#I just feel very strongly about the dichotomy of how they act vs how they feel vs how many emotions are stuffed into too small bodies

[kicktwine]

anon had a much different message I’ll try to get back to But it spiraled off in my brain and I think like, a character note about the twins especially in the beginning is that they’re very uncomfortable with (if not with most loud emotions) crying. exactly like my brother and I tbr alisaie is not comfortable with it even if it sometimes happens to her without her consent, so she stuffs it behind being snappy so it’ll stop. as the story goes on she doesn’t necessarily get more comfortable with it, she just gets around people who make her feel more okay about it. alphy just seemed unused to it in general - nothing in his life has ever caused emotion like that to overwhelm either reason or ego or logic, and so it just never happened, and even when he was upset he always always distanced how he felt about things from what his role was in the real world. like as a ten year old they were doing this. after hw it kind of starts happening to him wether he wills it or no, mostly around bittersweet or moments of stress release. which rly leads me to believe in the space between arr and hw was a lot more unmentioned (or obliquely mentioned, they kinda leave it to you) awful attempts at feeling really harsh emotions by someone who’s just genuinely never done it before than we hear about directly. he’s just never cried since he was tiny, and it probably sucked. anyways alisaie understands the emotional weight of events instantly and gets to react to them even if she dislikes it later and becomes determined to fix, while alphy still retains the habit of quickly separating himself from an event until it’s like, done with and either fixed or nothing we can do, and then falls apart. they both kinda try to hide it anyways

[twentyfivemiceinatrenchcoat]

@scarabrat asked for my fav jjk osts so i shall deliver >:33 ….. i tried to limit myself but. it didn’t go very well. i love these soundtracks so fucking much oughhhhhh

anyway!!! in order of appearance:

ryomen sukuna

FULL-BODY SHIVERS . GORGEOUS . TERRIFYING. LITERALLY PERFECT FOR HIM . godddddd literally every single part of this song is SO sukuna and it’s just so seamless??? the choral parts fading into more traditionally eastern melodies….. it’s just . such a gorgeous gorgeous ost. i love that the choir in particular returns so much in sukuna’s s2 tracks ……. i can’t help but love him he’s so fucking sick

countermeasure for domain expansion

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HYPE . SOSO HYPE. I WILL CRY . i have nothing to say for this one it’s literally just earworms for my shounen meathead brain (BUT GOD IT’S JUST . suchhh a beautifully constructed track it drives me wild)…….

stand in the darkness

my goddddddddddddddd this one….. the vocals are gorgeous... the instrumentals are stunning…. AND THE LYRICS . ”swear that you’ll still watch over me”………. :((((((( hhhhhh . it’s just such a lovely song. it makes me cry . i especially love the final ”the world keeps on spinning // as if nothing had happened” line…………….. it’s so perfect for yuji :(((( also sugu . but we can’t get into that i’ll cry and throw up

hollow purple

:3333 MY BELOVED . you know i had to. the beat drop goes so ridiculously hard it’s ????????? i’m STILL not over it this ost is such a mindtrip 😭 and the build up is soooooo tasty. wowow. the chorus goes so crazy it sounds like a geometry dash song and i love it SO much . it’s ear candy . perfect for gojo and his silly little reality breaking attack / out of this world attitude <333 i’ll love this track forever and ever it’s so FUNNNNN!!!!!

special grade vengeful cursed spirit: RIKA

SOOOOO INSANELY HYPE. I LOVE RIKA. this is such an insane track and it’s sooooo perfect for her. the way it starts so strongly only to slowly fade into a tender melody…. it’s just so good. her scenes are so good !!!! the dichotomy she has!!!!! honestly i just love every single part of this i think it’s so wonderful….. but the first part esp scratches my brain :33

this is pure love

we all knew it was coming <3333 it’s just. suchhhh a gorgeous track . the soft piano motif coming back full force…. i absolutely ADORE the geto vs yuuta fight and their final clash never ever fails to get me emotional!!!! then there’s obviously the stsg scene right after :’3 the fact that this track only plays for yuuta/rika and satosugu will never not make me feel insane . i like to think of it as the one and only moment they both opened their hearts to one another completely so . the name is fitting. stsg against the world that is all 🙏 this track paired w sakurai’s voice acting made me cry like a BABY……

if i am with you

OUGHHHHH . OUGH . another one that Has to be on this list bc it’s just …,.. soooooo fucking beautiful i love every single scene that it’s used in and i love how much it adds to the scenes in question. the aquarium!!!! satoru’s enlightenment!!!!!! his ”the world just feels so, so wonderful right now.” line is one of my favs…… this track is just so stunning i can’t even believe it :((( esp when it gets to the climax….. feels so unbelievably bittersweet. i think it conveys the whole theme of ”all good things must come to an end” soooo well …..

delirious

BANGERRRRRR . BANGER . toji vs gojo round 2 my BELOVED when this started playing i fell to my knees and wept 🙏🙏🙏 IT’S SO GOODDDDD i absolutely adore the hollow purple leitmotif at 1:20!!!!!!!!!! soso much!!!!!!! it’s the perfect theme for gojo…. it’s just so hype and fun………. top 3 anime osts to go insane to

arrogance

THIS OST . GOD . GODDDDDDD . :(((((((( our sugu’s turning point …… i think what breaks my heart most is how Hopeful it sounds . how light it is. one thing i wish people talked about more when it comes to suguru’s choice is that it really did save his life!!!! i think it was always very much a ”me or them” situation…… one has to die . and just… hearing this theme . which really does sound so enlightened . to me . almost like a condescending parody of if i am with you/all of gojo’s themes…… i just love it so muchhhhhh this is one of my absolute favs…. gosh……… it adds so much to the scene it’s insane!!!! i love suguru geto . sobs.

premature

give it up for cult leader geto our beloved <33 i HAD to mention this one bc i just . am so weak. for auditory storytelling . the uncoordinated clapping turning controlled once geto makes his choice……. once he gains control of his mind again. it’s sooo terrifying in a way . for the record the scene where this plays is one of my Absolute Favs in all of jjk i literally cried dilly . episode 5 my BELOVED.

three years of youth overflowing

i am nothing if not predictable <33 but i really do love this track soooo much. it caught me so off guard!!!!! i love how they adapted the reunion scene….. the SMILE on gojo’s face that only lasts a split second :((((( this just sounds so nostalgic and lovely and it really does encompass their most cherished moments together!!!!! the piano……. sniffle…. genuinely just The most gorgeous ost ever

that one unreleased ost that plays at the very end of the kenjaku confrontation and completely shattered my brain chemistry

KENNY THE ACTUAL LOMLLLLLLLLL HE’S SO GOOD. THIS OST IS SO GOOD. IT BLEW ME AWAY. it’s so. imposing somehow. but also so calm. it has this magical vibe…… it literally sounds like a ghibli ost at the very end and i love it SO much it’s so perfect for him. it changed who i am as a person. when kenjaku does their speech and flaunts the prison realm before leaving… LIFE CHANGING . it’s just gorgeous i’m PRAYING that it makes a comeback in s3 maybe specifically for my belovedest jjk fight yuki vs kenny vs choso…. though i could honestly see this playing somewhere during the zenin confrontation. ANYWAY i just love it the final part is soso tasty :3

OKKKK THAT’S ALL.,… i lied here r the honourable mentions :333

occult phenomenon research club / the beginning / straw doll technique resonance / it’s a promise / a mission / toji fushiguro / no hesitation / memories / jujutsu sorcerer - nobara kugisaki / highest jumping …. (nobara 🤝 having banger theme songs)

anyway . THANK YOU FOR READING THIS DILLY plspls share your favs as well …. if you want……. no pressure ……… (a little pressure)……………. (i Really want 2 know 😔) here is a cute sugu for you. he loves you <3333

[bonefall]

So I've been reading the story of the Brokenstar changes. How he killed his father because he could not accept losing the war, and that Tallstar was going to keep what WindClan had won in battle...

This makes me wonder, what is Tallstar going to be like in your story? How is Tallstar changing, if at all?

FANTASTIC question. I feel very, very strongly about stories that want to talk about flawed societies, and then make false dichotomies of "good people" who oppose it and "bad people" who enforce it, as if it's a Heaven vs Hell struggle that can be won in a big fell swoop.

Like all other leaders, Tallstar is subject to the wider cultural values of the four clans. He is a good man. A good leader. But an authority figure of a flawed society nonetheless.

And Raggedstar was right that Tallstar was being extremely generous with his offer. He didn't owe ShadowClan anything, by the might-makes-right values that the four Clans lived by, WindClan won the war. That aid he was providing probably would have helped ShadowClan get back on their feet.

But does that make Brokenstar wrong? What happens when the aid stops? What if WindClan does start pushing further south? How is he to know that Tallstar isn't just going to use this as leverage in future 'negotiations'? What's stopping WindClan from going further?

And think of the honor of ShadowClan. A value this culture holds highly. The casualties over two generations, the hard winters, not being able to provide for your own clan, eating garbage-stuffed rats full of disease?

If they just give up now, what was it all for?

Now let's look at this from Tallstar's perspective.

He's served under Heatherstar for years, lost dozens of their own warriors in fighting this war. They sacrificed an ancient tradition to win. Now Tallstar has inherited this legacy, Heatherstar's final gift to him is the Mothermouth Moorland.

As a clan leader, he is leading ALL of WindClan. He has cats to feed. He has supporters he has to maintain. His first act as leader is going to color how his warriors view him for years to come-- and in spite of all that, he is choosing a form of peace.

He's already losing some face to hunt for ShadowClan, the enemies they just beat, cats they've been at war with since before he was born-- why would he EVER just give up the whole moorland to ShadowClan now? After they won?

His society doesn't see winning land through warfare as wrong, they are a battle culture. That's moorland, of far more value to his people than ShadowClan. They've sacrificed for this moment, too, injuries, infection, casualties, the loss of tunneling. in a way, he is facing the same question that Brokentail is.

Turn back now, and what was all of that for?

Now you and I, as outsiders, hopefully we can see through this.

Who cares who beat who? WindClan has TAKEN ShadowClan's land. They invaded. NO ONE had to fight or die for it at all, everyone could have helped each other, they could have agreed to divide the moors between seasons; Spring and Summer when ShadowClan uses it to hunt frogs, Fall and Winter when only WindClan can chase the rabbits.

