#Cultural Relativity of Concepts

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ontology of Concepts

The ontology of concepts explores the nature, existence, and structure of concepts as abstract entities that underpin human thought, language, and knowledge. It investigates questions about what concepts are, how they exist, and their role in cognition and communication. This field overlaps with metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and linguistics.

Key Questions:

What are concepts?

Are they mental representations, abstract universals, or tools for categorization?

Do they exist independently of human minds, or are they purely constructed?

How do concepts exist?

Are concepts reducible to physical states in the brain (materialism)?

Are they immaterial and universal entities (Platonism)?

Are they social constructs shaped by cultural and linguistic frameworks?

What is the structure of concepts?

Are concepts static entities or dynamic processes that evolve over time?

How are they related to categories, prototypes, and exemplars?

Theoretical Perspectives:

Platonism:

Concepts exist as timeless, universal forms or abstract objects, independent of human minds.

Conceptualism:

Concepts exist within the mind as mental representations but are derived from shared experiences.

Nominalism:

Concepts do not exist independently; they are merely names or labels we use to group similar objects.

Prototype Theory:

Concepts are structured around prototypes or typical examples, as proposed in cognitive science.

Dynamic and Embodied Perspectives:

Concepts are fluid and shaped by sensory-motor experiences, context, and interaction with the environment.

The Relationship Between Concepts and Language:

Concepts are often tied to linguistic expression, but their existence may not depend entirely on language.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that language shapes conceptual understanding.

Frege's distinction between sense and reference highlights how concepts mediate between words and the world.

Ontological Issues in Concepts:

Universality vs. Particularity:

Are concepts universal across cultures, or do they vary based on individual or societal contexts?

Independence vs. Dependence:

Do concepts exist independently of human thought, or are they contingent on cognitive processes?

Abstract vs. Concrete:

How do abstract concepts (e.g., justice) relate to concrete ones (e.g., apple)?

Practical Applications:

Artificial Intelligence: Understanding the ontology of concepts aids in developing AI systems capable of abstract reasoning.

Epistemology: Concepts are central to knowledge acquisition and classification.

Cultural Studies: Analyzing how concepts differ across societies illuminates cultural and linguistic diversity.

The ontology of concepts remains a rich and evolving field that bridges multiple disciplines, addressing profound questions about the foundation of human understanding.

[tearlessrain]

it’s also a source of annoyance to me when a fantasy/scifi alien culture has nothing but perfectly correct contemporary perceptions of how gender and sexuality work. especially when there’s no real reason why they would. you gotta put some spice in there and let your fantasy people be slightly wrong about things or prejudiced in odd benign ways.

[taraxippos]

Absolutely death gripped clenched trying not to comment on reductive posts on ancient greek homosexual relationships

[here-there-were-dragons]

as a general rule, on average, if americans consistently complain about a food being conceptually weird, gross, and scary, then it probably tastes amazing. or at least inoffensive.

this is because in my experience americans for the most part (give or take a few exceptions by region) think eating literally anything other than beef, chicken, bread, eggs, peanut butter jelly sandwitches, ketchup, and disgusting cloyingly artificial brown sludge soda is insurmountably weird, gross, and scary.

[malachitezmeyka]

Sometimes I wish I wasn’t 12 when I came up with Suiren and Midori cause why the fuck do both of them have Japanese names

[needmorekimch1]

That comment about webcomics at the end was like an isekai truck hitting an open wound. But for real though everything about zines here is plain to see if you pay attention to the culture surrounding this topic, and similar patterns happening in other similar mediums.

Webcomics used to (and still technically do) have zero barrier to entry to draw one at any level of artistry, but you did have to code your own simple site which took some basic coding skills. But with the rise of artist centered websites, you could upload them to an online artist community like dA, or free comics platforms like Smackjeeves or Comic fury or etc.

But deviantArt got sold and redesigned and fell out of wider relevancy, and the social media platforms we all migrated to were divided and not designed to actually get your comics onto relevant eyeballs.

Meanwhile Smackjeeves and other free comics platforms were driven out of the cultural consciousness by heavily commercialized platforms like Tapastic and Webtoons. (There are still some older ones around like Comic Fury!! Please go give their patreon your support!)

