#Ignoring Fundamental Analysis

[stockexperttrading]

This comprehensive blog from Funded Traders Global covers the Price Action Strategy and mastering market trends for successful trading. It begins by defining the Price Action Strategy, emphasizing its importance in predicting future price movements. The blog explores the components of Price Action, including candlestick patterns, support and resistance levels, and chart patterns. It highlights the benefits of this strategy, such as simplicity, enhanced decision-making, and its applicability to various markets.

The blog outlines key principles of Price Action, including candlestick patterns, support and resistance levels, and trendlines and channels. It then focuses on reading market trends, with an emphasis on identifying trends, assessing their strength, and recognizing trend reversals. The importance of setting clear trading goals and effective risk management is stressed, along with crafting precise entry and exit strategies.

Common mistakes to avoid in trading are discussed, including overtrading, ignoring fundamental analysis, and emotional trading. The blog also provides information on essential tools and resources, including recommended charting software, books, courses, and online trading communities to support traders in their journey.

In conclusion, the blog encourages traders to apply the knowledge gained, practice consistently, and continue their education to become proficient and successful traders. Trading is described as both an art and a science, emphasizing the importance of discipline and adaptability in the ever-evolving world of finance.

[movedtodykedvonte]

Someone I forget it’s like hinted Jevil is hundreds of years old or at least way older than most other adult characters outside of card kingdomers.

I suppose his world view could be a result of that cause what if he was desperate to go back like Spamton before. What if he wanted to reverse the effects on their mind and psyche? What if he crossed a line and wanted a redo?

And what if all those years locked away, without a means to find answers slowly did away with any of those desires?

[ei-mugi]

im not a even a fan of the "hellaverse" but i have seen helluva boss and with all the twitter uproar over the hazbin ep4 leaks i went and found a reaction video of the full ep on yt so i could see how bad it really was and. jesus christ. theres certainly analysis of the visuals that could be had regarding the original criticisms but for me the episode was more like... 1. angel dust is the exact same character as fizzarolli 2. hellaverse is never going to break away from writing its characters like a whump fic is it and 3. this is an absolutely horrible portrayal of sex workers. vivienne pleaseeeee get your head out of the yaoi bin and remind yourself of like. women and misogyny. and stop writing all your sex worker/sexually abused (notice how that is grouped together) characters in the same way. sex workers arent all victims who need to be saved from their jobs

[cryptotheism]

You don’t fuck w nick land? How come?

I think accellerationism is a fundamentally juvenile ideology, barely distinct from fascism in that it's proponents have read enough Marx to pretend they can ignore material analysis.

[doberbutts]

I remember reading a post that men are the oppressor class so why would they bother to dismantle systemic patriarchy when they actively benefit from its existence? And as I read it, I thought, Damn, so an entire half of the population can never conceivably help us, and the people who love men in their lives are doomed. It wasn't a helpful post. It basically felt, here's some actual material analysis on feminism and said, That trying to educate and make men be part of feminism is fundamentally a flawed effort, because again, they are the oppressor class, why should they care about uplifting the oppressed?

And it made me think about this very good pamphlet I read, explaining how the white worker remained complacent for so long because at least they weren't a Black slave. And that the author theorized the reason labor movements never truly created exceptional, radical change is because of internal racism (which I find true) and failure to uplift black people. And the author listed common outlooks/approaches to this problem, and one of them was: "We should ignore the white folks entirely and hold solidarity with only other POC, and the countries in the Global South. Who needs those wishy-washy white fragile leftists who don't care about what we think or want?" (roughly paraphrased.)

And the author said, This sounds like the most leftist and radical position, but it's totally flawed because it absolves us of our responsibility to dismantle white supremacy for the sake of our fellow marginalized people, and we are basically ignoring the problem. And that blew me away because this is a position so many activists have, to just ignore the white folks and focus entirely on our own movements. I wish I knew the name of the actual pamphlet, so I could quote entire passages at you.