But they didn't. They had to fight for it, and now dozens are dead. It's sunk cost all the way down, stretching back longer than the main characters can even remember.

THIS is the disease at the heart of Clan Culture. THIS is the violence that drove out SkyClan, it hasn't changed! It's only gotten worse! The clans WOULDN'T change without a reckoning, either. Without Bluestar, without Firestar after her, Brokenstar is how the clans were destined to end, a bloodbath of their own making.

THIS is what "Fire Alone" truly means.

TL;DR Tallstar's a good guy in a bad system and power acts through him as much as he can act with it.

[herinsectreflection]

I Don't Sleep on Bed of Bones: The Slayer as a Killer Across the Seasons

A pretty constant question throughout Buffy's arc - arguably the central question of the entire show, that Buffy must answer, is "what is a slayer? What does being The Vampire Slayer mean?". And a major part of that is the question of whether a slayer is just a killer. It's a question central to S5, but ripples throughout the rest of the show too, with some of the most iconic scenes in the show in converstion with each other around it. Inspired by an ask I received about this from @potterkid, I took a look at how this idea develops and resolves itself over the course of the show.

In S1, being the Slayer means accepting responsibility. It's metaphor for growing up - a metaphor that recurs throughout the show along with other ideas, but is strongest in S1. Buffy is torn between her teenage/human wants and her adult/supernatural responsibilities. She accepts her mortality and her duty (fighting the Master), and wins when she manages to integrate that with her personal desires (fighting the Master in a kickass prom dress with her friends and boyfriend). There's some stuff around the classic superhero idea that being around the hero is dangerous -e.g. in Never Kill a Boy on the First Date, but not much on the idea of a Slayer being a killer exactly.

In S2, being the Slayer means making hard choices. It means accepting that sometimes all your options are bad ones, but choosing one anyway, even at personal cost. This is introduced through Ford's story in Lie to Me, with Buffy's words to him forming one of the core thesis statements of the show ("You have a choice. You don't have a good choice, but you have a choice."), and it's climaxed beautifully in the tragic ending of Becoming. There's not much direct allusion to the idea of Buffy being a killer here, but this is a vital moment in that discussion. Ultimately, Buffy does make the decision here to kill Angel - not to slay Angelus, but to kill him. To take the life of her ensouled lover in order to save others. It's kind of the opposite of the decision that Ford makes - the best of two bad choices. It's the classic trolley problem, and Buffy's hand is on the lever by design - she has to make that choice because she's the Slayer. We will see this moment returned to again and again as this Slayer-vs-Killer theme develops.

Also, Ted is a very important episode for later. Buffy herself feels guilty specifically because she used her slayer powers on what she thinks is a regular human, and therefore killed him. Specifically, being the Slayer made her a Killer. It's also notable that this is where the idea of Buffy having a free reign to kill is first introduced - by Buffy's original shadow self in Cordelia no less.

Cordelia: I don't get it. Buffy's the Slayer. Shouldn't she have... Xander: What, a license to kill? Cordelia: Well, not for fun. But she's like this superman. Shouldn't there be different rules for her? - 2x12 Ted This isn't explored massively here but will be revisited again and again going forward.

S3 is where this theme really comes into focus. Faith enters as Buffy's shadow self and a representation of hedonism. How that manifests is as a Slayer who gives herself a license to Kill. She posits the idea that as slayers, they can and should decide who lives and dies.

Faith: Something made us different. We're warriors. We're built to kill. Buffy: To kill demons! But it does not mean that we get to pass judgment on people like we're better than everybody else! Faith: We are better! - 3x15 Consequences

Obviously, this is something that Buffy has to reckon with and fight against. But there is a glimmer of truth here, because at the end of S2, she does take the power of life and death into her own hands. She is faced with the choice between Angel and the world and decides that Angel should die. She had to, that's the position she has to be in because she is the Slayer. She has to be a Killer because she is a Slayer. So the two are intertwined.

More than this, Faith is someone who at least appears to revel in the kill. Up until now, we hadn't really seen Buffy enjoy being a slayer, but Faith does. Buffy is genuinely drawn to that, to slaying for pleasure. The equation of slaying/killing and sex for Buffy is first explicitly drawn by Faith in this season. ("Isn't it crazy how slaying always makes you hungry and horny?"). Slayers are very much like vampires in that respect, blurring the line between sex and death. In general, Faith introduces the idea that Buffy is drawn to killing - not just to protect people (the ideal of a Slayer), but for its own benefit. That's something that Buffy continues to struggle with going forward.

I have said before that Faith in S3 is an echo of Angel in S2, both in Buffy's relationship to them both and how that shifts mid-season, and in how it ends. In Graduation Day, Buffy again is given the power of life and death. This time, it's more personal - she can stop Angel dying by killing Faith. It's not such a straightforward (for want of a better word) decision as Angel .vs. the literal entire world, it's just the value of one life against the other. Another trolley problem, and it's not an easy choice, but it's still a choice. Just as she chose the lesser evil in killing Angel in S2, she kills the person filling the Angel role in S3. And this time, the choice is explicitly tied to the idea of being a Killer. Faith is set up as the person that Buffy could be in a slightly different world, and that person is a Killer, as Faith herself claims.

"What are you gonna do, B? Kill me? You become me. You're not ready for that, yet." - Faith Lehane, 3x17 Enemies

"You did it, B. You killed me." - Faith Lehane, 3x22 Graduation Day

In the act of choosing to pull the lever, Buffy has to kill. In the act of killing, she has become her dark mirror. In the act of defeating/becoming Faith, she becomes again the sole Slayer. Being a killer and a Slayer again intertwined. It's interesting here that she then makes the decision to feed herself to Angel. She unravels the trolley problem by throwing herself on the tracks. It's fascinating that between the dual trolley-problem finales of Becoming and The Gift, where in the first Buffy chooses to pull the lever, and in the latter she refuses and chooses a third option, Graduation Day exists in the middle as a stepping stone where she kind of does both.

The bulk of S4 is a little lighter on this theme, instead examining The Slayer as a role that must be juggled amongst a series of competing roles as Buffy's life as an adult becomes more fractured. There are flavours of it in Fear Itself, where Buffy fears that her friends will leave and her destiny lies with death and the dead, but otherwise not too much jumps out at me. Except, of course, for Restless, which is so heavy with this theme. It's one of the many reasons why I kind of consider Restless an honourary part of S5, as it's setting up the themes and arcs of S5 as much as it's wrapping up the like from S4.

RILEY: Hey there, killer.

BUFFY: We're not demons. ADAM: Is that a fact?

RILEY: Thought you were looking for your friends. Okay, killer...

TARA: I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute ... alone. BUFFY: The Slayer. FIRST SLAYER: No friends! Just the kill.

OK, so SO much to unpack here. This is all within the under-10-minute sequence of Buffy's dream, and in that sequence she constantly shows a fear that she is in fact a "killer". It's clearly strong in her mind. Riley calls her "killer" multiple times, and Adam equates her with him, and with demonhood. I also find it very interesting how she responds to Tara's words, which are very literally describing the act of kiling ("the action of death...the blood cry...the penetrating wound"). She hears that and immediately identifies her as the Slayer, so slayerhood and killing are clearly bound up together in her mind.

Central to her concerns is the dichotomy between friendship and death. This was built up in Fear Itself, and it's central here. Riley and Sineya both frame it as a choice, between friendship and "the kill". This is a fear that Buffy has already, since S1, that her Slayer life will stop her ability to have a "normal" life of friends and family, but it also sets up her arc in S5 nicely. She chooses her friends over becoming a pure instrument of death in Restless, but that does not resolve her ongoing fears. They existed before and continue to dwell even more strongly in her mind, with words that both Sineya and Dracula repeat.

"You think you know ... what's to come ... what you are. You haven't even begun."

This sets the stage for S5, and her arc of choosing between family and being the Slayer. Friendship and family are presented as more of less one and the same a few episodes later in Family, and the choice Buffy is faced with in S5 is another trolley problem - the life of Dawn against the world. This time, it's more specifically tied to the Slayer/Killer dichotomy through the prophecy that Buffy is faced with ("Death is your gift"). This frames the similar choices she faced in Becoming and Graduation Day in the same light, with Buffy even specifically comparing this to the former.

BUFFY: I sacrificed Angel to save the world. I loved him so much. But I knew ... what was right. I don't have that any more. I don't understand. I don't know how to live in this world if these are the choices. If everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point. I just wish that... I just wish my mom was here. The spirit guide told me that death is my gift. Guess that means a Slayer really is just a killer after all. - 5x22 The Gift

S5 is soaked in this Killer-vs-Slayer idea, and that's part of why I love it so much. It opens with Buffy having gained an appreciation of killing. She goes out not to patrol, but to hunt. To revel in the enjoyment of the kill, just as Faith did. There's also a constant theme of people identifying Buffy as a Killer. Importantly, it's a theme of her believing them. She knows that there is a kernel of truth there, and it develops from a subconcious worry in Restless to a more concrete fear in Intervention, where Buffy explicitly says that she is afraid that being the Slayer means losing her humanity and ability to love, and become nothing more than a "killer". Eventually, Buffy is so ground down by it that when The Gift rolls around, she simply accepts that the Slayer is "just a killer" as an inevitability.

BUFFY: Yeah, I prefer the term slayer. You know, killer just sounds so... DRACULA: Naked? - 5x01 Buffy vs Dracula

SPIKE: Death is your art. You make it with your hands, day after day. That final gasp. That look of peace. - 5x07 Fool for Love

FIRST SLAYER: Death is your gift. - 5x18 Intervention

I also like the way that Joyce is repeatedly linked to this idea. Buffy's response to Sineya points to Joyce's death as a rebuttal to the idea of death being a gift ("Death is not a gift. My mother just died. I know this."). Buffy talks about Joyce just before accepting that "a slayer is a killer" in The Gift. Spike's speech about Slayer's having a death wish comes immediately before Buffy finds out that Joyce is going into hospital. The idea of the Slayer as an instrument of death, killing every day, is juxtaposed against the mundane horror of what death is really like, as demonstrated in The Body. As the Slayer, Buffy must cause death, but this is what death looks like. It's hard and painful and mortal and stupid. Eventually Buffy reaches a point where she just can't do this anymore. She can't live in a world where she must choose to be a killer, because she understands death more now than ever.

