world can't bend around you. And I am very sorry if any content online is traumatising to you, but someone could also be traumatised by a certain breed of dog and not want to see it. Should no one post dogs online ever again? A bald man reminds you of an abusive ex? Bald men get off the Internet! You see how this thing can just keep escalating? The tags and warnings are important because they're the best you can get. You can't control the world to protect everyone from everything ever. No ones forcing you to interact, and if you're on any algorithm based content that will encourage that content on your for your page more.

The only thing I think we should take from this is the reminder that warnings and tags are always important.

"You only care about censoring creativity"

Here they defend themselves that oh wouldn't you want freaks out the community! Which again immediately makes me lose respect for you, if you're just going to brand us all as freaks as an argument and generalize us.

No comment on that first line when you can easily argue antishipper do the same.

"Proshippers are not remotely innocent of targeted harrasement" Neither are antis. There's people who take things too far both sides and I'm not going to defend either for that.

"Real kids get assaulted and all you care about is censoring people online!"

Here they shout "oh I can care about both!" But what I don't think they realise is censorship can make it difficult for kids and to learn about how to speak up and to look for signs, or to speak up about their experiences. How do you plan on removing the topic from the Internet whilst also letting victims speak up? And people may want to write fiction based off their experiences. Who are you to go through it and proclaim what is too far, what romanticises it too much? More on this later.

"Antis are reducing my trauma"

They compared this to saying "date rape victims are reducing my trauma because they weren't taken advantage of in the same way as me" which is a disgusting parallel?? Date rape is still rape. Someone writing about something isn't the same as it happening. Although it can be used as harrasment, grooming, etc if directly addressed to you or being constantly sent to you, written about you. But the content existing in general? No.

"I'm coping"

Compared it to self harm, and such. Poetry and diaries are also used to write about your experiences and unpack trauma. Some of which may write it in an unrealistically positive light cause that's how they want to unpack it or explain those thoughts. And yes these things get posted online.

I can't imagine a single therapist or professional psychiatrist of any kind disapproving of creative writing because, again, it's much better than any alternatives of doing real harm to yourself or people around you. Although I do agree that if something is traumatising for you to read about and just upsets you further, be aware of your own boundaries but not everyone is the same so how are you going to police people's own thoughts and emotions.

Also I can't remember who or where as it was years ago now, but I have heard of people who actually realised they were being groomed or abused and just how bad it was through reading about it in a fanfic and seeing it in an outside perspective.

They also say to do it in private, but doesn't everyone on the Internet now have an understanding of finding a community and looking out for eachother and sharing experiences?

"There's more nuance here than just calling proshippers peodophiles"

Here they say no matter what it still comes down to whether it's ever okay to sexualise minors in certain contexts. And again, not every proshipper does this or is even comfortable with engaging in this kind of content. And further, no one is sexualising real minors in this context.

"I'm a proshipper and a minor tho!"

I'd agree minors should be wary of the spaces they're in but proship spaces aren't always necessarily sexual, graphic or 18+. Saying they're being groomed feels like you're watering down that term. I was a proshipper at age 13, I didn't interact with anyone online about it though, I didn't even know that was the term. I just came to the conclusion that it's just fiction all on my own. Minors aren't idiots.

At then end they talk about their own experience being groomed and I'm obviously not going to nitpick or criticise their experiences. I will point out that one person being bad and taking advantage of you and using content to do so doesn't mean everyone is like that. I am sorry to anyone who has been taken advantage of by someone who claims they're a proshipper though. There are people who have turned out to be horrible on both sides.

I am ill and it's late but I want to get this up sooner rather than later so please ask for clarification on anything. I'm always up for a discussion on this topic as I do believe some of these points do have merits at times and that this whole topic is not black and white

[valyrfia]