But I feel this is the same for men. Obviously, we should prioritize and have women-led and women-focused feminism. But saying that men are an oppressor class so they can't reliably be counted upon in feminist activism--it's such a huge oversimplification. And mainly, I'm a Muslim, and I've been treated with plenty of misogyny from Muslim men. And also plenty of misogyny from Muslim women. And I love my male friends, I want men to be part of the movement, and I dunno. Thinking about communities, movements, and the various ways we fail each other and what it means to be truly intersectional keeps me up at night.

I don't know the pamphlet you're talking about but I've read and been taught similar. There's a reason much of my anti-racism is so feminist and most of my feminism is anti-racist. Many people coming at this problem from a truly intersectional angle have seen that there is no freedom to be had without joining hands across the community. Not picking and choosing our allies based off of identity but off of behavior.

As used in a previous example, a white abled moderately wealthy man saying "wow Healthcare sucks in this country, why does this system suck so bad" should be told "hey, this system sucks so bad because it's built off of sexism, racism, classism, and ableism. You want to improve the system? Fix those things and it will be much better in the long run" and not "shut up you're a man. Healthcare is always going to be better for you". The second response doesn't fix that Healthcare is still a problem even if you are at the "top" of the privilege ladder. If we want true change, we have to dismantle the entire system at it's core and build it up without the yuck, otherwise you're gunna get to the top and realize this place sucks too.

Something something if the crabs worked together to hold each other up, they could all get out of the bucket and be free.

[apas-95]

like. okay yeah I have my own criticisms of bourgeois academia as an instrument of class rule, but some of this is a bit silly. a lot of people are acting as though academia refers solely to like, literature degrees.

like at a fundamental level, yes, the purpose of a degree is as a barrier to access - but that is not in and of itself always a negative thing! the proletariat also requires the ability to produce, assess, and verify intellectuals. all the 'why the fuck should I care if the student across from me cheated on their tests, never attended class, etc' talk falls apart when the question being answered by their possession of a degree is 'should this person be permitted to design and construct buildings'! fundamentally, yes, someone cheating on their exams devalues a degree, because the confidence in qualification granted by that degree is lessened - not to mention the inherent danger of a fraudulent qualification! (strangely, this argument hasn't been extended to driving license exams yet, though I'm sure the inevitable libertarian convergence isn't far away.)

in all the discussion of burning down the local polytechnical, i have seen vague mention to academia existing as a barrier to access, some scant reference to discrimination against poor and minority students, but zero mention of the actual role of bourgeois academia and the intelligentsia in upholding bourgeois rule! it's all simply coming from the point of view of the restrictiveness being bad because it prevents people from getting high-paying jobs or the like, and the vague notion of elitism. again, with all abolition discourse here, given the lack of any real class analysis, the question is - are we talking solely within the context of capitalism, of existing bourgeois institutions? if so, why? why limit our positions to capitalist realism, to an essentially liberal discourse? if not - then how have we not reconciled the real, practical value of these technologies (mass education, examination, qualification) with their specific characteristics under capitalism?

everything has both positive and negative aspects. bourgeois class rule itself, even, was once a truly progressive thing. we can acknowledge the negative side of bourgeois academia without ignoring its positive side - and still take it on the whole that it, along with all bourgeois institutions, should be torn down and replaced by proletarian ones. that, stripped of their capitalist character, these are useful barriers.

Fundamentally, the point is this: why is our focus on attacking the barriers keeping us from class mobility, from high-paying jobs, themselves; instead of on attacking the existence of the high-paying, middle-class jobs that themselves characterise a fundamentally useful, practical system like examination as an instrument of class rule?

[giantkillerjack]

Me: I don't like when shows queerbait me.

Other Fans: Well then just watch other shows, dummy!!!!