It's here that the show explicitly connects the ideas of utilitarianism and being a killer. Buffy says that killing Dawn to save the world (and by association killing Angel to save the world, or killing Faith to save Angel), would make the Slayer "just a killer". This goes back to S3, and Faith arguing that the death of one innocent was washed out by the many people that they save, and that being Slayers gives them the right to make that calculation. Tara points to Giles in this episode, the voice of utilitarianism, and identifies him as a killer. Giles himself identifies himself as one when he kills Ben, and here draws a line between being a utilitarian/killer, and being a hero.

BEN: Need a ... a minute. She could've killed me. GILES: No she couldn't. Never. ... She's a hero, you see. She's not like us.

Some people criticise the moral absolutism of this, and could very justifiably argue that killing Ben, or even killing Dawn, would be the most moral thing in this situation. Who are we to say that Dawn's life is more valuable than the lives of a thousand other 14 year old girls, with families of their own that love them just as much as Buffy loves Dawn? But within the context of the show, I think it makes sense for them to reject utilitarianism. Buffy is a Sisyphean story. There will always be another apocalypse after this one is stopped. There will always be another impossible choice with innocent lives in the balance. Through that lens, the idea of "killing one to save a thousand" becomes meaningless, because there's a thousand apocalypses, and if you kill one to stop them all, then you've killed a thousand. That's how Buffy feels - she killed Angel, she killed Faith, now she has to kill Dawn? Where does it end? Eventually it all just gets stripped away, so what's the point? There's no winning move here. The only way to break the cycle is to change the game.

We should also keep in mind Buffy's words at the start of the episode. She fears that the Slayer is "just a killer", but she is also identified by the guy she saves in the alley in the opening scene as "just a girl". And Buffy agrees ("That's what I keep saying."). Buffy is The Vampire Slayer, which dictates that she must make these impossible choices, but she's also Buffy, which means she is a human being with the power of free will. She gets a choice - not a good choice, but a choice. As a human being, she can reject the options in front of her and find a third way. She can transform the whole game, and turn "Death is your gift" into an empowering statement. This was heavily foreshadowed of course - the Guide in Intervention outright stated that Buffy was full of love, and that "love will bring [her] to [her] gift". But it takes Buffy working through these fears and emotions and realising that she simply can't take Dawn's life. She chooses a new way. She avoids being a killer by rejecting utilitarian ethics. To paraphrase The Last Jedi, she wins by saving what she loves. Ultimately, she's not a killer, but a girl, a friend, a sister, a Slayer - a hero.

So season five is very much the climax and resolution of this theme. Very few themes ever disappear entirely from this show though, and this one continues to echo throughout the show. In S6, Buffy again fears she is slipping into darkness. That there is some kind of darkness that is innate within her. But where in S5 this was a fear that she recoiled from but at times seemed inevitable, in S6 it is something that she is drawn towards, that disgusts her but that she takes a kind of comfort in, because it's easier than facing the mundane reality of her depression.

This yearning for her own darkness takes the physical form of Spike, who she uses for what is basically sexual self-harm. Spike steps into Faith's role as Buffy's shadow self for much of the later seasons, and , and like Faith he represents killing as hedonism, and as sex. There's no vampire who so aggressively blurs the lines of sex and death/violence as Spike. Her fear that killing is part of her nature, and her fear of her own sexual desire, are very much one and the same. When she breaks down in Dead Things, she talks about the darkness within her, and of her shame over her own sexuality.

Spike also repeats Faith's utilitarian justifications from Consequences in the episode which forms the climax of Buffy's self-destruction, Dead Things. When Buffy attempts to metaphorically commit suicide by turning herself into the police, she does it while constantly identifying herself as a killed. She repeats some variation on "I killed her" four times in just two scenes. She wants to be punished for being a killer, and not protected for being the slayer. She has grappled with this several times, and is still resolute that being the slayer does not give her a license to kill, but this time she is desperate to be seen as a killer, to give justification for her own self-hatred.

The final way S6 explores this idea is with Willow. When she is after Warren, Buffy tries to stop her, not for Warren's sake but for Willow's. She knows that taking a life changes a person, and implicitly draws on the first time she chose to take a human's life, the moment she "became a killer" on that rooftop with Faith.

Buffy (re: going to kill Faith): I can't play kid games anymore. This is how she wants it. Xander: I just don't want to lose you. Buffy: I won't get hurt. Xander: That's not what I mean. - 3x21 Graduation Day

XANDER: She should be coming down at some point, shouldn't she? I mean, back there she was out of her head ... running on grief and magicks. BUFFY: Doesn't matter . Willow just killed someone. Killing people changes you. Believe me, I know. - 6x21 Two to Go Killing Warren might have been justified given what a complete piece of shit he was - just as killing Angel was justified, just as killing Faith was, just as killing Ben was. That doesn't matter, because Buffy still recognises that the act of killing leaves permanent psychological scars, which she is still bearing.

In S7, we get the final major exploration of the "does the Slayer have a right to kill" idea in Selfless. Here, Buffy seems to have reached the conclusion that Cordelia, Faith and Spike (all her shadow selves) were right, and she does, in fact, have the right to pass judgment because she's the Slayer, when she decides she has to kill Anya.

"It is always different! It's always complicated. And at some point, someone has to draw the line, and that is always going to be me. You get down on me for cutting myself off, but in the end the slayer is always cut off. There's no mystical guidebook. No all-knowing council. Human rules don't apply. There's only me. I am the law." - 7x05 Selfless

However, I don't think the show wants us to take this as gospel. Buffy is conclusively proved wrong in this episode, since killing Anya doesn't work, and it's Willow who finds a third option that saves the day. In S7, the idea of the Slayer-as-Killer is more an incidental theme, while the central exploration is the idea of "one girl in all the world". It explores the nature of that tragedy, that Buffy is by definition alone. Because of this, she necessarily must be a killer. She does have to pass judgement, because there is nobody else capable of it. She has to be the one to hunt and kill vampires. She has to face the choice to kill Angel, to kill Faith, to kill Dawn, to kill Anya.

This is where the theme ends up - as a tragic inevitability. Buffy must always make that choice. Making the selfless choice to kill her boyfriend doesn't stop it. Avoiding the choice and dying herself doesn't even stop it. That boulder just rolls down the hill again and again, and Buffy is the only one who can push it back up. The Slayer is a killer because the Slayer is alone. So the only way to break that cycle is for the Slayer to no longer be alone. There are still elements of The Slayer, and of Buffy as a person, that are linked to death and killing, but she has mostly made peace with those parts, and now can be free of having to be "the law" too.

[silentauroriamthereal]

So, I watched Happiest Season yesterday, and I have thoughts. A lot of thoughts. Spoilers abound and this is long, so I’ll put this under a cut. 

Happiest Season: a review

You have to ask yourself how “happy” a happy ending really is when you glance down at the time bar on the film and see that there’s less than fifteen minutes left and none of the story’s problems have been even remotely resolved.

Skip to the closing credits, and I hadn’t changed my mind. This is a “happy” ending where a great deal of the problems in the plot were left either completely unresolved, or whose happiness wasn’t earned – wasn’t properly fleshed out, developed, supported, or in fact, even happy.

What an incredibly toxic family the Caldwells are. Let’s start with them: there are three daughters. Sloan has apparently cemented her parents’ permanent disappointment by having left a promising legal career in favour of raising a family. Side tangent: are we really still having this discussion, in 2020? This binary choice between family OR career? Besides, Sloan evidently developed a different, and very lucrative career. I also strongly dislike the way the perception of her marriage ending is portrayed as a failure. Her awful parents both resent her having left the legal field, yet have refused to now see her as anything other than a parent, ignoring her new career choice and, it seems, literally anything else about her. Then we have Jane, who is overtly abused. Treated as lesser than anyone else in the family apart from technical support with malfunctioning printers, Jane is constantly criticized, chastised, literally told to not put herself in the centre of the family for a holiday photo. I was horrified and devastated by the wanton destruction of her painting at the end, too. I’m happy for her that her book got published and that she found success there, but I hate that this brutal, completely unnecessary destruction of her art happened and was totally overlooked.

I’m going to come back to Harper, because there’s a LOT to say there.

The way the parents, Tipper and Ted, treated Abby, was appalling from start to finish. Leaving aside the ENTIRE question of the secret girlfriend thing, if my family ever treated a friend or even distant acquaintance the way the Caldwells treated Abby, I would be furious with them. I used to frequently bring friends who were international students or just on their own for the holidays to my parents’ place for Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas festivities. These people were so, so, so incredibly rude to Abby, from ignoring her when she first arrived to giving her a terrible bedroom with a door that doesn’t lock, to walking in on her multiple times while she was changing or in bed – that level of complete disrespect infuriated me! Just allowing those awful kids to be in her private space without any sort of discipline, consequences, or apologies was unacceptable. The way they treated Abby after those same kids – which she was stuck with, without any sort of request to watch them – planted that necklace on her, was unacceptable. The utter lack of apology for having literally accused her of theft, for accusing her multiple times after that – WOW. Treating Abby as though she was the unexpected, extra guest at the restaurant that first night, and giving the ex-boyfriend the parents kept shoving on Harper the proper one was unacceptable.

Then there’s how Harper treated Abby. Let’s start with the restaurant: first of all, had my parents pulled that stunt on my friend/guest/secret girlfriend, I would have let them know then and there that it wasn’t okay. And then I would have, I don’t know, asked the staff to bring a proper chair, and if that turned out to be impossible, I would have insisted that she take mine instead, and sat on the little chair myself. Asking anyone to closet themselves is an act of violence, and watching that as a member of the LGBTQ2+ community was actively harmful to witness. Again, a lot of the crap that Harper subjected Abby to would have been awful no matter WHO Abby was: you don’t abandon your guest to hang out with old friends. If they’re ready to go home, then you go home with them. It’s basic hospitality. Considering that Abby was Harper’s partner, that’s a whole extra layer of harm. THEN add the ex-boyfriend, a horribly-treated ex-girlfriend, and toxic old friends to the mix, and you have something beyond appalling. Adding this stuff on top of not standing up for Abby to her family, not insisting that she be given somewhere proper to sleep during her time in her parents’ house, not insisting that she be treated with the most basic respect, not defending her during the whole jewellery theft situation, and even going along with the parents’ de-invitation to that dinner – that’s inexcusable. You don’t treat other people that way, much less your partner. Then add Harper calling Abby controlling, while simultaneously having the nerve to get angry about Abby spending time with Riley, which is possibly the only good thing that happened for Abby during that entire, awful trip – yeah. I was finished with Harper by that point.