I want to jump in on the charles tism conversation!!! As someone with autism, I generally find the ones with the allegations are typically the ones I relate to the most so I can see where they are coming from as I share a lot of behaviours and attitudes with them. However, this is more so restricted to those most commonly called autistic as I have seen every driver called various degrees of neurodivergent and yeah none of them are exactly typical but only a few of them would easily meet the criteria. I think more of them lean towards ADHD if anything. I don't personally find Charles to be particularly affected by the tism but I do very much see Lando being AuDHD with his chaos but also sensory concerns. Max and Oscar definitely more so leaning to autism but with Max there is cultural and upbringing elements which could have caused some of those signs. Lewis obviously has ADHD and that's 100% correct. George is interesting because there's such a difference between who he portrays himself as vs child him and that could be masking or it could just be growing up a bit awkward. If George is neurodivergent (autistic?), then Alex almost certainly is because it's easier to have strong friendships with other NDs but more ADHD leaning. I adore my ADHD bestie. And also have 1 single NT friend. I am going to stop there because this got completely off topic from the short message it was supposed to be so I won't analyse all the drivers for fun but I'm curious to hear more of your opinions on Charles (Max too but that's kind of a given on f1blr when autism comes up 😭).

Thanks for your input anon this is fascinating! Sticking my opinion below the cut so I don't feel guilty about rambling on

Charles: agree with him being only ADHD, he doesn't seem to struggle in social settings, and doesn't seem to have many sensory concerns. But he deals with negative spirals/racing thoughts probably one of the most out of anyone on the grid, he's messy and disorganised, and he's CONSTANTLY dopamine-seeking by being an adrenaline junkie or taking up a new hobby.

Max: as much as I'd like to blame the Dutch of it all, I think the autism is pretty apparent that even NTs catch onto it. He's very blunt/literal, has set phrases/preferences (his safe drink is G&T? discuss), is constantly filmed wincing and covering his ears in the garage, is a certified #loser in social situations/small talk, and is obviously (like all of them) hyperfocused on racing to the exclusion of all else.

Oscar: all the Nicole Piastri interviews are enough for me, his inability to express emotion normally yet obviously feeling deeply (the story she told on the red flags podcast about her falling off her bike and him being completely deadpan but then his heart monitor later revealed his heartrate had gone up to like 200 bpm or something ridiculous) , him telling his mum he wants to be a car when he grows up, the constant naps on a race weekend to avoid overwhelm. There's certainly a touch of the 'tism in my humble opinion.

Lando: so obviously audhd. The sensory issues/constant stimming, impulsivity, and hyperactivity, him falling asleep everywhere on race weekends (easy way to go non-verbal and recover from overwhelm....isn't it), his social and generalised anxiety that probably arises from constant masking, him constantly saying he "feels too much" and "cares too much". Very undiagnosed, very strongly AuDHD.

George: I'm leaning towards yes with him probably being the strongest at masking of them all. The powerpoints of it all.......he has a cadence some have said they find weird and off-putting, and him and Max are just ASD on ASD violence which makes perfect sense, actually.

Alex: maybe ADHD but honestly there's also a chance he's the token NT friend who has been around ND people for so long he prefers them.

[sharpedgedfool]

Here's Blaze! Her name is is Iris Flare, I started giving them just generalised names in English as I started incorporating more than Scottish folklore into these guys so it didn't make sense to have them all named in Gaelic, the Seasons travel constantly all over the world as they come and go with their seasons so I thought I'd be fun to assign different cultures to each of them!

Some more extensive lore under the cut!

Summer is the second most targeted Seasonal Spirit, but unlike Winter who is largely hated, Summer is regarded as a loved season and those challenging her often want to overthrow her place with malicious reasons, she has no gripe about fighting back but can often leave damage in her wake due to the nature of her flames. She does not see as much war as Winter but she fights just as fiercely. Summer is often compared to Winter but is adamant she does not agree with the ill-manner most refer to Winter with. They've never met but she is not disillusioned by the endless praise she receives against criticism against him. She firmly believes that all seasons are just as equal and should not be given favour over another. She hears about Winter mostly from the birds who migrate between their seasons, and she knows that if Winter was so bad then no bird would make the journey there willingly to avoid her own.

In contrast she is close to the other two seasons Spring and Autumn. She is the second youngest of the four, the order being Winter, Spring, Summer then Autumn. Her and Autumn are particularly close as she helped guide him through his first season when he was largely unprepared for it. Her and the other seasons took up the mantle willingly with an expectation on what their duty was. Iris used to be a mortal Royal who stepped up to inherit the responsibility when a rival kingdom set out to slay the previous Season, her family were historically friends of the Fae so she was asked for specifically and knew what she was getting into and did - and still does - take the responsibility very seriously. She doesn't often engage in festivities without request, but enjoys talking with every being of life regardless of status within a court (or outside one even).