Me: 👍👍👍 wow what a tidy way to dismiss and invalidate a legitimate reaction to homophobic story tropes! 👍👍👍

The "just leave then" response to people wanting more inclusivity from the stories they love is not just emotionally invalidating - it is also one of the things that keeps storytellers from feeling that they need to improve in the future by making fans feel stupid for demanding better representation in the first place.

This kind of response doesn't just make you sound like a conservative (since this is a VERY popular response that conservatives have when confronted with leftist media criticism), it also fundamentally ignores the fact that there may not BE an equivalent story with good rep to go to after leaving the queerbait-y one behind.

Delicious in Dungeon is special and unique; that's why I genuinely love it. It is that love that makes me want it to do better.

When I see that Shuro is allowed to openly express romantic love for Falin, but Marcille/Falin is relegated to mere implication, it makes me really sad. It may not be a romance manga, but there ARE straight couples, and hetero desire IS on display - which makes the lack of open queerness all the more noticeable.

So when people say "just go watch something else" in response to my genuine sadness and irritation that a beloved story is excluding people like me..... Are you telling me there's a nearly identical queer show - with a similarly active fandom - all about found family learning to cook beautiful foods in a dungeon? Is my favorite-guy-ever Senshi going to be there? Is there actually a place for me to go to??

OR is there only one Delicious in Dungeon, and that's what makes it great?

I think actually folks who respond this way just want me to leave, and they don't really care where I go, so long as their favorite thing doesn't have to stand up to criticism.

Because I don't want lesbian media elsewhere. I want it here, with my friend Marcille. Here, where the seeds of queer romance were purposely planted to hook my attention. What's so wrong with being disappointed if those seeds never grow to bear fruit??

We can like good art and still demand it does better. And we can validate people who are sad it isn't doing better without getting defensive. Critical analysis is healthy and important. It's how good and bad stories are fully understood, and it's how better stories get made.

And while I will try to enjoy the plentiful delicious crumbs I am being served (since it is more than most shows give me), just because I CAN squish a bunch of crumbs together into the approximate shape of a muffin, that doesn't mean I've been served a meal.

More on this topic because I love a good analogy

My original post about queerbaiting in Dungeon Meshi (that inspired this one with the replies I got from it)

[adickaboutspoons]

Oh boy. Okay. Here we go

A totes calm and measured response to this post over here by @themetabridge. Forgiveness for the whole new post. I had too much to say to fit into what Tumblr apparently thinks is an appropriate length for a re-blog.

First? I mean. Text just means the words and actions as they are said and shown in a given piece of media being analyzed. Which is what I’m here to do with my meta – textual analysis. That’s why I insist on textual support for any argument interpreting the media in question. Naked assertions do nothing to explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Vibes aren’t good enough. Show me what IN THE TEXT made you think what you think, and I will do you the courtesy of the same. Otherwise, I don’t see how we could possibly have much to say to one another.

The fundamental breakdown we are having is that you have failed to provide a textual basis for why you think Ed is a bad person. While I respect your assertion that a person’s essential goodness is predicated on the actions that they perform, I cannot respect the corollary supposition that there are actions that are either “good” or “bad” in a vacuum, as this completely ignores circumstance and motivation. WHY someone does something is AT LEAST as important as WHAT they did.

For example - Stede killed Ned Lowe in cold blood. Does it matter that he did it because Ned “shit-talked [his] friend and damaged [his] ship,” and “fucked Calypso’s birthday”? Does it matter that Ed, the person whom Ned’s shit-talk actually impacted, told Stede not to do it? Twice? Does it matter that Ned was a subdued enemy combatant, and as such could have just as easily been gagged like Hornberry and the overtly racist Wellington, who survived imprisonment and went on to watch Ed and Stede sign the Act of Grace? Do we compare Ned to the French Captain who got flayed for his racist rhetoric, though Ned’s comment was, strictly speaking, about Ed’s class rather than his race? How far are we going to go to disentangle class and race when one absolutely informs the other?