Harper also actively participated in the way her sisters were constantly put down by their parents. The responsibility of being the privileged favourite is to use your status to bring others up. Harper doesn’t appear to have any sort of spine or courage whatsoever. It was only after she was forcibly outed by Sloan – and such was her privilege that the parents believed that it was a “malicious” lie rather than a “shocking” secret – that Harper even admitted the truth, and that was only after forcing Abby to watch her deny it yet it again. While I did love John (the gay best friend)’s entire speech about someone’s love not being the same thing as being ready to come out, there is nonetheless a ton of harm in forcing your partner watch that. It does affect them. It does disavow their identity at the same time, when they’re in a relationship with you. Her pattern of behaviour of throwing other people under the bus, like Riley, is very much intact.

I completely comprehend Harper’s fear of being rejected by her family. Apparently it was a well-founded fear, based on her awful, awful parents. That’s one of the reasons why the ending didn’t resonate for me at all: it wasn’t earned. Harper’s turn-around from being completely unwilling to have her parents know the truth to claiming that Abby was the only thing that mattered to her, came out of nowhere. It wasn’t a supported development. It happened too quickly. Similarly, the parents both going from being just about the worst parents on the planet to having a VERY sudden change of heart and behaviour, just happened unbelievably quickly. There was no questioning the entire history of their practises or what was wrong with them, no questioning how they’d treated any of their kids. The whole “consequence” for Ted was deciding, of his own accord, not to align himself with a politician who would force Harper to zip it – sorry, continue to zip it – about her identity. He shouldn’t have aligned himself with that woman in the first place. No one ever apologized to Abby about the way they treated her from start to finish, from patronizing her for being an orphan or the constant lack of respect shown her, to the false accusations of theft. Not a single part of it was atoned for at any point. Even Tipper being so disgusted with Abby’s ipad photography skills was disgusting. You just don’t talk to other human beings that way, and there was no resolution for me on any of this. There were also no consequences for Sloan’s horrific, SUPER-public outing of Harper, for Harper’s destruction of Jane’s painting, for the kids’ planting of the necklace on Abby, or for anyone’s horrendous treatment of Abby in general.

So yes: when you’re less than fifteen minutes out from the end of a supposed romantic comedy that was more upsetting to watch than entertaining or funny, and you’re actively rooting for the main character to walk away from her so-called partner and her toxic family, that’s not good. I’m not sold on the “romance” aspect, either. John (Dan Levy’s character) was the only good part of this movie, for me, and that’s overlooking his completely rude ignoring while on his phone at the beginning, or his negligent care of the animals he was supposed to be taking care of. (Gross, again – animals’ lives have value, too, and if my pet sitter killed my pet through negligence while I was away, I would be furious!) But his point about “sticking it to the patriarchy” in terms of Abby asking Ted for his permission/blessing to marry Harper was spot on. For all the hype about this being a progressive, lesbian, holiday rom-com, this film managed to perpetuate a lot of gross aspects of straight, white, misogynistic, heteronormative culture, like women being the property of their fathers and needing to obtain a male parent’s “permission” to marry another human being. The only person’s “permission” that was needed here was Harper’s, and then it’s not about permission – it’s about two adults making a consensual decision to commit themselves to each other. It’s great if you have the support of family – aka, BOTH parents, on BOTH sides – but that support is a bonus, not a prerequisite. Perpetuating the false dichotomy of family vs career for women only, is a harmful one to keep perpetuating. That question is never asked of men.

I was honestly kind of disgusted that Abby chose to stay with Harper by the end. I get it, but it definitely didn’t leave me with warm, romantic feelings. It left me with the deflated feeling I invariably experience whenever a woman makes the choice to be the bigger person and submit herself to a damaging situation or relationship. Mostly what I’m left with is anger that no one spoke up for Abby at any point, even John. That, and anger and sorrow over Jane’s painting. So yeah: it wasn’t as bad as bury your gays, but it also wasn’t really a happy ending for me, or super enjoyable to watch. Do better, Hollywood. Do a lot better.

[foursideharmony]

What's Deceit Up To...?

AKA Thoughts On the New Episode, "Selfishness Vs. Selflessness"

Okay, so I have been mulling over the themes and events of the new episode basically every waking moment since it posted, and I have Thoughts™ about what it all might mean.

We got SO MUCH GREAT INFO about Deceit’s character. Just dumped on us, like “Here you go, faithful fandom. A reward for your patience.” We’ve seen how he operates when he is acting as himself—smooth, but with a distinct flair for the dramatic…as long as he’s in control. Once he loses that control, he very quickly becomes flustered and frustrated, edging on desperation. We know now that impersonating another Side is a standard trick in his toolbox, not just a one-off tactic. Ditto citing famous philosophers. Snekboi reads! We know that he is not only perfectly capable of telling the truth, but will do so readily when it’s the best route to what he wants.

(We know that he looks HECKIN’ SHARP in a suit. @what-even-is-thiss , you got your wish—evil and sexy!)

And what does Deceit want? He wants Thomas to not only lie more, but to be okay with lying more. To do it without feeling guilty. (And maybe to be more selfish in general, but more on this later.) Because in Deceit’s eyes, the social contract itself is merely a polite fiction, and taking it at face value is dangerous. Far better to embrace the illusion and counter it with a false face of one’s own, yes? Everyone is only out for themself anyway, so why clip your own wings with the pretense that you’re not?

So here we see him trying to convince Thomas to not just lie his way out of an uncomfortable social obligation that conflicts with a massive personal opportunity, but to accept that he simply is a selfish liar. It’s a clever multi-pronged attack, in which Deceit a) gives Thomas the idea to lie to his friends so he can go after his dream without looking like a flake, b) wrangles the conversation so that no one points out that this is a false dichotomy, and c) equivocates planning to lie with actually lying.

Note that this isn’t like the situation in “Can LYING Be Good?”—this time, Thomas has not actually missed his friends’ event. He’s not in damage-control mode. He has options, which Deceit successfully conceals from him. This is such an important point—even though Thomas ultimately abandoned the plan to lie and miss the wedding, Deceit still won on other fronts.

And why is Deceit so hellbent on making Thomas believe that duplicitousness and selfishness is his very nature? I’m getting more into speculation here, but I think it has to do with the Dark Sides as a group. Both the denouement of this episode and the end card of the last one strongly hint that Deceit and the other Dark Sides are working in concert (as opposed to being individual saboteurs of Thomas’s values). I think Deceit is trying to soften Thomas up, to make him doubt his own commitment to his morals, and make it easier for all the Dark Sides to make inroads into his personality.

So maybe the extreme imbalance between the wedding on one hand, and the callback on the other, which has so many of us going “But…”, is all part of the plan. Deceit hand-picked this conflict as the one to hammer Thomas with. The object is to give Thomas the idea: This is what being a “good person” means. It means always doing for others, never for yourself, no matter what the relative stakes are. What better way to weaken someone’s resolve to be good than to paint it as useless martyrdom? Thomas stuck to his guns—this time—but he’s definitely hurting. (And so is Roman.) This is the sort of setback in life that can make a person bitter, and that’s what the Dark Sides are going for.

Deceit managed to set things up so that no matter how the dilemma shook out, he got something he wanted. What a fan-hecking-tastic bad guy.

[dabistits]

The League of Villains vs The Eight Precepts: what kind of villain will you be?

(Originally I wanted to write this response to add on to @codenamesazanka​‘s post about Tomura+the rest of the LOV, but it got kind of long so here it is as its own thing. I also discussed this awhile back with @waxwingedhawks​, so this is an amalgamation of their ideas as well.)

The Internship Arc is, at this point in the manga, a crucial arc to consider if you want to analyze the development of the League of Villains. I think a lot of people have already noted that everyone seems much more at ease with one another, and they’re able to work together in combat exceptionally well, but another way that Horikoshi illustrates their growth is through foiling them against the 8 Precepts. The arc question for the villains becomes just this: what kind of villain will you be?

Overhaul is, essentially, what you’d get if you took USJ!Shigaraki, gave him a little more charisma and underlings with more sophisticated talents. In his first confrontation, we see him kill and maim Magne and Mr. Compress, respectively, but more than that he also unhesitatingly sacrifices one of his own underlings. Later, of course, we also learn that he’s basically been torturing Eri for his own ambitions, and when heroes storm the hideout, he sends his subordinates to slow down the heroes (knowing they might very well get arrested or killed), and uses his quirk in a way that destroys another one of his subordinates. He shows the same disregard for the people he leads as Shigaraki does during USJ; he just uses their quirks and manages them more strategically, but just as with USJ!Shigaraki, those people are expendable and will be thrown to the wolves when most expedient.

Let’s look at the first confrontation, which sets everything into motion between the LOV and the 8 Precepts. The difference between the two parties is perhaps best illustrated by their respective reactions to this meeting and the events that transpire therein. Twice invites Overhaul to meet the LOV, they have a disagreement that results in exchanging blows, and as a result, Magne gets killed, Mr. Compress loses an arm, and the 8 Precepts also lose the guy who jumps in front of Overhaul. The LOV seems, more or less, genuinely upset by Magne’s death—at the very least, Twice, Mr. Compress, and Toga seem truly emotionally affected, as they bore witness to the event. Shigaraki gives less of an indication on what he’s feeling, though in his second meeting with Overhaul, he strongly condemns Overhaul’s actions with respect to Magne and Compress. No one on either side is bothered by the dude who got himself obliterated to save Overhaul’s life (sux to be him).

For sure, Shigaraki handles their second meeting very calmly and rationally, and doesn’t give much of an indication that he’s upset. When he returns to address the rest of the LOV, he also presents the conditions he worked out with Overhaul in a very impartial manner, to the point where it really upsets Twice, who thinks that Shigaraki doesn’t care. We don’t know for sure how Shigaraki feels about the things that happened (other than how he thinks Overhaul’s a massive prick), but we can certainly make a case for the way he acts afterwards, which is that regardless of how he feels, he’s taken into account the sentiments of his allies. He knows they want revenge, and he gives them the chance to get it. At the very least, he keeps up the pretense of caring; at the most, he actually cares.