Now you can still put your webcomics on these newer sites for free, but smaller comics will be completely overshadowed by commercially-driven and standardized-formatted comics with relatively high quality with fast release schedules. Obviously they're all still "webcomics" but since the takeover by webtoons and tapas in the webcomics sphere of influence, I keep seeing/hearing artists say they don't know if they want to make webcomics cause they can't compete in the attention economy and subsequently can't make a living off of their works. (Also a personal gripe about these newer platforms, the artists are incentivized to make their comics formatted to be legible on phones??? because the phone apps are fostering an audience of readers that want to read comics on their phones?? The smartphone economy is wack.) The creativity of artists is stifled and molded to fit these new standards that make them more digestible for a very specific style of marketing. And artists are discouraged from thinking of webcomics as just another medium to

And arguably even the people reading the comics suffer, because the artist is being pressured by these sites to work themselves to the bone to produce comics at a high rate, the quality of the webcomics ALWAYS begins to suffer as time goes on, and some webcomics even start to gate off access to later updates behind a paywall. This is how commodification works.

Everybody suffers from the medium leaning more and more into becoming a commodified "product with the highest quality" and subsequently higher price point.

Smaller niche mediums always came into existence out of necessity and desire to exist in any way they can. The more we slip away from those roots that made it a desirable concept in the first place (affordable and accessible and easy-to-make) the more the term itself is diluted and the faster it drives itself to irrelevancy, until the concept itself vanishes from everybody's mind and subsequently we ALL lose access to a medium that used to be widely available.

Don't do that to zines, don't forget it's roots. Something like those simple instructions to make an 8 page zine out of a sheet of paper is how you keep a medium alive and well for all future generations of inspired youths. Not by gatekeeping OR diluting the term with semantics, but by never forgetting the word and it's roots and history.

It's the same for ttrpgs that can be played with pencil and paper, it's the same for passion-driven indie games on itch.io, and it's the same for ao3 fanfictions and the like, and you can go on and on with the examples. Don't get it twisted.

the whole point of a zine is that it's cheap to produce, amateur and homemade. if you're being asked to apply to participate in a print project, it is not a zine. if the final product is being printed and bound professionally, it is not a zine. if you are being asked to enter into any kind of licensing agreement more complex than "my work can be reproduced as part of this publication" it is not a zine. nine times put of ten if the final product costs more than $5 you have left zine country. im so serious about this.

[hyperlexichypatia]

As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.

I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted “Young adults are too poor to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own” into “Young adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own.”

I’ve also talked about the misuse of “enabling” and “trauma” and “dopamine” .

And this is a pattern – people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now we’re talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know what’s best for themselves, so they don’t need or deserve rights or money.

Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that we’ve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.

Codependency What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly “helpful” to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though he’s an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, you’ll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html What it’s been distorted into: Being “clingy,” being “too emotionally needy,” wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.

Compulsory Heterosexuality What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines “lesbian” much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point she’s making. What it’s been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall “Women don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them” theme of contemporary discourse.

Emotional Labor What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated “pink collar” jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be “friendly,” flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc. https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ What it’s been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was “It’s unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because she’s not really your friend,” not “It’s unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because that’s emotional labor,” and certainly not “Disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.” Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haver’s bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of “Seeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public” fully accept the bigoted logic of “Seeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public”).

Battered Wife Syndrome What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.

What it’s been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) don’t know what’s best for themselves. I debated including this one, because “syndrome” was a wrongful framing from the beginning – a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a “syndrome.” But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.

I’m not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with – as a cognitive liberty absolutist, I’m unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what “emotional labor” has become, I accept that “Women are unfairly expected to care about other people’s feelings more than men are” is a true statement.

What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be coercively “helped” for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of “Disabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.”

Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for “Marginalized people make bad choices because…” consider stopping and asking: “Wait, who are we to assume that this person’s choices are ‘bad’? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the ‘bad’ choice the best available option?”

[scribeofmorpheus]

Why Dragon Age Veilguard isn't a "Cathedral"

Concept art by Matt Rhodes

"To disinherit the storylines of past games goes directly against the notion of building cathedrals."

What is inherent with Veilguard that keeps bothering me is the fact that the world's choices truly didn't matter--and it doesn't simply bother me from a player perspective, it's not simply a grievance borne of frustration to what I (as a longtime fan) have lost. It's about the very culture of the arts under capitalism's new media habituation cycle [x][x].

Yes, I spent hours of my life playing and replaying each instalment of Dragon Age. Yes, I painstakingly curated a 'canon' world state by replaying what came before in preparation for Veilguard. Yes, I am even more unsatisfied with the end product--time hasn't helped, it's just widened the divide. But, and I can't stress this enough, these very personal gripes aren't what hit home the most. It's the inherent disregard of legacy. A legacy that the previous writers and game developers were building towards.