Her flames are an indicator of her emotional state, they sometimes change colour and the temperature can range, so mostly she tries to keep calm and dim her flames especially around dry times in the season, her Sari is woven to be flame-resistant and prevents any accidental burns so she doesn't often take it off. Her jewellery are a close replica of the ones she wore as a mortal, it has been eons since so she pays tribute to the memories even as they grow faint. Ironically she mostly enjoys the rain when she can let her flames burn as bright as she likes. She enjoys flying as high as she can, where the only thing that can catch fire is herself, and the chill allows her to push her fire beyond what she could do safely on the ground.

[keithbwrtuk]

Mens Mental Health Awareness Month - Anxiety can be so debilitating and can take all the fun out of life. Change can happen with BWRT - this solution focussed therapy is based in the latest thinking on neuroscience and changes negative reactions, such as anxiety, to positive responses. Book a Free no obligation chat today with Keith to find out more - keith@bwrtuk.co.uk Tel/Txt 07958 508482 https://www.bwrtuk.co.uk/anxiety/

#BWRTUK #BWRT #NeuralBlocks #Anxiety #Fear #Trauma #SocialAnxiety #HealthAnxiety #GAD #GoalAchievement #Success #SelfSabotoge #ImposterSyndrome #LowSelfWorth #Confidence #limitingbehaviour #intrusivethoughts #PTSD #stress #Resilience #avoidance

[divergent-paths]

Hey Alex.

I hope this isn’t too rude,

But I can’t help but notice that your opinions and actions regarding Pokemon seem to be almost identical to N (mostly from early team plasma era).

You both are very careful approaching Pokemon, tries to avoid battling unless certain circumstances since you don’t want them to be hurt, but still a skilled trainer nonetheless.

Not to mention you don’t trust a lot of people and you look after Pokemon who can’t fend for themselves.

I know N’s actions to the public seem to be mixed reactions, so that’s why I hope you’re not offended.

Welp, since this is another ask where Alex would have no idea who anon is asking about, in order to avoid Alex just shutting this down with 'I don't know who that is' let's have a bit of a dress up instead~!

Like anon mentioned, there is definitely a ton of similarities between N and Alex (there's even a match between Zekrom and Miraidon's types lmao), but they do start to diverge a bit when we get into the details.

While N's mistrust of people is due to generalised isolation from the wider world, Alex's is based on a loss of trust in the systems that are supposed to protect and support him. Between the two, I would also say that N is more emotionally mature. N was shown in his games to be much more capable of assessing new information/opinions and growing, while Alex is slow to change and can be pretty childish despite his age.

Another difference between them is that N comes off as introverted to me whilst Alex is meant to be an extrovert, so while N is shown as quite happy in his own company or with only 'mons, Alex is currently very lonely and starving for attention, but the hurt runs deep enough that he's not able to get himself out of the downward spiral.

And as a bit of a side note for any future asks (I don't wanna' have to keep posting 'idk who that is' responses :'D), Alex doesn't really know much of/about the prominent trainers of the wider world, he's not interested in gym challenges, elite trainers, villains, rangers, etc About the only exception would be the ones that happen to also be in the entertainment industry, ie, Diantha, Roxie, Brycen, etc, and he'd only really know about their shows, movies, and music, not their battling prowess. He also doesn't have much knowledge on Coordinating, having seen that the Kalos coord scene is highly sexist and he just went 'oh okay since i was born a boy so i can't do that' and never looked at it again. (It'll be something in the main story eventually, so no asks to teach him, pretty please :'D)

Max on the other hand, knows of all the Kalos Gym Leaders, E4, & Champ, actually having an interest in the league as a type of sport. He's got passing knowledge on the Champs of other regions, but doesn't know too many other prominent trainers yet.