But let’s step off the leaders for a sec! Let’s talk about the members.

It’s not exactly subtle that the 8 Precepts are united in a near-fanatical devotion to Overhaul and his cause. There are a few exceptions like Rappa and Chronostasis, but for the most part, the 8 Precepts seem to be composed of people who were in a vulnerable state of mind that Overhaul simply picked up. In Suneater’s fight, the yakuza refer to themselves as gutter trash who live for Overhaul; Nemoto is similarly devoted, and does end up being “unmade”/killed by Overhaul at one point in the fight (though he has no say in it).

As self-destructive as their devotion may be, however, it didn’t come from nothing. Setsuno, Hojo, and Tabe truly believe that Overhaul granted them acceptance—and through acceptance, a purpose—when they were discarded by society. Nemoto genuinely found the type of friendship he’d sought within the 8 Precepts.

But, ah... Doesn’t this sound familiar?🤔🤔🤔

The same sentiments run a course through both the LOV and the 8 Precepts. They’re made up of people who bonded with each other by virtue of being casted out from society, people who wanted to reject pretenses and to be true. The parallels of the few explained backstories are almost one-to-one, especially if you go back to read the whole of Twice’s chapter. Hell, Toga and Twice even cite similar reasons to some of the 8 Precepts members for their involvement in this arc: Toga and Twice are there because Shigaraki “believed in” them, while Hojo is determined to fight Suneater because Overhaul "had high hopes” for them. The inevitable conclusion? The members who make the base of both organizations are not that different! What made all the difference was the people they followed.

What scenes we’re shown of the 8 Precepts seem to have an internal harmony that revolves around Overhaul. They’re hostile enough towards newcomers, but there’s very little discussion or disagreement between the 8 Precepts themselves, and they defer quickly to their leader. On the other hand, the LOV’s interactions, within the post-Stain iteration, are marked by conflict and strife even from the very beginning. It still arises at points during the Internship Arc, when Toga and Twice question Shigaraki’s decision to lend them to the yakuza, and again when Spinner expresses doubt about attacking a police convoy.

Remarkably, it’s the group least put together that wins this clash. Contrasting the 8 Precepts and the LOV, at a surface level, we see that Overhaul is charismatic, polite, abhors dirt, and looks slick and put-together. He has a designated hideout, and the 8 Precepts defer to his word. Shigaraki, on the other hand😉, is informal, devil-may-care, and has a fairly disheveled appearance. The LOV flock in and out of abandoned buildings for their meetings, and they bicker amongst themselves. And yet.

What it comes down to is the narrative decision about what Horikoshi wants to show and say about the LOV. He sets them up against another group of villains that are remarkably similar in many ways, and in doing so poses the questions: How will you be different? What kind of villains will you be? Ones that don’t care about your allies, or ones that do?

The answer lies in the culmination of the (obscenely sexy) attack on the highway. Everything that happens, and that motivates the LOV leading up to this confrontation can be traced back to the very first meeting. Toga and Twice were so upset about Magne’s death that they sabotaged the yakuza, allowing the heroes to reach Overhaul before he could get away. The rest of the LOV meet him on the highway to exact glorious revenge, and boy do they succeed. This scene functions not only as a literal, physical confrontation, but also as the conclusion of the clash of values introduced at the beginning. It becomes a disavowal of Overhaul, a rejection of who he is and what he represents as a leader.

There are a few noteworthy things to mention in this scene, which I think substantiate that argument.

When Snatch shows up to stop the LOV, the first person to jump (literally) into action is Shigaraki. Contrast this image to the very first one on this post, where there’s an unnamed underling coming between Overhaul and Shigaraki, and Shigaraki grabbing onto him with unfortunate results. When facing Snatch, on the other hand, it’s Shigaraki being grabbed, and Shigaraki putting himself between Snatch and the rest of the LOV.

Then, of course, there’s the very direct callback to the beginning when Compress maims Overhaul. It’s a clear indication that this was for what Overhaul did back then, signaling that this attack indeed wasn’t just to get rid of a competitor or to get their hands on his experiment. It’s revenge for wronging the LOV. It’s revenge for hurting the LOV.

At this point, it’s only honest to note that no one on the highway directly says that this is for Magne or that it’s because they think Overhaul is a cruel, immoral bastard. The closest we get to an indictment of character is Shigaraki saying that he hates Overhaul for being arrogant (and Shigaraki hates a lot of things, so I can’t argue that this is particularly special coming from him). It’s absolutely fair to be suspicious of Shigaraki’s intentions, and to question whether he actually gives a shit or if he’s just manipulating the hell out of everyone. It’s absolutely fair to wonder if this dichotomy was set up just to reveal Shigaraki and/or the LOV as hypocritical, and even more evil big bads. With still so much unknown about the LOV, it’s hard to make the call.

Nevertheless, I argue that the intention of this arc was to portray the LOV as a different kind of organization than the 8 Precepts. The LOV is a group in which its members find value in one another, not just in the leader and his vision. They don’t agree to being treated as disposable, whether it’s by someone within their entourage or outside of it. Shigaraki understood this, and he acted accordingly. He showed that, regardless of his underlying motives, he can take on the members’ perspectives and incorporate their desires and goals into his own. It’s that commitment from Shigaraki that enables him to lead the LOV to where it is at the end of the arc—defeating Overhaul, stealing the quirk-erasing drugs, placing themselves one step closer to being AFO’s successor.

[junephang2021]

Cultural differences: collectivism vs individualism

In the case of HAPPINESS:

“In the case of the SHARING mapping [Source: SHARING; Target: HAPPINESS], the concept of HAPPINESS pertains to social aspects of this emotion and reflects the collectivist nature of Korean society. “Sharing,” as an idea and an act, can be considered one of the most important norms of Korean society as it relates to establishing, maintaining, strengthening, and fostering social relations within a community. Such reciprocal social interactions are understood as keeping harmony within the society.” (Türker, 2013, p. 102).

One of the most interesting discussions I had with nearly all of my participants was how collectivism might be reflected in the Korean language. Interestingly, there was a consensus that Korean culture leans toward collectivist, group-centered values, but when asked to describe happiness through Korean metaphor, none cited the HAPPINESS IS SHARING mapping, and most descriptions of general expressions of happiness in Korea did not align with the sense of sharing described in the selection above. The following statements reflect a strong sense of collectivism in Korean society, but through the perspective of modesty rather than sharing:

“In Korea, [happiness] is kind of a silent moment. They seem more humble. They are very reflective of their happiness, and it’s very deep for them. They cherish it.” (Anna, 22)

“[Koreans] don’t brag or show off, it’s more subdued. Maybe it’s a lasting effect of Confucianism, but I think it’s rooted in modesty. It’s easier to show off your happiness through others’ achievements rather than your own.” (Shin, 26)

“North Americans are more willing to show [happiness] than others. Koreans are a little shy showing their contentedness to others by fear of showing off.” (Heejin, 58)

“In the US, people start talking about why they are happy. They talk first, and it goes [along] with their feelings. In Korea, they feel first, and then later they express [their happiness]. Koreans don’t want to show off or brag, that’s part of their cultural manners.” (Isaac, 65)

The notion that happiness should be kept to one’s self out of consideration for others is an interesting approach to collectivist social norms. The emergence of potential cultural mappings for the expression of HAPPINESS in Korea, like HAPPINESS IS DEPTH, or HAPPINESS IS MODESTY, indicates a difference in the role of HAPPINESS between American and Korean culture, even as a “desirable” emotion (as opposed to ANGER or SADNESS).

The following quote touches on HAPPINESS IS DEPTH: 

“American [happiness] just feels easier. Maybe I associate happiness in Korea to getting to the point you wanna be at. In America, it’s easy, it’s shallow. In America, I’ll be happy when I have fun with friends, party, whatever. I had a good time, and I feel happy, but to me, that’s not true happiness.” (Minseok, 28)

The following quote touches on HAPPINESS IS SHARING:

“In Korea, we try to hide our happiness. But [America and Korea] are very similar in how people express happiness, even with different cultures. Sharing happiness in Korea is a good thing as well, not like sadness or anger. Still, there’s hesitation of being too open about it in Korea.” (Sanghoon, 52)

And this quote touches on HAPPINESS IS A NATURAL FORCE:

“I would say that Koreans are more expressive about their happiness. North American happiness kind of feels like a lifestyle issue; people are figuring out what makes them happy, they set goals and emphasize mental health, self care... It almost feels like an industry, there’s a bit of a weird obsession over it. In Korea, they find happiness is simple things, like ‘this coffee is really good.’ They just let happiness happen, whereas in America, it’s something that needs to be managed.” (Maya, 31)

Maya (31) characterizes happiness as something to be “let happen,” indicating passivity on the part of the person feeling happiness. Describing happiness in America as “something to be managed” directly positions this American happiness opposite the passive Korean one--in America, the person is an active agent, seeking and manipulating their happiness. The emergence too of HAPPINESS IS AN INDUSTRY in English/America also signals an absence of passivity on the part of the person.

If indeed the collectivist values of community, collaboration, and sharing produce cultural mappings in Korean metaphor and/or emotion expression, they manifest differently. According to my participants, Koreans seem to internalize their happiness so as not to brag or compete with others. However, they externalize it as well, to share the positive emotion with their group or community. I am led to wonder whether sharing one’s happiness and “shared happiness,” the former carrying a risk of bragging while the latter does not, need to be differentiated in this case.

In the case of SADNESS:

“The SHARING metaphor [Source: SHARING; Target: SADNESS], as I mentioned earlier in regard to the HAPPINESS concept, reflects the importance of sharing in the Korean cultural model. Korean society and culture are strongly collectivistic, as opposed to the Western individualistic society. The source domain of SHARING yields only one linguistic expression, in which SADNESS is conceptualized as a concrete object to be shared by two or more people (e.g. seulpeumeul (hamkke) nanuda ‘X share sadness (together)’). There is a Korean saying, “If you share happiness, it increases; if you share sadness, it decreases by half,” which depicts perfectly the collectivist nature of the culture. Therefore, this metaphor should be considered another culture-specific metaphor.” (Türker, 2013, p. 114).