In the DAV artbook, "cathedral" is the word used to describe the process of making a game. Matt Rhodes' exact words are: "One artist can make a painting, but it takes a team to build a cathedral." Cathedrals took centuries to build. The architect who drafted the first blueprints would likely never see his work realised, he had to rely on those who came after him, like-minded and passionate, to see it through--for the culture, for the future, for legacy. Painters took on several apprentices for this reason too--giant frescoes were not completed by one man's hand, even if it is one man's name that immortalises them. Similarly, if you weave a narrative around choice, what good does it do to take it away at the final act if not to fall to caricature?

To disinherit the storylines of past games goes directly against the notion of building cathedrals.

Late-stage capitalism and profit-margin-obsessed game producers forcing developers to churn out meager content, to make a known brand into something it's not, to chase a fad or a popular trend... o, how reductive and cliche you've been forced to become Bioware. We have lost the cultural thought patterns relative to Cathedrals. We know only of barn-raised churches--done in a day but unlikely to last the turn of the seasons.

And don't even get me started on the music of Veilguard either. From Origins to World of Warcraft to Everquest to Baldur's Gate to Dungeon Siege, you can hear the intricate interconnected weave of sounds inspired by the Dungeons and Dragons-esque fantasy genre. You hear it in the repeated use of certain instruments, in the harmonic weeping notes of a bard-like singer or the foreboding echoes of drums as if of war. In tavern songs. But then, rather than hire someone who loves these worlds and this genre, who is a hungry artist looking to make a name, a legacy if you will, for themselves with a spectacular score, you hire any already sated composer, one well-into the encroaching years of career fatigue, whose notes repeat in countless projects, who feels less concise and more uninterested with each new project. One who has long since cemented his legacy. Someone in it for a paycheck and nothing else! And, to top it off, you let him compose something so minimalist? I am offended actually.

Cathedrals! We should have witnessed the final tile being placed on the Dragon Age cathedral. Instead, some architects walked up, tore down the interior and installed IKEA furniture and called it authentic before having to call the previous architects to come and fix the "load-bearing issues", forcing them to rush and add a coat of varnish and a few 'aged' details for authenticity.

[bestanimal]

So can we vote for Dire wolves now? (I know they are grey wolf based hybrids including jackle, red wolf, timber wolf, and artic fox dna arcoding to some sources idk how accurate that entire list is so please correct me) but still 😂

Nah, those aren’t Dire Wolves, sorry. 😅

What Colossal Biosciences did was examine some Dire Wolf (Aenocyon dirus) DNA and edited 14 genes of Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) DNA to match it. They even made sure to make the animals white, using a coat coloration gene expressed in Domestic Dogs, because they believe Dire Wolves would have been white (based on no published evidence; Dire Wolves were a temperate species and their coloration was more likely similar to jackals or Dholes).

DNA contains tens of thousands of genes. You can not make 20 changes in only 14 genes and have a whole other species, let alone a whole other genus.

Despite what the company is claiming, Gray Wolves are not the closest relatives of Dire Wolves, which we know from a (peer-reviewed) DNA study done in 2021. They are more close to jackals, African Wild Dogs, and Dholes than they are to wolves. Despite being around the same size, they do not share “99.5%” of the DNA of Gray Wolves; there are hundreds of thousands of genetic differences between the species.

What Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are are three Gray Wolves that have been genetically modified to look like pop culture “Dire Wolves” from a TV Show. They do not contain any Dire Wolf DNA and they can not and will not fill the same niche that Dire Wolves did.

Apparently, Colossal is doing legit conservation work alongside their clickbait-y work, and they use the sensationalized concepts to get funding from rich idiots and celebrities. If they can get some Elon-Musk-awesomebro-type to fund their “Dire Wolf de-extinction”, they can use that money to clone critically endangered Red Wolves (Canis rufus) on the side.

Personally, I do not trust them. What they’re doing is shady and irresponsible, and even if it’s bringing in money for conservation it’s still misleading and misinforming the public about how DNA works and about how irreversible extinction actually is. It’s taking money that could be used to save the animals we still have, and instead using it to make a hairy Asian Elephant and claim that it’s a Mammoth.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Word List: Psychology

more psychological concepts as reference for your poem/story

Absent grief - a form of complicated grief in which a person shows no, or only a few, signs of distress about the death of a loved one. This pattern of grief is thought to be an impaired response resulting from denial or avoidance of the emotional realities of the loss.

Being love - (or B-love) in Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology, a form of love characterized by mutuality, genuine concern for another’s welfare and pleasure, and reduced dependency, selfishness, and jealousy. B-love is one of the qualities Maslow ascribes to self-actualizers.

Cyclopean eye - a theoretical eye, located on the midline between the real eyes, that has access to the functions of both eyes and is used in descriptions of space perception and eye movements.