How about a more straight-forward example; Stede set an unnamed man on fire and quipped about it like some asshole 80's action hero. Does it matter that he threatened Stede’s life? How about if, when he did so, he was twenty feet away, armed only with the bottle he had just broken over his head, and there were half-a dozen pirates between him and Stede who all thought Stede was hot shit, and so Stede was in no immediate danger? What if Stede has a long history of people making attempts on his life, and being unsure that he even deserves to live, and this is meant to show that, now that he has something to live for, he’s done with the part of his life where he lets anyone try to take that away from him?

This is what I mean when I say that the show is careful to never outright condemn the use of violence. The narrative tells us clearly that, within the context of the show, some things are more important than an unnamed or one-off character’s life – preservation of one’s own life or the lives of one’s loved ones, dignity in the face of racially-based persecution, resistance to colonial oppressors. The reasons for and direction of violence matters. Context matters.

And speaking of context, you misunderstand me when you suppose that only what literally appears before our eyes counts can be “read into the text”. I refuse to give extra-textual sources of information (such as the historical reality of sergeant recruiters and being pressed into service or the historical Golden Age of Piracy) any weight unless they can be validated by in-text support, because the show itself cares fuck-all about historical accuracy. But extrapolations about the in-show universe based on in-text support are fine.

So, considering that the very first thing we hear in the show is Frenchie’s little ditty about the violent reality of a pirate’s life, and considering Jack’s comment at brekkie about how pirating is an "ugly profession”, and considering what we see of the raids in 1x5 and 2x2, we can reasonably conclude that pirate culture is steeped in toxic masculinity where the expectation of performing violence is de rigueur. Because Ed has carved out a successful reputation as Blackbeard, and because we see the ease with which he can go from being casually conversant with Stede to “giving it some oomph” to scare the location of the treasure out of the French captain in 1x5 with the THREAT of violence, we can reasonably conclude that he can successfully perform the required violent displays of piratical society (or at least, given that we know by his bathtub confession that he has not personally killed anyone since his father, he can adopt a convincing enough posturing that no one would doubt he COULD). From his interactions with Jack and familiarity with “yardies” and “whippies”, and his ruminations about “the old days” of “drinking all day and biting the heads off turtles or making some poor bloke eat his own toes for a laugh”, and Fang’s assertion that Ed made him kill his dog, we can reasonably assume that Ed has a history with casual violence for the sake of fun and cruelty for cruelty’s sake.

However.

I think “the old days” is an important qualifier there. Season 1 Izzy may be frustrated that Ed is not performing Blackbeard sufficiently well to suit him (on that point we can agree), but even by his own deathbed confession “for YEARS I egged [him] on, even though I knew [Ed] had outgrown [the Blackbeard persona]” (emphasis mine, and pin in that for a moment). In 2x1, Fang is crying into his cake saying “I’ve never seen Blackbeard like this” - indicating that the conditions of the Kraken era are NOT the norm. The slivers of Ed we see in 1x3 before the Spanish raid are marked by him speaking calmly and rationally to Izzy (in stark contradiction to Izzy’s insistence that he’s half-mad) never even raising his voice much less using threats or any actual violence to get Izzy to do what he wants. In fact, it is Izzy who suggests a course of action involving very normative piratical violence (“Do we open fire? Or would you rather we just attack them, kill them, throw them out to the sharks, sir?”), which Ed counters with a genteel proposition - inviting (not even ordering!) Stede aboard for a face-to-face meeting. Izzy being comfortable enough to push back against orders (“Oh, Edward, can’t I just send the boys?”) even suggests that he feels no threat from Ed at all. Every indication is that by the time we meet Ed, well before he ever meets Stede, he’s already well past done with violence for violence sake.