In my data, a similar pattern to that of HAPPINESS occurs where the participants perceive Koreans deal with their SADNESS individually, and tend less than Americans to readily express it.

“If I were to guess, sadness [in America] kind of seems like something people need to shed or get rid of as quickly as possible, whereas maybe in Korea it’s more of something that is taken and compartmentalized. There might be more of a culture of absorbing [sadness] in Korea.” (Abigail, 19)

“To me, [Korean sadness] is more repressed. They hold it deep down.” (Anna, 22)

“I associate [Korean] sadness with solitude. We deal with our sadness alone.” (Jordan, 23)

“Korean folks don’t necessarily allow themselves to healthily express sadness.” (Shin, 26)

“Koreans have Han, which I associate with just staying quiet and going through [their sadness].” (Minseok, 28)

“There’s a hyper competitive culture in Korea. They don’t want to express their feelings. They have a fear of burdening others, and they don’t want to show vulnerability, which I think is a fear of judgment as well. If you break the mold, you become alienated.” (Jacob, 32)

One participant cited the opposite:

“North Americans are more subdued, controlled in expressing sadness. In old Korean movies, you see groups of people crying, sobbing together. They share their sadness, they share their burden.” (Heejin, 58).

An interesting dichotomy around “shared burden” emerges in discussions about Korean sadness. Majority of participants feel that Koreans are hesitant to share their sadness with others for fear of burdening them, but some do align with the data in Türker (2013), and see the burden of sadness as something to be shared and born together. If there is a consensus among my participants that the SADNESS IS A BURDEN metaphor exists in Korea, there are different ideas of how this sadness should be expressed, despite the common motivation of benefiting the collective rather than the individual.

In the case of ANGER:

There is less data in my research and interview data that indicates correlation between anger expression and culture in Korea and America. My participants expressed a wide range of perceptions of how anger is expressed in the two cultures.

ANGER in Korea is more reserved:

“Anger in America is a lot more outward, clearly communicated. I think anger is more internal in Korea.” (Abigail, 19)

“Americans are bold and straightforward. Koreans circle around [anger], especially women.” (Olivia, 25)

“A lot of Korean people are not outwardly emotional, there’s a lot of repressing emotions, I find, due to manners, society, formality--there are a lot more social rules.” (Maya, 31)

“Anger tolerance is higher in Korea. In the US, people are blunt, they tell you what they’re feeling right away. In Korea, they keep it more inside. They hide their feelings. They don’t want to burden others either.” (Jacob, 32)

“In Korea, being angry, especially in public, is not as acceptable as in American culture.” (Benjamin, 33)

“Expressing anger in America is very casual to me, anger is embedded in a lot of day to day language and behavior...[Americans] freely throw anger around in their day to day communications. In Korea, a lot of people get offended when you use that kind of communication.” (Sanghoon, 52)

Most of the reasons for increased reservation regarding anger expression in Korea reflect the social emphasis on collectivism: politeness and proper conduct.

ANGER in Korea is more outward:

“I think Koreans, specifically people from Busan, according to stereotypes are much more stoic and prone to anger. They’re quick to let it out.” (Jordan, 23)

“In Korea, if you get mad, you get mad. In America, people, especially women, are more conditioned to be passive aggressive.” (Shin, 26)

“In Korea, [people] might say, ‘I’m gonna kill you,’ and that doesn’t really mean they’re going to kill you, but they are expressing their anger and feelings straight. People in the US cannot do that, they select their words carefully.” (Isaac, 65)

ANGER in Korea is depth, or a potential ANGER IS DEPTH mapping:

“In American culture, anger is petty, it’s pointless. It’s privileged. Korean anger can be petty and shallow too, but it’s more internalized, and deep.” (Minseok, 28)

ANGER in Korea is like ANGER in America

“I don’t think there are cultural differences. Rather, there are personal differences. Some people express [anger] more actively, and others just take more passive aggressive attitudes.” (Heejin, 58)

[azukibeanghost]

Re your post about shipping and r3ylo.. You mentioned you could guess from marketing where they might be going, do you mind sharing what you think? I’m just curious :) esp since you’re a filmmaker

Oh, haha, I’m not actually a filmmaker; it is one of my life plans and I love picking apart stories to see how they tick, and how I could work some of those elements into my own, but I have yet to write or direct a feature.

But nevertheless…

(TLJ SPOILERS AHEAD)

…

If I were to channel my younger self (back when I idolized the most predictable plots ever, thanks to my mostly fairytale-based upbringing) I would say that this sort of yin/yang, opposites-attract, beauty-and-the-beast tale of redemption and hope would absolutely make sense.

- platonic love in Star Wars -

Now, I don’t know if this means that they’re going for a R/K romance; I would definitely prefer if they didn’t, especially given that Kylo Ren is frankly a monster, and all of Star Wars’ romances have made me cringe so far.

In fact, I loved how Rogue One ended without a kiss; the only real romance of that movie was the sort of old-married-couple camaraderie of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus.

I think Star Wars works better when it’s focused on familial themes, and keeps pairings platonic; just think of how much love exists between Luke and Leia, vs. Han and Leia. Perhaps I’m misreading the writers’ intentions, but that moment when Rose told Finn that she saved him because his life is worth more than sacrificing himself to take out the cannon (maybe a lesson she learned from losing her sister?) felt similar to Rey and Finn’s hug in The Force Awakens, or Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor’s embrace towards the end of Rogue One: warm, platonic, and full of affection or comfort. The way I interpreted it, Rose was so weak that hugging Finn was out of the question, so she mustered her strength for a small kiss instead.

- opposites attract / beauty and the beast -

The K/R relationship, on the other hand, reads a lot less like that kind of familial affection, and more like two characters whose destinies and identities are closely intertwined. If Star Wars had prophecies (…does it?), they would feature in one. They are opposites: light and dark, each trying to tug the other towards their side.

This also connects to the beauty-and-the-beast archetype that we love to repeat in fantasy romances: the good, pure woman believes that the flawed, violent monster is capable of being saved, and through her love he is able to redeem himself and become fully human.

This can be a problematic trope, especially since it’s usually framed so that the woman forgives the man’s abuse; nevertheless, it provides a compelling amount of angst and pining, which often resonates strongly with audiences. (Popular examples include the Dr@rry ship, which tugs on many readers’ heartstrings due to the combination of suppressed feelings + outward antagonism; the enemies-to-lovers trope in fanfic; or Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy’s relationship arc in Pride and Prejudice.) Conflict is often more compelling than simple, honest love… and Star Wars’ most famous romance, between Han and Leia, is proof that the franchise has a fondness for this kind of love-hate tension.

- yin and yang -

Now, I am not really a hardcore Star Wars fan and so I might be forgetting something, but from what I can remember, Star Wars has never really done this kind of two-character dichotomy before, which is a little surprising given that it’s a franchise based around these very yin/yang principles of light vs. dark. If they have, it’s been between a good character and a bad character; Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, perhaps. Light and Dark are seen as opposites, and sort of by extension, good and evil/the Empire and the Rebels are that dichotomy. With Rey and Kylo Ren, there is potential for one (or both) to switch sides; Rey is untrained, and has the potential for darkness (Luke appears to be scared of her power in the trailer), while Kylo Ren is introduced in The Force Awakens as having an internal struggle that hints at the possibility of a redemption arc. They are two sides of the same coin.

(However, from what I understand, traditionally, yin and yang do not reflect good and evil. If yin and yang are two opposing forces that exist in everything, balancing them creates peace; therefore, “peace” cannot be one of the two forces, with “violence” as its opposite – and so “good” cannot be a force, with “evil” as its opposite.

This is particularly interesting when you consider the codebreaker’s point in The Last Jedi, that both sides power the same machine. Both sides use violence against the other, to restore their vision of order to the galaxy; the First Order’s happens to include genocide, but regardless of their moral purity, neither side technically embodies “peace.” So in that sense, they aren’t really opposites on the yin/yang scale.)

Despite this, Star Wars generally frames Light vs. Dark as synonymous with good vs. bad, so I suppose we can still interpret these as being two opposites of the yin/yang variety. So, for the sake of our purposes, yin is Dark/bad, and yang is Light/good.

- the Force as a midpoint between two opposites -

Luke teaches Rey that the Force is not something to be used by either side as a tool, but is instead the force that exists between all opposites – this implies that Force sensitive people are not inherently light/good or dark/evil, and make that choice individually. Rey makes this connection directly when she tells Luke that he was wrong to conclude that Kylo Ren needed to be stopped; she argued that his choice was not yet made… but our two characters view their status as Force-sensitive people in different ways:

Rey interprets this as proof that Kylo Ren has the potential to choose to join the Light side, despite his current status on the Dark side; she sees the conflict within him as a temporary state that can be fixed through his conversion.

On the other hand, Kylo Ren interprets the separation of the Force from either end of the spectrum as proof that he and Rey can exit the system entirely, “leave it all behind,” choosing neither the Light/Rebellion nor the Dark/First Order.

Kylo Ren sees that the two sides tug on each other and create endless conflict, in the same way that he and Rey tugged on the lightsaber and split it in two; he wants to resolve his internal conflict by rejecting the system entirely, and he wants to do that with Rey. Without her, he has no one.

- Kylo Ren’s reasons for wanting Rey to join him -

One of the biggest insights into the difference between Kylo Ren and Rey comes when he tells her that nobody cares about her except for him.

First of all, this statement is objectively inaccurate. Finn, Han, Leia, and Chewbacca have all shown fondness for Rey in the first film alone.

What he really means is that he has nobody who cares about him, except for her. Snoke and Hux treat him like garbage, his underlings probably hate him, he’s killed his father, estranged himself from his mother and uncle, and could never really go back and face them even if they forgave him, what with the guilt from all the people he’s murdered.

But she seems to care. What with their mental Force-Skype connection, and with her alternating between “you’re a monster” and “I saw the conflict in you” [there’s potential for goodness in you], he believes that maybe, just maybe, she might understand and sympathize with him. And he’s isolated himself for so long that he probably interprets this as love. (Hence the cringe-y shirtless scene, which I suppose was his attempt at a physical seduction…?? I guess taking his helmet off in The Force Awakens didn’t excite her enough, so he went all-in and tried to seduce her with the PG-13 equivalent of a dick pick.)