[borderline-culture-is]

bpd culture is i am self-diagnosed with 14 disorders (both physical and mental) and all of them make sense and fit. i have done weeks and weeks of research on every one of these disorders. understanding my symptoms as these things helps me manage everything.

but i can't help but feel like i am part of the reason people hate self-diagnosed people. i have too many things self-diagnosed so i must be faking. i don't know. i'm scared to tell anyone everything, even my roommate at uni who i am extremely close with, because i know no one will understand the level of research i have done into every one of these disorders and assume i am looking for attention.

i am offically diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

i am self-diagnosed with (get ready it's a long list):

Anorexia Nervosa

2. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (inattentive)

3. Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder

4. Borderline Personality Disorder (discouraged)

5. Complex-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

6. Depersonalisation Derealisation Disorder

7. Functional Movement Disorder (functional tics)

8. Generalised Anxiety Disorder

9. Major Depressive Disorder

10. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (pure O, moral, checking)

11. Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome

12. Raynaud's Disease

13. Selective Mutism

14. Social Anxiety Disorder

and i even included all the subtypes. i've done so much research but actually come to think of it i think one of my professors is the reason i'm so paranoid about telling people about this. i once told him i suspected i had OCD and he went on a rant about how everyone has everything these days and i haven't told anyone anything since.

dear mods, sorry i keep doing really long asks, i don't mean to, they just kind of spiral. i apologise, i'm really really sorry.

-🖤♦

you have nothing to apologise for, you are allowed to vent. I'm sorry you're going through that

[writergeek]

Fic Writers Game

Tagged by @fidothefinch ! I'm getting back into writing after a major case of burnout so this was fun!

Fic Writer Ask Game:

how many works on ao3? 70

total ao3 wordcount? 647,949

Top 5 fics by kudos? As of 1st May 2025

TheBruceWayne of insta (7,738)

Unknown Origins (2,673)

Siren Call (1,180)

Buckle Up (its gonna be a bumpy ride) (883)

Make A Splash (770)

What fandoms do you write for?

Mostly Nightwing-centric, but Batfam/Batman to generalise it.

Do you respond to comments?

My inbox might bank up on me, but yes. The answer is always yes. I have an endnote to all my fics telling people what to do if they don't want a reply, though.

Angstiest Ending?

Oh. Heh. I have a few. The one that instantly comes to mind is Nightwing's Final Gift (tissue warning on that). If you want *dark* then its gotta be my death loop series aka Deja Vu (i still have a story -- or two -- to write for that, so take that warning for what you will) (but its definitely *dark*).

Fic with the happiest ending?

Fluffiest ending definitely goes to TheBruceWayne of insta by a large margin.

Do you get hate?

Not generally. I did get one comment that got deleted, and there's the occasional comment that I have to think how to answer... but not generally.

Do you write smut?

Nope. Never will. It's not in my wheelhouse, so to speak.

Do you write crossovers?

Uh, kind of? I do regularly crossover from Batman into his kids comics, and from there into the Titans. And I'm writing a fic rn which will use the JLA... but that's still solidly within the DC fandom.

Ever had a fic stolen?

Not that I know of.

Have you ever had a fic translated?

None that I know of.

Have you ever cowritten a fic?

No, can't say I ever have.

All-time favorite ship?

oh, that's a funny question. I'm proudly ship-neutral, in that I honestly don't care about ships. You do you and all that, but I seriously doubt I will ever write a ship fic, or read a ship fic. Like I said, ship-neutral.

WIPs you want to finish but doubt you ever will?

I have a long standing fic, CIRCLE II: Between The Cracks. I know what needs to happen, and I can see it my head... but it requires a major action scene, and I'm just ugh. I'll write anything instead of action, lol. As you can see because this has been sitting in my WIP folder for something like ten years lol. (And I have written lots of words to avoid writing that scene, lol.)

Writing Strengths?

Angst, emotional whump, character introspection. Basically emotional scenes, which i think is funny, considering i always find it hard to know what I'm feeling at any particular moment.

Writing Weaknesses?

Action. I loathe action scenes. In fact, it's caused some powerful writing blocks on more than a few fics.

Thoughts on mixed language dialogue?

Love it! Sadly, I only speak English fluently, and I only remember a smattering of other languages from school (which was a long time ago), so... it'll have to be auto translators if I ever do it. Which I know get things wrong, so, there is that. So I generally resort to "so and so said 'this' in that language" which feels like such a cheat. And then there's how to format it in the story, which is another hurdle. Do you do footnotes, or fancy HTML? It's a whole thing. But I love it, and I wish more authors would do it.

First fandom you wrote for?

Star Wars. (First one I wrote, not the first I read, and not the first I published) :)

Favorite fic you've ever written?