When Ed does meet with Stede, before he’d fallen in love (Even though the are the U-Hauliest, I would argue “fascination” with a possible side of “infatuation”, but certainly not yet love), one of the early conversations they have is about the depiction of Blackbeard in Stede’s book of pirates. Ed expresses revulsion and anger that the persona that he’s worked so hard to cultivate has been twisted into a hyper-violent parody - a “Vampire Viking Clown” that’s barely even human, with a head of smoke and overladen with weapons and hardly bears any resemblance to the real man. We’re meant to understand that this is not a valid or accurate representation of who he is. Violence is a normative part of pirate life, but he has “one knife, and one gun JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE” (emphasis mine, again) - he doesn’t shirk from using the tools of violence when it’s necessary, but he is NOT excessively or wantonly violent. 

And we SEE the evidence of this because of how Stede reacts to the way Ed acts around Jack. Jack keeps Ed drunk all day, decoupling his inhibitions from his decision-making processes and, in spite of Ed explicitly saying that he’s mellowed out, Jack eggs him into the kind of hyper-violent Jackassery that is excessive even for pirate society if the nervous reactions of Stede’s crew are any indication. Of course, this is all part of Jack’s plan - to manipulate both Ed and Stede and force them apart - and the reason that it works is because the way Ed acts around Jack is NOT the way he chooses to act under his own volition, hence Stede’s frustration and disappointment.

While I agree that piratical violence is not political praxis, I would argue that, considering that every raid we have witnessed Ed participate in has been against a representative of colonial power and, more often than not, specifically the enforcing arm thereof, it’s not unfair to conclude that Ed’s reasoning goes that if piratical violence is to be done, better against someone who deserves it than not - i.e. those who perpetuate the violence of colonialism. Regarding instances of violence outside the context of raids, here’s where we take that pin out of Izzy. Izzy and Ed are locked in a cycle of abuse over the first season, wherein Izzy decides that Ed is not Blackbearding hard enough, and, because he feels entitled to controlling Ed’s actions, bullies and harasses him into capitulating  - typically in the form of performing violence. Afterwards, Izzy performs some form of deference - apologizing and/or acting as though he’s going to leave, which Ed “talks him down from” and mercifully allows him to stay. It’s why, when Ed sees Izzy packing up a dinghy (lol. With what? It’s not like he’s on his own ship or would have brought his things with him, or sacked plunder from the Revenge. Clearly he was just stalling until Ed noticed him and swooped in to do his part of the cycle) he tells Stede he “should deal with this,” as though it’s tedious, but normal occurrence. I think an important part of this cycle as the season progresses, though, is how Izzy keeps upping the stakes.

So by the time we get to the end of the season, when the last iteration of the cycle starts up again (when Ed is once more insufficiently Blackbearding by being emotionally vulnerable and open with the crew following his return to the Revenge and his stint in the pillow fort (note that Izzy is apparently FINE with Ed not being Peak Pirate, just as long as he hides it away from everyone), and Izzy once more bullies and threatens Ed) this time it is especially cruel - Izzy is a thumb in the wound, attacking Ed at his most vulnerable and saying it would be better if Ed was DEAD than “pining for his boyfriend.” This iteration now also brings with it a history of escalation (first in Izzy bringing Fang and Ivan in to force Ed's hand about killing Stede, lest he look "weakened by the love of a pet" before his crew, and therefore in danger of mutiny, and then by bringing in the British Navy to force Ed to take Izzy back - or rather, to force Izzy back into Ed's life because the terms of the agreement see Ed remanded into Izzy's custody as though he is property to be distributed at the will of the Brits) - an established pattern of the lengths to which Izzy will go to get what he wants, and so a very real threat implicit in Izzy’s warning that “Ed had better watch his step” as Izzy serves only Blackbeard. So Ed gives him what he wants. He Blackbeards it up just like Izzy insisted, and lets Izzy know in no uncertain terms that the insubordination is done. It’s not a "frat boy prank" when he cuts off Izzy’s toe and feeds it to him, or even something from which he's deriving pleasure as he might have in the old days; it’s a calculated, proportional response, done under duress and against his own inclinations, but exactly the tool required to get the message across clearly.