He thinks that maybe she could love him, and that would be enough, and he could leave his shitty past behind and not be alone. He acknowledges that he’s a monster, because he knows that he is; he’s just holding out hope that she will forgive him for his sins, because she keeps talking about how he can still be saved… but the problem is that while his idea of balance (the Force) is a balance between Light and Dark, good and evil, her idea of balance is the peace that will come from a Resistance victory. She wants him to resolve his internal conflict by choosing Light over Dark.

- what Rey wants from Kylo Ren -

I think that the main problem with this ship (as a possible direction for them to go; ignoring what I think about it personally) is that it’s pretty one-sided, and based on unhealthy principles. Rey doesn’t want Kylo Ren in a romantic light at all; he’s mind-raped her, killed her surrogate father-figure (who was his own father, adding to her revulsion at his morality), is a major part of the First Order that has terrorized her world and her friend Finn, has almost killed her friend Finn (remember, she doesn’t know that Finn has woken up), and failed Luke.

Rey wants to save Kylo Ren because she believes that it is the right thing to do, not because she has feelings for him. She thinks that if she can convert a major player on the Dark side to the Resistance, the First Order will be weakened, enabling a Resistance victory. She also might want to prove to Luke that he didn’t fail in his teachings.

- will Kylo Ren convert to the Light side? -

Look at what Kylo Ren does when Rey rejects his offer to go with him and leave the Resistance/First Order conflict behind: he tells Hux that she killed Snoke, then takes command of the First Order and resumes his campaign against the remaining Resistance forces. He fights Luke. Let’s be honest, even though the trailer made it look like he was going to start acting on some hidden inner goodness (hesitating when faced with shooting at Leia; the editing suggesting that Rey was asking him for guidance, rather than Luke), this film made it clear that there is only one thing that could make him turn down the Dark side: Rey.

So, what is the most plausible way to end this character arc?

Well, I see one of two options:

Rey continues to try to drag him away from the Dark side, and he accepts… but only because she has agreed to join him. From her perspective, it’s a personal sacrifice for the good of the Resistance; for him, it’s what he wants. The fight in the red room proved that if Rey is involved, he has the potential to fight against the Dark side. But without her, he immediately snaps back to the Dark like he’s a lightsaber and half of the jedi playing tug-of-war suddenly let go.

He ends the trilogy as a villain, on the Dark side. Now, while this makes sense from a real-world standpoint, I don’t know why they would have spent so much screen time focusing on his internal conflict between Light and Dark if he was just going to end up as a bad guy. Like, this took up most of Rey’s plotline in this film, and regardless of that will-she-accept-his-guidance tease from the trailer, I seriously doubt that Rey is going to turn to the Dark side.

So, since I assume they must have some reasoning behind this K/R storyline, and the amount of focus that has been placed on the two characters and their relationship (to the point of minimizing the role of Finn, who was arguably the main protagonist of The Force Awakens, or at least a co-protagonist, with Rey), I would guess that they’re going somewhere with this, and that somewhere just might be a romance. I would really appreciate it if they didn’t, though.

[torterragarden]

top 5 female and top 5 male characters in anything (top 10 if 5 isnt enough), add reasons if you want to 🙋 and a happy new year 🙌

OKAY SO I’M FINALLY GETTING AROUND TO POSTING MY ANSWER FOR THIS THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT. I spent so much time thinking about this because I loved this question and I ended up coming up with a top 10 female characters + reasons and I probably went way overboard like this is so long and I’m sorry. So unfortunately I haven’t made a list for male characters because I got so extra with this female characters list, but another time perhaps. Anyway, top 10 female characters here we go!!

10. Piper Mclean, Heroes of Olympus series - I think what I really like about Piper is that she has a lot of qualities that badly written female characters tend to have, but… she’s written well. What I mean is like… Piper is selfish. She’s whiny. She’s a brat. She’s emotional. Usually when a female character has traits like that, she isn’t likable and probably wasn’t intended to be. But Piper is given a depth and respect that those other female characters aren’t usually afforded. She’s flawed, but she knows it, and she hates her flaws and she tries to better herself. And she’s more than those flaws too! She’s brave and kind and loving, and her emotions - all of them, no matter how ugly - are ultimately her strength. I love that she’s allowed to be so emotional, that it’s good that she’s so emotional, because I feel like there’s this idea that female characters have to be emotionless in order to be “strong” or whatever so anyway yeah I love Piper

9. Emily Davis, Until Dawn - I have a knack for taking a liking to female characters that the majority of the fandom hates, and then loving them even more out of spite. Admittedly, a lot of my aggressive love for Emily is a reaction to the amount of (unfair, reeking of double standards and sexism) hatred she gets in the fandom, but even disregarding that, I do really like her. I started liking her very early on in Until Dawn. She seemed like she had a lot of personality and I liked that, and I only liked her more as the game went on. I mean… I literally have a post listing all of the reasons that I love Emily so that should tell you everything, right?

8. Amethyst, Steven Universe - I hesitated to put Amethyst on the list, since I’m not sure if she technically counts as “female”, but at the very least I think it’s fair to say that she’s female-coded and female-aligned so… I thought it would be okay? She would probably have been a lot higher up if not for the fact that I’ve lost a lot of my interest in SU, but I still love Amethyst a hell of a lot. I relate to her very strongly, for reasons that are not super comfortable to talk about. Much like Amethyst, I tend to bottle up everything and let it eat away at me until everything just explodes in the ugliest way. I think very little of myself, but I try my best to stay chill-passing because I’d rather die than tell anyone how I’m actually feeling. I don’t like going into detail about this but basically Amethyst is important to me because I relate to her in a lot of ugly and painful ways, and loving Amethyst is almost like learning to love myself. Almost.

7. Princess Bubblegum, Adventure Time - It’s funny that Adventure Time as a whole is one of those “I Definitely Like This But I’m Not Super Passionate About It” things, but there are like, four things in that show that I do feel Super Passionate about. Princess Bubblegum is one of them (the other three are Ice King, Marceline, and Bubbline, in case you were wondering). Gotdamn dude I love Princess Bubblegum and I think she doesn’t get nearly enough attention for being as interesting as she is. From the beginning I loved how she was simultaneously really sweet and morally ambiguous, that’s a really funny and intriguing dichotomy. I love that while she’s ultimately working for the Greater Good™, she’s really ruthless and vindictive. She has good intentions but she’s so very flawed, and she can be downright terrifying. Bubblegum is just endlessly fascinating to me and I really love her.

6. Cassie Cage, Mortal Kombat - Well obviously she had to be on this list, she’s where I got my url from. My love for Cassie Cage is less about who she is and more about what she represents to me, I think. Mortal Kombat isn’t exactly known for having great depictions of female characters but they did improve a lot in Mortal Kombat X, and I fell in love with Cassie partially because, to me, she embodied a lot of the positive changes. I loved that she was the heroine of MKX, I loved that she wasn’t overtly sexualized, I loved that she was funny and confident and just so damn cool, in that way that classic action heroes are cool. Chewing bubblegum and flipping people off and sassing everyone and just being exactly what comes to mind when you think “bad ass”. She was so different and so unexpected and I was so pleasantly surprised with Cassie Cage.

5. Katniss Everdeen, The Hunger Games - Katniss is one of the most important fictional characters ever written okay. This is a girl who grew up in extreme poverty, who took it upon herself to take care of her family at age 12, who was hardened because of her circumstances but still compassionate, and still so vulnerable. She suffered from severe PTSD, she was used as a pawn by the Capitol and by the rebels, she was manipulated and taken advantage of and she lost everything because of it. And in the end she still found a way to stand up and keep going. She didn’t magically get better but she made a life worth living for herself, even if she had to constantly remind herself of the good things in her life. I fucking love Katniss okay.

4. Jaehee Kang, Mystic Messenger - Yeah I kind of feel like trash for having a character from a god damn dating sim on here but tbh Mystic Messenger is so good it makes me angry (you are a dating sim what business do you have being that good fuck you) so I don’t feel too much like trash. Only a little bit like trash. Anyway, Jaehee. Holy god where do I even start. She is just so beautiful. That’s the first word that comes to mind, and I’m not even talking about her appearance (although yeah she’s definitely very attractive). It’s just her, man. She is so kind, so patient, so hard-working, so strong after everything she’s been through. I love that even though outwardly she’s more serious and formal than most of the other characters, there’s this underlying sweetness and quirkiness that shines through, like when she fangirls over Zen or when she says things like “benefits were effing amazing” when explaining to her boss why hosting fundraising parties is a good idea. I also love that as kind and polite as she is, she can and will mercilessly drag people she’s a fucking savage and I love her. I just love her so much. Jaehee is effing amazing.

3. Asami Sato, Legend of Korra - First of all, she’s canonically a bisexual woman in a relationship with another bisexual woman and that’s super important to me for representation. Second of all, even before Korrasami was made canon I really adored Asami. Because seriously, Asami is one of the kindest and most loyal characters in anything ever, she is such a good person through and through, even though there are so many things that have happened to her that sound like the sort of things that would motivate most characters to be villains. Her mother was murdered, her father was a terrorist who betrayed her and threatened to kill her friends, her boyfriend cheats on her, her closest friend and love interest leaves her for three years, her father fucking dies in front of her after they had just barely started to reconcile. Asami faces so much tragedy, if anyone has a right to be an asshole it would be her, yet she is still so unfailingly kind and brave and good. Also, for the record, she is probably the prettiest animated character I have ever seen in my life.

2. Agent Texas, Red vs Blue - Okay so. Red vs Blue has a lot of… issues with how it writes the few female characters it has, and I’m not going to act like Tex is this amazingly well written female character because she’s really not. But this isn’t my top 10 well-written female characters this is my top 10 favorite female characters, and whatever writing problems RvB may have, I really do love Tex. So much. It’s also a bit complicated to love Tex cause it’s like… which one lmao. I love Beta!Tex, who was tough and snarky and effortlessly bad ass, but also kind and compassionate and very, very chill. Like sure she could kick your ass and you know she could, but eh, she doesn’t really need to. The fact that you know she could is enough. And then there’s Epsilon!Tex, who was just angry, but who in many ways was the most important iteration of Tex to me. She was angry because ffs she was tired of not being her own person. She was tired of Church seeing her as His Girlfriend and not much else, she was tired of being Allison’s shadow, tired of her existence being all about other people, never about herself. Tex’s story is ultimately about a search for agency, to create an identity for herself separate from what other people want from her, and that’s always stuck with me.