Oooh. Close tie between Make A Splash and Unknown Origins. I love Unknown Origins for the sheer whumpiness of it, the detail, and the comfort ending (that I have planned) (yes, its not there yet, but its coming). I also love Make A Splash for the sheer, uh, unhingedness of it... and the whumpy angsty journey i took the characters on. I also love that both fics are leading me into a series. I have ideas. bwahahaha

No pressure tags to participate: @cdelphiki @ckbookish and @sassydefendorflower (Sorry if you've already been tagged!) And consider yourself tagged if you want to do it, too!

[dailyanarchistposts]

The collapse of workerism

Of course, some would have it that we never lost a revolutionary perspective at all, quite confident they had the solution all along. This comes in the form of workerism, a broad set of strategies – mainly Marxist or anarcho-syndicalist – that affirm the centrality of the working class for overthrowing capitalism. In the history of revolutionary struggle, few ideas have consistently held more sway; but surely that’s only the reason why this sorely outdated approach has proven so hard to get over. Things have changed more dramatically than ever in the last decades, shattering the material conditions that once granted workplace organisation such grandiose pretensions. It’s important to clarify why, or else the attempt to exceed activism risks being subsumed by yet another reformist method, this one all the more stagnant.

Only a few decades ago, the prospects of organised labour in the Global North were much more hopeful, with trade unions retaining a great deal of strength into the 1970s. Mainly during the ‘80s, however, capitalist production underwent some major alterations. Profound technological developments in the field of electronics – especially digitisation – caused the productive process to become much more automated, requiring significantly less human input. This combined with an increased ability on the part of employers to outsource employment to less economically developed countries, where labour was much cheaper. Fairly suddenly, therefore, the two biggest sectors of the economy – split mainly between industry and agriculture – were greatly reduced in size, resulting in massive layoffs. Yet those who lost their jobs were generally absorbed by steady growth in the services sector, thereby avoiding immediate social destabilisation. Whilst it was once the smallest economic sector by a long way, the services sector is now by far the largest in the Global North, even approaching 80% employment rates in the US, UK, and France.

The result has been a striking redefinition of the common notion of work. It’s lost its centre of gravity in the factory, having fragmented instead in the direction of various post-industrial workplaces – restaurants, shops, offices. Once a largely centralised mass, the working class has been dispersed across the social terrain, the new focus being on small, highly diverse productive units. Between these units, workers possess few common interests and interact little, leading to a significantly diminished potential for collective action. Of course, resistance in the workplace continues, but the internal avenues necessary for revolt to generalise have been majorly severed, the situation continuing to decline in light of ever greater technological advance.

Nobody can deny the profound identity crisis faced by the working class. Only a few decades ago, the factory was seen as the centre of everything, with workers offering the vital component in the functioning of society as a whole. Work was once a way of life, not so much in terms of the amount of time it took up, but instead because of the clear sense of existential grounding it offered. For generations, there had been a strong link between work and professionalism, with most workers committing to a single craft for the entirety of their lives. Career paths were passed down from father to son, who often remained in the same company; the families of different workers also maintained close ties with one another. Nowadays, however, everything has changed: employment is immensely uncertain, the relentless fluidity of the post-industrial economy forcing most to get by on a roster of precarious, low-skilled jobs. Far fewer people take pride in their work, especially given that employment only rarely has a convincing subtext of doing something socially important. Trade unions have also vanished as a historical force, having been defeated in the key battles of the ‘80s, their membership levels imploding in lock-step with the advance of neoliberalism. A residue of the old world still exists, but it continues to dissipate further every day, never to return. In the Global South, too, things are inevitably moving in the same direction.

These developments cast serious doubt on the validity of Marxist and anarcho-syndicalist strategies for revolution. It’s becoming increasingly meaningless to speak of “the workers” in reference to a cohesive entity. It isn’t as if the disintegration of the working class implies the absence of poverty, nor of the excluded – in no sense whatsoever. What it does mean is the end of the working class as a subject. One that was, as Marx put it, “disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself” (Capital, 1867). Over the last decades, the working class has been dismembered and demoralised by the very same mechanism: just as the mass application of steam and machinery into the productive process created the industrial proletariat two centuries ago, the invention of new, automated technologies has led to its dissolution. There’s no single project around which to unite the working class any more; it follows, as with identity politics, that gains in the workplace will almost always be limited to improving capitalism rather than destroying it. The Industrial Revolution has been superseded by the Digital Revolution, yet the revolutionary optimism of workerism remains ideologically trapped in a bygone era, fumbling for relevance in a century that won’t have it. Although, to be honest, this is hardly news: already for some time now, the nostalgic language of workerism has come across as stale and outdated to most, even if academics often struggle to keep up.