Dream ego - in the analytic psychology of Carl Jung, a fragment of the conscious ego that is active during the dream state.

Epiphany - a sudden perception of the essential nature of oneself, others, or reality.

Family mythology - the shared stories, norms, and beliefs within a family system. The mythology can be used to deny trauma or pathology within the family or to ascribe meaning to events in ways that suggest their inevitability or importance.

Guilt culture - a trend or organizing principle in a society characterized by the use of guilt to promote socially acceptable behavior. Guilt cultures emphasize both self-control in the face of temptation and self-initiated responsibility for one’s actions if transgressions should occur.

Hedonic treadmill - a metaphor for a hypothesis proposing that people’s happiness tends to return to a preexisting baseline level after positive or negative life events have occurred. According to this concept, positive and negative events may produce short-term shifts in mood, but these shifts tend to erode in a relatively brief period of time. This process of adaptation is thought to be responsible for the persistence of mood states over time, often in the face of considerable efforts to change them. Although there is good evidence for this hypothesis, research has demonstrated that people do not always return to baseline after the occurrence of mood-changing events.

Jactitation - (or jactation) extreme restlessness marked by frequent movements and tossing about.

Leaving the field - the act of removing oneself from a situation when confronted with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, insoluble conflicts, or intensely frustrating problems. It may involve physical withdrawal, escape into psychogenic illness, or some other behavior, such as distraction or changing the subject during a conversation.

Source ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Part 1 2 3 ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[neverendingford]

.

[yanderes-galore]

Fandom: HOTD

Character: Cregan Stark

Pairing: Romantic

Type of fic: Concept

Extra info: I haven't had the opportunity to watch the finale yet so I hope my man got more screen time other than 3 minutes...

But other than that! Darling could be from wherever you want, you're free to do whatever. I'm just starving for more Cregan content to be honest 🙏🙏

- 🥝 anon

More screen time? That aged well... Anyways! Sure, I'll try my best. Using ASOIAF wiki to help me!

❗️Spoilers For HOTD/Fire and Blood Ahead❗️

Yandere! Cregan Stark Concept

Pairing: Romantic

Possible Trigger Warnings: Gender-Neutral Darling, Obsession, Possessive/Protective, Manipulation, Controlling behavior, Forced marriage/Courting, Mature themes, Violence, Blood, Isolation, Dubious relationship.

The first idea I thought of for Cregan is him with a Targaryen.

Cregan himself is not very involved in the Dance.

He takes pretty much the entirety of the war to gather forces since the North is so vast.

However, that does not stop him from toppling The Greens in areas other than King's Landing.

This concept is going to be a tweaked version of canon where you're a Targaryen on the side of The Blacks.

Your mother is Rhaenyra and you're helping your brothers gain forces to your side.

Now this could go one of two ways.

You arrive in Winterfell with Jacaerys to speak with Cregan... or you go alone.

Regardless of which occurs, you are tasked to convince Cregan to join The Blacks.

Despite being a skilled dragon rider, the winter chill nips at your skin as you land your dragon.

You had come to negotiate, to give whatever you could to get Cregan to aid your mother.

Although... You end up giving a lot more than you bargained for the longer you stay in Winterfell.

Like most Stark lords, Cregan is an intimidating fellow.

He has had a lover before, in fact he's older than you by at least a few years despite you both being around your twenties.

Yet the difference in age is small and you're able to get along rather well with the lord.

Despite being relatively cold to most, Cregan is ironically rather warm with your presence.

You had learned his past love had died in childbirth, leaving him with a young son.

You even take the time to learn more of Stark traditions.

Winterfell is land much different than your own home.

It's cold compared to Dragonstone, your dragon rather antsy about the change in climate.

You were invited to stay a week or two at Winterfell's castle.

Of course you agree, after all the Stark's support is needed for your mother.

Your time spent in Winterfell is used to get to know lord Cregan Stark.

You drink, hunt, train... Your time there includes a large amount of culture training.

The same thing happens if you went with your brother.

Cregan's form of bonding with you is definitely Stark in nature.

The drinks in Winterfell are much different than home.

They primarily drink ale, yet Cregan was able to get his hands on some Dornish wine if that was better for you.

You just took the ale most of the time, wanting to be on good terms.

Hunting was another activity.

Cregan primarily hunted with Jacaerys if he went with you.

However, there's times you get to hunt with the Stark lord.

Cregan was surprisingly cautious of you while hunting.

For the first few days it was most likely due to him not wanting a Targaryen heir to be injured.

However, over time it seems his intentions towards you changed.