1. Hermione Granger, Harry Potter - Honestly, I’m not sure if I’m putting her here because she is genuinely my favorite female character, or I’m putting her here because I can’t imagine putting anyone else here. Though I guess if I can’t imagine putting someone else here, that’s a sign that she is my favorite? Idk. I like Harry Potter less than I once did, less than I think a lot of people in my life realize, but being a Harry Potter Fan is such a big part of my identity to them that I don’t think they can see me any other way. But, even with my enthusiasm for HP these days being relatively low, I can’t deny that the series had a huge impact on me growing up and it definitely did a lot to shape the type of person I am, and it’s always going to be a bit special because of that. Hermione played a big part. She was one of the first female characters I can remember really admiring. I was nothing like her but I wanted to be, because she was smart and bad ass and complex and honestly do I even need to explain why Hermione is amazing? You all know. However I feel about HP now, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to forget the impact it had on me and I don’t think I’ll ever be able to forget Hermione.

[blockheadbrands]

6 Common Myths and Controversies About High-CBD Cannabis

Dr, Dustin Sulak of Leafly Reports:

Cannabidiol (CBD) is an exciting focus of medical research, popular media, and legislation related to cannabis. Its presence is becoming ubiquitous on the shelves of health food stores and search engine results for numerous medical conditions, but don’t believe everything you hear. While CBD is an incredibly safe and therapeutic component of cannabis, there are many myths and misconceptions associated with it. Let’s take a look at a few.

 RELATED STORY

What Are High-CBD Cannabis Strains and How Do They Differ From High-THC Strains?

Myth #1: CBD is non-psychoactive and medical; THC is recreational.

Both lay and scientific literature have classified CBD as a “non-psychoactive” substance, meaning that it does not alter one’s consciousness. But how could CBD fail to impact consciousness when it’s been shown to have anti-anxiety, anti-psychotic, anti-craving, alerting, and mood-elevating effects in human studies?

CBD clearly impacts our psyche, often in beneficial ways. It does not, however, impair mental or physical function in most consumers, even very high doses. Thus, CBD can be considered psychoactive, but “non-impairing” or “non-intoxicating.”[i]

One doesn’t need to treat a serious medical condition in order to benefit from the use of CBD and to enjoy sharing it socially.

Most Leafly readers have already recognized and overcome the false dichotomy that CBD is the medical part of the plant and THC is for recreation. THC is clearly medicinal–hundreds of clinical trials have demonstrated that THC has remarkable and very relevant medicinal properties.

If THC is both medical and recreational, can the same be said about CBD?  Likely not. While CBD clearly has medicinal benefits, very few people would want to use it for recreation. CBD does not produce a “rewarding” or strongly pleasurable effect.  Its use in animal and human studies is not associated with euphoria, craving, compulsive use, or any other sign that would indicate it has recreational uses or drug abuse liability.

 RELATED STORY

CBD vs. THC: Why Is CBD Non-Intoxicating?

But this begs the question–where does recreation end and therapeutic use begin? If a group of friends shares a CBD-dominant spray or vape pen, they’re not likely to start giggling and telling long stories punctuated by periods of wondering what they were talking about. But they may be more likely to feel relaxed, focused, and resilient to stress. One doesn’t need to treat a serious medical condition in order to benefit from the use of CBD and to enjoy sharing it socially.

Myth #2: CBD is sedating.

While some early studies attributed a sedating effect to CBD-dominant cannabis preparations, CBD itself is not sedating; it is actually alerting. CBD has been shown to counteract the sedative effects of THC, delay sleep time, and reduce THC-associated “hangover.”[ii]  Even very high doses of pure CBD, such as 600 mg in a single dose, have not produced a sedating effect in healthy subjects.[iii] Why the confusion?  It may be that varieties of cannabis that contain high levels of CBD often also contain significant amounts of myrcene, a potentially sedating terpene.

I occasionally see patients who report that CBD can disturb their sleep.  More often, patients tell me that CBD makes them feel awake, but when they lay down and close their eyes, they have no trouble sleeping.

Myth #3: A little CBD is enough.

I’ve been known as a strong proponent of using very low doses of cannabis to treat medical conditions, enhance the endocannabinoid system, avoid side effects, and prevent tolerance to cannabis. So, it may surprise you that I often support using high doses of CBD, especially when it is used in the absence of significant quantities of THC.

Milligram for milligram, CBD is much less potent than THC at relieving symptoms.

Why? Milligram for milligram, CBD is much less potent than THC at relieving symptoms. For example, one of my patients who experiences pain or anxiety relief with 3 to 5 mg of THC may require 30 to 200 mg of CBD to produce similar results, if they can be achieved at all. And while there is significant overlap in the symptoms that can be treated with either THC or CBD, the way in which they relieve these symptoms and the individual responses to these two agents varies significantly.

Studies that have used pharmaceutical-grade CBD to treat anxiety, schizophrenia, and seizures have used hundreds of milligrams per dose. This would be simply unaffordable for most consumers. But could lower doses of CBD provide some benefit?  The answer is likely yes. Some of my patients report feeling more alert, focused, and clear-headed after using as little as 2 to 20 mg of CBD by mouth, or after a couple inhalations of CBD-dominant cannabis. 

 RELATED STORY

We Asked a Scientist: What’s the Right Dose of CBD?

Myth #4: CBD is the same from hemp, medical cannabis, or isolate.

A molecule of CBD is the same regardless of its origin in medical cannabis, hemp, or a laboratory. But do the various CBD products on the market have the same effects regardless of their origin? Likely not.

While CBD is a remarkable medicine, it clearly works best in the context of its phytochemical brothers and sisters from the plant cannabis, especially THC. When used together, CBD can enhance the therapeutic effects of THC while reducing the adverse effects. Even very low levels of THC, plus additional components of the cannabis plant, seem to enhance the benefits of CBD on pain and inflammation, at least in one rodent study.[iv]

While the distinction between medical cannabis and hemp varieties continues to blur, it is still likely that hemp is a less efficient source of CBD–much higher amounts of hemp starting material, compared to medical cannabis varieties, may be needed to extract CBD. This may increase the risk of contaminants in the final product. Furthermore, the hemp-based CBD industry is rampant with mislabeling. A recent study found that only 31% of 84 CBD products purchased online were accurately labeled for CBD content.

 RELATED STORY

Addressing Inconsistent Label Claims in the Hemp and Cannabis Industry

So, what’s the best source of CBD?  Whenever possible, I recommend locally grown, artisanal produced, laboratory-tested products acquired through a legal medical cannabis program. I realize that this is not possible for all readers. If you’re purchasing online, it can be hard to know what retailer to trust and, unfortunately, there’s no good solution unless you have access to third-party laboratory testing for cannabinoid potency and contaminants. I encourage hemp-based CBD consumers to ask for detailed answers about quality control–some companies will provide copies of a laboratory analysis that correlates with the batch in question.

Myth #5: Cannabidiol works by activating cannabinoid receptors.

We all have an endocannabinoid system as an essential part of life. It helps us respond to illness and injury, restoring balance at a cellular level, and is always functioning in all of our organs and tissues to keep us healthy. This system is thus a natural target for therapeutic interventions, including herbs, drugs, and lifestyle modifications, in almost every disease known to man.  The hard-to-believe efficacy of medical cannabis in the treatment of neurologic, inflammatory, gastrointestinal, psychiatric, infectious, and metabolic conditions is justified by the widespread presence and healing effects of the endocannabinoid system.

 RELATED STORY

How to Stimulate the Endocannabinoid System Without Cannabis

The therapeutic effects of CBD are similar in many ways to those of its close relative, THC. Both relieve pain, spasticity, nausea, anxiety, and seizures, and both decrease inflammation.[v] We know that THC works like our bodies’ endocannabinoids; both turn on the cannabinoid receptors and lead to cellular activities that restore physiologic balance.

One would assume that CBD works in a similar manner, but this is, in fact, a misconception. CBD does not directly stimulate the CB1 or CB2 receptors. Instead, when CBD comes into contact with these receptors, it actually turns down their activity level, causing a mild to moderate decrease in the effects of THC and endocannabinoid signaling at the CB1 receptor.[vi]

Despite its ability to directly decrease cannabinoid signaling, CBD also has the ability to indirectly increase cannabinoid signaling. It does this by inhibiting the breakdown and transport of our most abundant endocannabinoid, anandamide.[vii] One clinical study showed that patients with schizophrenia who were treated with 800 mg of CBD daily had significant increases in their levels of anandamide over 28 days.[viii]

If it’s hard to make sense of these two opposite properties of CBD, welcome to cannabinoid science, a field riddled with opposites and paradoxes. If you take CBD, is it going to inhibit or stimulate your endocannabinoid system? The answer is probably both, and it likely depends on your needs and the amount of CBD you take.

 RELATED STORY

CBD and the Brain: What Does It Do and What Is It Good For?

Myth #6: CBD is legal in all 50 states.

Just because everyone says that CBD is legal, it’s for sale at your health food store or tobacco shop, available on Amazon, and has no abuse potential, you might think that it probably is legal. If you ask the DEA, however, you’ll find that they disagree.

 RELATED STORY

Is CBD Oil Legal? Depends on Where You Are and Who You Ask

Take a look at this 2015 memo from the Drug Enforcement Administration.[ix] According to the Controlled Substances Act, CBD is considered a member of the group of “tetrahydrocannabinols.”  The FDA has also stated that a CBD product cannot be considered a “dietary supplement” because it has been “authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public…”  This language can be found in the numerous letters the FDA has been sending to online CBD retailers.[x]

Fortunately, I don’t believe there is any real danger of legal consequences to the CBD supplement consumer. Retailers and producers of hemp-based CBD products still may face some risk, which depends on how motivated our federal agencies are to enforce these regulations that do nothing to protect public health.

Now that we’ve cleared up a few of the misperceptions about CBD, you might want to look at more myths about cannabis. Also, for more information on how to use cannabis therapeutically, you can access Healer’s free programs for new consumers, existing consumers looking for more benefits, and health providers needing support.

TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE ON LEAFLY, CLICK HERE.

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/separating-cbd-facts-from-myths