As to the question of why it matters if Ed is bad, first and foremost, because saying that he is bad requires you to explicitly read contrary to the text. If you’re not going to engage with the text on its own terms, I don’t see how you can do any analysis of what story it’s trying to tell. I already discussed the ways in which the narrative is specifically about how Ed is NOT bad, even when he himself thinks he is. I have also discussed how, while “violence is never the answer” may be broadly understood to be the correct way of comporting oneself in real life, the show never condemns violence across the board. The show condemns cruelty, both on an interpersonal and societal level, but positions the use of violence as an acceptable and reasonable response thereunto. It treats circumstance and motivation with nuance and weight. Living within this context, Ed’s use of violence by the time we meet him is well within the normative acceptable application thereof. Judging him by standards outside the context of the story within which he exists makes as much sense as judging the Stede from the show for being a slave owner because that’s historical fact - that’s just not applicable to who he is in THIS story.

But more importantly, it matters because Ed is a POC character. Describing him as “cruel and perverse” for utilizing violence, particularly when the violence he uses is NOT excessive or impulsive, perpetuates negative race-based stereotypes about hyper-violent men of color. Characterizing him as “bad” for his use of violence when other (white) characters, such as Stede, use violence in similar ways, or are cruel or petty, but can still be considered, on balance, “good” means that Ed is being held to a different, higher standard than those white characters, and perpetuates the frankly racist criteria of expecting POC exceptionalism for POCs to be considered for the base-line assumptions of acceptability that are afforded to their white counterparts. Saying that Stede’s love is what changed Ed’s behavior from cruelty to wholesale abandoning piratical principles is not only antithetical to what actually happens in the show, but suggests a read that POC Ed needs a good white man to show him how to behave, a real white knight to tame his savage heart. That’s some real White Man’s Burden shit there, bro. I highly recommend you put it down.

[itskynn]

My take on Adventure Time's Breezy.

I originally posted this on Twitter but decided that since Tumblr lacks a word limit I can expand on what I mean and basically go more in depth on my personal analysis of my favorite show.

The rest of this post will be dedicated to expanding on, not only Breezy is an important episode for Adventure Time, but why the view of this episode as "ableist" entirely misses the point the episode was trying to make. Final reminder this is just my personal opinion and you are free to disagree. Let's get into it.

The shortest description I can give of Breezy is Finn pursuing countless princesses while being aided by a bee called "Breezy" that really just wants the flower growing on Finn's arm.

The episode ends with Finn's missing arm regrowing completely, with a thorn sticking from his palm, a remnant of the grass sword.

BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT, I FEEL THE NEED TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE CITADEL EPISODE FOR A SECOND.

(Sorry for very low quality video.)

"Wake Up" (AKA: The Citadel episode) has to be one of Adventure Time's most talked about episodes so I probably don't need to give the entire explanation of the plot to you.

Finn losing his arm in this episode represents a "new normal" for our hero, where he has to accept that his positive mindset doesn't always result in success, specially in this episode where his father not only is revealed to be deeply uncaring about Finn (at least from what the characters and the audience knows at this point in the story), but that his father would abandon him AGAIN.

From this point on and for the rest of the series, Finn's arm (or lack thereof) represents his willingness to accept what happened and move on from the situation as a new person.

This is a especially touching scene when the already established liquid that can heal any wound touches Finn's arm, but instead of healing the missing limb, it creates a flower in its place.

This matters because it shows that Finn's "true self" has fundamentally changed, and the liquid recognizes that Finn is no longer who he was before (arm included) and that he grew as a person in that very moment.

Now, what the glob does this have to do with Breezy? Well, a few episodes later Breezy happens, meaning that Finn's arm is completely regrown.

While I get that in the short-term this might feel unrewarding, I actually think that this is a very important part of Finn's growth, representing shallow coping.

The entire episode revolves around the concept of Finn attempting to get with every princess he can as a way to distract himself. The entire point of the episode is to represent how Finn is avoiding the issue entirely with meaningless relationships.