The same thing occurs with training.

Cregan carefully observes what you're capable of before showing you ways to hone your skills.

After all, you're a dragon rider, you're used to the skies.

Yet he teaches you how to properly use a sword.

As your visit progresses, you make some good progress with getting to know the lord.

Cregan himself appears fond of you, often greeting you himself every morning to invite you on yet another expedition or meal together.

Unbeknownst to you, Cregan's intentions for you aren't just to be loyal to your mother.

No, the longer you are in Winterfell, the more Cregan ends up falling for you.

You're a strong and fierce dragon warrior.

Having a Targaryen in his family can be a useful thing, he's reminded of that each time he sees your dragon hidden from the biting cold.

Although, not only are you useful...

But he also finds himself falling for you genuinely.

His obsession develops as the days pass.

By the end of your visit, you and Cregan are close.

He makes sure your hospitality is perfect, that you are respected.

If anyone has problems with you, Cregan will remind himself to have them judged (and possibly executed).

Cregan sees you as his dragon and himself as your wolf.

He's smitten by the time your visit ends, eyes unable to part from you.

Of course Cregan plans to pledge loyalty to your family.

Yet he's not doing it for your brother, your mother, or the throne.

He's doing it for you.

The Pact of Ice and Fire occurs differently in this scenario.

Instead of asking to marry Jace's first born daughter to his son... He asks Jace or you something different.

In return for his loyalty to the throne, he wants to marry you.

The deal comes across as a surprise at first.

Granted, you were not betrothed yet, but even if you were it probably wouldn't stop Cregan.

The wolf has spotted what he wants...

He plans to have you one way or another.

Determined to win the Starks for your mother, you take a deep breath and agree to Cregan's proposal.

In return for Cregan's northern men, you will be his betrothed.

Your compliance brings a smile to Cregan's face, good...

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Cregan, while cold to most, is not cruel to his dragon.

The wedding ceremony hasn't even occurred yet but Cregan already plans on arranging you to stay at Winterfell.

You try to tell him to wait, but your new husband doesn't listen.

He's a stern man, shutting you down when you try to reason.

You tell him you'll get married after the war, that you and your dragon are needed in Dragonstone.

Cregan ignores such a thought.

He tells you it will take around two years to rally the needed men.

Until this... He considers marrying you earlier.

Cregan does not want his dragon to fight in the war.

He may not show it, but he fears losing you.

You try to tell him that your dragon is not used to the colder climate.

In response he tells you to dismiss the large flying lizard, telling you to stay here.

Your dragon will return when it is needed.

You, however, are to stay in Winterfell until you're both married... and afterwards.

Cregan does not listen to anyone on this matter.

While he has men sought out to aid your mother, he sends a raven (or Jace), to tell your mother of your bargain.

Meanwhile, back with you, Cregan kisses your soft skin, telling you he'll be a good man to you.

If anyone tries to tell him your need to go back to Dragonstone, Cregan responds harshly.

He does not hesitate to have someone cut down for not agreeing with him.

You are his betrothed, his beloved dragon.

Disagreements often end with a bloody sword and his grip on you tightening.

Cregan is surprisingly affectionate, kissing your lips and skin.

He calls you all sorts of affectionate nicknames, holding you close.

He doesn't share chambers with you until you're officially married.

Once you are.. You learn just how possessive the wolf can be.

You're married a month or two after meeting the Stark.

Your wedding night comes with sharing his bed....

Your mother tells you your dragon is needed.

Yet you respond saying Cregan Stark refuses to let you battle.

You don't properly see your mother again once Cregan takes you as his own.

Even when your mother asks to meet with Cregan, the winter wolf is against it.

Truth is I can see Cregan keeping you at Winterfell until the war ends.

Both Rhaenyra and Aegon II perish, along with your siblings.

You are one of the only remaining Targaryens other than your younger brother Aegon.

It's only then that Cregan allows you to come with him to King's Landing.

You're devastated at the fact you lost your family, survivor's guilt creeping in.

Cregan allows you to reunite with your younger brother and soon even becomes Hand.

During his time in King's Landing, you are allowed to stay beside him.

Yet he tells you once he is no longer needed, you will be coming back to Winterfell.

Part of you does love your husband... He's trying to protect you.

Despite that, you resent him for forcing you to stay back.

But... His winter men did indeed help claim territory for the blacks....

In a way, you guessed this was your purpose.

If you are capable of having children, you most likely have a young babe with him... maybe another on the way....

Regardless, Cregan keeps you close, the wolf watchful of his dragon.

One could argue his possessive behavior saved you...

You still hate it.