In any case, the collapse of workerism might be nothing to mourn. Another implication of the end of traditional employment is the predominance of a range of workplaces few would want to appropriate anyway. The factory has been replaced by the likes of call centres, supermarkets, service stations, fast food joints, and coffee shop chains. Yet surely no one can imagine themselves maintaining these workplaces after the revolution, as if anything resembling a collectively run Starbucks or factory farm is what we’re going for? When workerism first became popular, there was an obvious applicability of most work to the prospect of a free society. In the 21st century, however, the alienation of labour runs all the deeper: no longer is it the mere fact of lacking control over work, but instead its inherent function that’s usually the problem. To put it another way, it should come as no surprise that Marxists haven’t yet replaced their hammer and sickle with an office desk and espresso machine, as would be necessary to keep up with the times. The modern symbols of work are worthy only of scorn, not the kind of valorisation involved in putting them on a flag.

This is another big problem for the workerist theory of revolution, given its conception of revolution primarily or even exclusively in terms of the seizure of the means of production. Achieving reforms in the workplace is one thing, but only rarely can such exercises in confidence-building be taken as steps towards appropriating the workplace altogether. Surely the point isn’t to democratise the economy, but instead to pick it apart: those aspects of the economy genuinely worth collectivising, as opposed to converting or simply burning, are few and far between. Of course, they still exist, but they’re marginal. And that confirms the absurdity of expecting workplace organisation to offer the centrepiece of any future revolution.

This hardly implies doing away with the material aspects of revolutionary struggle, given that communising the conditions of existence remains necessary for living our lives – not just this or that activist campaign – in genuine conflict with the system. All the more, the moment in which these subterranean influences suddenly erupt, and mass communisation overturns the ordinary functioning of the capitalist machine, surely remains a defining feature of revolution itself. Yet such endeavours must be sharply distinguished from seizing the means of production – that is, appropriating the capitalist infrastructure more or less as it stands before us. Far from offering a vision of the world we want to see, the syndicalist proposal to reclaim the conditions of work – to assume control of very the system that’s destroying us – merely implies self-managing not only our own exploitation, but also that of the planet.

As an aside, it should be added that these issues undermine the contemporary relevance of Marxism altogether. It was previously suggested that Marxian class analysis no longer offers a credible account of oppression; the current discussion, meanwhile, suggests it cannot be used to frame the topic of revolution either. As a method for interpreting the world, as well as for changing it, Marxism has had its day. If we wanted to be a little diplomatic, we could say this isn’t so much a criticism of the theory itself, more a recognition of the fact that the world it was designed to engage with no longer exists. If we wanted to be a little less diplomatic, moreover, it should be added that what’s left of Marxism is utterly boring, reformist, and kept “alive” almost exclusively by academics. As the big guy declared back in 1852, “The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.” Yet in no case has this claim, offered in response to the lack of imagination amongst revolutionaries in the 19th century, been more relevant than with Marxism today. We should pay our respects, if indeed any respect is due, whilst refusing to be crippled by an outdated approach. The same goes for anarcho-syndicalism, its once unbridled potential decisively shut down by the combined victories of fascism and Bolshevism.

To offer a last word of clarification, none of this implies doing away with workplace organisation altogether. There’s still much to be said for confronting power on every front: the collectivisation of any remaining useful workplaces, as well as the fierce application of the general strike, surely remains vital for any effective revolutionary mosaic. Just as workplace organisation continues to prove effective for breaking down social barriers, as well as potentially improving our lives in the here and now. The core claim offered here is only that it cannot be considered the centrepiece of revolutionary struggle altogether – quite the minimal conclusion. Merely in terms of asking what the abolition of class might look like today, workerism has lost its way. And that doesn’t begin to consider the abolition of hierarchy as such. When taken in isolation, organised labour offers nothing more than a subtle variety of reformism, thinly cloaked in its stuffy revolutionary pretensions. Total liberation, by contrast, refuses to single out any focal points of the clash, be they workerist, activist, or otherwise.