It's ironic, dragons are meant to be stronger than wolves.

Yet here you are, leashed to your loyal hound... bare able to mourn your family.

Cregan reassures you this would've happened anyways.

You should be happy he kept you safe....

You may have Targaryen blood... but to him, you're a Stark now.

He's your family now...

Whoever tries to go against this will meet the end of his sword, their blood staining the snow as you're forced to be good for your husband.

[existingtm]

A lot of you are gonna hate this, but Dadbastian and Sebaciel are fandomized readings based on the same canon undertones. This is because Sebastian fits the Gothic trope of the parentified predator.

Curiously, his role doesn’t just follow demonic tropes but also takes on a vampiric form. He’s nurturing, yet preys upon the one he nurtures. It’s very reminiscent of a vampire siring a human, yet the end goal in this case is demonic, Sebastian aiming to win their game and claim Ciel’s soul.

Of course Sebastian is perverse. Of course his and Ciel's relationship breaches the boundaries of normalcy. It’s predator and prey, parent and child, sexuality through consumption. 

Sebastian and Ciel’s dynamic embodies much of the Lot complex. Debbie Joyce Chung goes into depth on this concept in her article "SUCH BLOOD, SUCH POWER": THE LOT COMPLEX IN ANNE RICE'S INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE. To quote some key parts:

“Broadly speaking, both the Gothic tradition and the Lot complex emphasize desire and transgression, subversion and the unconscious, doubling and projection. ‘The horror’ in eighteenth-century Gothic literature often pertains to incest, homosexuality, revolution, the pollution of lineage, and the disruption of linear succession of property” (173). While we’re mostly talking about transgressive sexuality, this excerpt has an interesting note about doubling and projection. Sebastian is absolutely a double for both the twins and their father, projected straight from O!Ciel’s own image.

“[V]ampires procreate, like Lot and his daughters, through a form of incest that involves penetration and the exchange of bodily fluids (blood) with their offspring. Their blood symbolizes life, family, and racial ties; it is the fluid of reproduction, the seed of the father” (174). We see blood and consumption take on this sexual undertone a lot throughout Kuroshitsuji media. While vampires procreate more directly, it’s interesting that Sebastian is forming Ciel in his own image.

“Through vampires the Lot complex transcends normal male-female gender categories, for vampires do not engage in genital sex and possess a relatively gender-free perspective” (174). The relevance of this is also pretty evident. Ciel and Sebastian are often queered from a gender perspective, whether in form of dress, pronoun or title use, mannerisms, etc. I would also argue that Sebastian is asexual (I even have a whole analysis drafted about why that is), and Ciel could be read as such too. Sexuality between them takes place in wholly inhuman terms (feeding and ownership).

Hold onto your hats, because I’m about to quote a quote within a quote when Chung describes how Claudia “is simultaneously innocent and monstrous, a literal and literary construct of our culture's anxious vacillations ‘between perceptions of children as little angels and as little monsters [. . .] sexually attuned, sometimes even predatory’ (Warner qtd. in Edmundson 34)” (175). We can see this perception forced on Ciel throughout Kuroshitsuji. This perception is reserved for children and women, once again demonstrating the queered element. Not only is Ciel the victim, he’s also the corrupted young maiden of the narrative, innocent and monstrous all at once.

“Incest is not limited to the physical: Lestat and Louis commit ‘emotional incest’ upon Claudia as she ‘grows up’; to them she is a magnificent and deadly ‘magic doll’ upon which they can lavish presents and affection (Interview 103). They dress her exquisitely in the latest children's fashions, disguising her as ‘a golden-haired child, a Holy Innocent, a little girl’ to fool her sentimental mortal victims, usually kindly, admiring adults (Interview 116)” (175–176). This one’s also pretty self-explanatory. Sebastian takes far more pleasure in dolling Ciel up than would be normal, especially when Ciel uses the guise as a means of deceiving enemies.

“Interview follows the Lot myth's subversive pattern of the powerless achieving power, but it is a Gothic novel, so Lot strikes back in a horrific return of the repressed. Nothing more is heard of the biblical Lot after the incest episode, but Lestat twice reappears to terrorize and punish his rebellious offspring. Both of his attempts are thwarted by enormous fires, reminiscent of the purgation of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, that enable the culprits to escape” (177). Notably, Toboso utilizes purgation by fire often in Kuroshitsuji, which doesn’t necessarily implicate the Lot complex, but it does, intentionally or not, mimic the biblical punishment.

“The incest between Lestat and Claudia is therefore a Gothic version of the incest between Lot and his daughters. It is committed not for the positive end of ensuring the survival of the human race, but for the negative ends of revenge and domination, rape and patricide. . . . Claudia's story has neither happy endings nor beginnings. Forced reenactment of the original incest is Claudia's weapon of vengeance, expropriation/preservation of the father's seed/blood her goal. The pattern of victimization and incest comes full circle, as Louis senses beforehand” (177–178). Another part of the Lot complex is the ultimate turning-back of this predation on the predator. I’m curious to see if Toboso will adopt this as well, but we’ll just have to wait and see. I personally think it would be really interesting if rather than condemning Ciel to lose his soul, or alternatively saving his soul, Toboso instead turns Sebastian’s own predation back on him.

“There is no escape from Sodom and Gomorrah, but the fascination of Interview, like that of Lot's wife, is that it looks back to them longingly, and envisions as strangely beautiful and passionate and tragic, the doomed cities and their now immortalized inhabitants” (180). This conclusion would make for an apt summary of Toboso’s story. As Louis narrates his Lot family tragedy, so does Sebastian—immortal, horrid, otherworldly, monstrous, beautiful.

Kuroshitsuji embodies many Gothic themes. It makes sense that Sebastian and Ciel’s dynamic blurs between familial and sexual. This is super common in the Gothic, but I think Kuroshitsuji’s Western audience, for the most part, isn’t really in touch with the genre’s history. As such, a more fandom-typical interpretation emerges. If the reader dislikes taboo themes, they choose the safety of the found family trope. If the reader likes engaging with taboo themes but more from a fandom perspective than an analytical one, they may romanticize the dynamic to suit fandom shipping tropes. Either way, the original character dynamic is lost to some extent.

Sebastian and Ciel’s identities become more entangled as the story progresses. We’ll likely continue to see their relationship cross boundaries of normalcy, and as the end nears, something will have to give. Who will be the monster? Who will be the victim? Will anyone be able to escape this enticing hell they’ve created? I can’t wait to find out.

[xenodelic]

Why We Left the Alterhuman Community

Hello, again. Some of you may have noticed our inactivity on this account. There is reason for this beyond our own personal life making us busy.

The main reason for our inactivity is that we no longer consider ourselves part of the alterhuman community. We are still nonhuman, but we can no longer involve ourselves in the alterhuman, otherkin, therian, or adjacent communities because of rampant racism, colonialism, ableism, and human-centrism.

Particularly in terms of the hatred and exclusion of physical nonhumans and those whose nonhumanity is intertwined with indigenous and/or traditional cultural practices.

The alterhuman community promotes and enforces western colonialist hegemonic ideology of the self, the individual, and social reality. It centers humans as the primary and only true intelligence of the Earth, it enforces strict, socially constructed definitions of human vs nonhuman, it erases traditional cultural practices and spirituality - especially that of indigenous cultures - and it enforces institutional ableism and sanism against those who experience different realities.

Much of the community, especially the "big name" popular accounts, are aggressively opposed to any claim of physical nonhumanity beyond a strictly  philosophical approach ("I am nonhuman, this is my body, therefore my body is nonhuman"). And if someone does claim to be physically nonhuman, they are required to admit that it is only within the confines of a personal subjective reality, and concede that their personal reality is lesser than the supposed "objective reality" -  in which all of us are demonstrably physically human and can only think we're nonhuman.

One is essentially required to admit that their experiences are not actually real and that they are solely constructs of the mind. You're required to either identify as a delusional individual of some kind, or state that it's only a philosophical viewpoint.

And even when one does state that they are experiencing nonhumanity through the lens of delusion or mental illness, they are still excluded from the community by means of constant reality checking and enforcement of hegemonic reality.

The concept of physically shifting to something nonhuman is possibly the most viciously attacked experience. They completely ignore the fact that physical shifting to other forms is extremely prevelant within indigenous and non-western cultures, and that the erasure of such beliefs and practices is a direct result of colonialist enforcement of hegemonic norms.

The promotion of hegemonic "objective reality" as the be-all-end-all of what is true, possible, and acceptable has led to the complete exclusion of people who cannot make their experiences compatible with it. And if one cannot make their experiences compatible, they are often labeled as dangerous, manipulative, or accused of grooming young nonhumans into certain belief systems.

The irony being, that these social values are the result of centuries of propaganda, indoctrination, and genocide. The ideology of what is and isn't human, especially regarding physical traits, is one of the core pillars of institutional racism. Wherin people of color as defined by their phenotypal traits as being subhuman, and those who actually identify as nonhuman in some manner have their autonomy removed and also treated as subhuman. Subhuman doesnt mean "nonhuman", but rather less than human.

When people encorce this ideology, they are actively contributing to the subhumanization of many groups, human and otherwise. We can no longer stand by this. As much as we have enjoyed participating and having discussions over the years, we've realized that unfortunately these ideologies have an absolute strangehold over the community. We've tried time and time again to break through it, but we've been shot down repeatedly and people just won't listen, despite our position of relative privilege and respect within the community.

We will be continuing to interact with other nonhumans and people with alternative experiences online. We won't publicly reveal our new account here but it should not be difficult to find us. We are far less active online in general, but when we are we will be discussing our genuine experiences without the limitations of these restrictive social norms.

If you wish to continue interacting with us, feel free to DM and we will give you some form of contact.

Thank you, and we wish best of luck to those in the community who will continue trying to break down these harmful ideologies.

[airandangels]

Goon of Fortune requires several silly players, several goon sacks, clothespegs and a rotary clothesline, in Australia called a Hills Hoist:

They're ubiquitous in Australian suburbia so this can be played at almost any house party. That crank handle on the bulbous part of the shaft (sorry to be so graphic) can be tightened to stop the top part swinging around in the wind or loosened to let it rotate more freely. For Goon of Fortune, loosen it all the way, and attach the goon sacks with pegs to the clotheslines. Players sit on the ground around the Hills Hoist and at this point there's usually some negotiation of rules, like how much you need to drink to win, etc. Different schools or clubs or whatever have varying rules. One player spins the hoist, and where it stops, anyone with a sack in front of them can jump up and try to drink the agreed amount for a win. The coolest thing, obviously, is to drain a sack in one go. Play continues until all the goon is gone/returned to the earth by spewing.

I was today years old when I learned Australian term for Box Wine is GOON SACK

[kuroananosanji]

One aspect of ZoSan that Westerners may not get the full nuance of is the concept of “うちの”, literally “of our/my household”. There’s a reason why the EA fandom (mainly Chinese from my POV) disproportionally ship ZS over other ships, to the point where even dudebros hop the joke.

So there’s this Chinese saying that means “be strict to yourself but lenient towards others” which is seen as model behaviour for respected individuals. I don’t know if there’s an equivalent idiom in Japanese but both Koreans and Japanese hold similar attitudes towards treatment of self vs treatment of others in society. Here’s the fun part: thanks to collectivist culture, one’s “self” extends to your immediate family too. Since you’re seen in conjunction with your family, if you’re head of the house and your “inferiors” misbehave in public, it reflects badly on you as a person. That’s why strict parenting is more normalised in EA culture, because controlling how your kids behave is more or less the same as controlling how you yourself behave. This is also related to how tough love is a more common form of affection in EA families, there’s a sentiment of “being able to be mean to you means we’re close, being too nice means I see you as a stranger.”

You might now see how this relates to the Strawhats in general (see: Nami beating up members for acting out of line). Sanji is a funny one coz he was sort of a maternal figure secondary to Nami early on in the series. Women aside, there’s a difference in how he treats men on his crew and “outsiders” (e.g. Ace). He’s actually not rude towards men, it’s just that we predominantly see his interactions with the crew! Since his crew is his family, he can be strict with them like how he’s strict with himself.

How does this relate to ZS in particular? Well, it’s because Zoro is closest to him on the self—others sphere. Luffy is his captain so despite the usual bickering he has to obey him to some degree. Usopp and Chopper are younger and weaker, so Sanji has a responsibility to take care of them and show generosity as an “elder”. Franky, Brook and Jinbe are way older than him so there has to be some degree of respect when interacting with them. Nami and Robin are Women. This only leaves Zoro, who is his equal in both age, power and hierarchical position on the crew. Essentially, Sanji has every right to hold Zoro to the exact same standard as he would himself. And given that Sanji is extremely harsh to himself, he’s harsh to Zoro too.

This is why there was virtually no discourse over the “Sanji calls Zoro a liability” moment in the EA fandom. The unspoken context was that Sanji was apologising to Jinbe for Zoro, who wasn’t performing his best. And since Jinbe is relatively new to the crew and also much older than Sanji, it feels like a mother/wife apologising for her son/husband?? It’s giving “I’m sorry my Zoro embarrassed us”?? It’s giving “Zoro is my responsibility”?? On the flip side Zoro absolutely does this to Sanji too. I can’t name a specific anime moment but in one of the mobile game collabs he said something like “sorry our cook caused trouble for you”. The specific wording was うちのコック. (They both think they’re managing the other lmao I hate them)

Tldr: Zoro and Sanji see themselves as one household unit 😭 hence the bickering and bluntness and lack of pretences in general.