I think this is why it confuses me so much when people seemingly think Finn's arm regrowth is "unearned"... because it being unearded is the point, it's a shallow solution.

The regrowth of his arm and the thorn it leaves behind is suppose to represent how Finn's way of coping with the situation was to completely ignore it.

The new arm represents unhealed wounds and the refusal to accept the past. Finn's refusal to accept what happened manifested as the arm he had BEFORE the Citadel.

But no wound no matter how covered up it is can truly be forgotten. And so, the thorn remains on his palm.

FINAL THOUGHTS: What this means about Fern and Finn's "final arm".

Let's talk about the easiest part first.

Finn's final arm represents emotional growth and the willingness to accept the reality that he's an entirely different person and that's okay.

Finn accepts that his true self is without his arm and he's happy with that outcome. It took him a while to get there but that's what makes it so rewarding.

This is why I feel like the "ableism" comment is so vapid, the show makes the effort to tell the audience that no matter how much Finn attempts to hide it, living his true self is better than any fake solution.

And for the final-final little side note, Fern.

Fern is directly born out of what remains of Finn's fake arm.

He is similar to Finn but unable to feel like himself, even wanting to replace Finn entirely. Fern has repressed trauma, anger issues, deeply depressed with who he is.

In other words.

Fern represents a Finn that never grew out of his fake arm, a Finn that kept ignoring what had happened and grew bitter because of it.

The end of Adventure Time with Fern's death represents a death of the old self, it represents Finn (and Fern) choosing to let go of the past and to focus on making a new future.

Fern's seed being planted on the treehouse in the final episode is really touching when you see it through my prespective.

Finn is burying his past trauma, and from where it once was, a beautiful everlasting tree grows.

Well, that was just me rambling about a show I like. Thank you for listening, I'm deeply sorry.

[sexhaver]

Would love to hear what your word alternative is to describe the specific oppression faced by trans men because base level "word means this and can only mean this and has to be able to mean the same thing when broken down to it's base words" is "bi means two so bisexuals don't like enbies" levels of bullshit on both a social and linguistic sense. Trans men experience transphobia and mysogny specific to them on top of other oppressions that is not experienced by other trans people or cis women and the chosen word is transandrophobia, the oppression and specific hatred of trans men. Transmysogny describes transfem specific oppression, transphobia covers all trans oppression experiences, what can transmascs call our oppression since one word in it apparently offends you? If its just the name that offends you, what's an alternative? Idk how to tell you that trans men do experience oppression for, in cis people's eyes, "trying" to identify as men therefore yes, they experience oppression for being men, trans men specifically. The word androphobia is loaded but so is the word queer or gay or homosexual or literally every other language used by the lgbt community. All around, yikes.

Your literally only looking at it from the perspective that cis people see trans men as men, just trans ones therefore they dont attack or question their manhood, just the fact their trans. When they don't. They see us as ugly, immature and disfigured women who don't know our place. This idea that trans men's oppression just evaporates and they suddenly gain male privilege when they transition to any degree, regardless of medical or passing status is bs. Idk how to tell you they are experiencing oppression for being trans and specifically trying to transition from womanhood to manhood due to our society's view of what women should be. But sure, take all my shit out of context and post one screenshot. You really proved a point by ignoring trans men's oppression and deaths as a result of their transmasculinity, I'm sure Nex can really attest to our sudden transmasc privileges. Didn't realize you were the most surface level "men = bad. Men face no issue in society." type of "feminist".

Would love to hear what your word alternative is to describe the specific oppression faced by trans men

"transphobia".

Transmysogny describes transfem specific oppression,

transmisogyny is the synthesis of transphobia and misogyny that trans women face. the reason trans women get their own word is because that word represents the intersection of two different axes of oppression, not because every trans identity needs its own descriptor for hatred against it specifically.

transphobia covers all trans oppression experiences, what can transmascs call our oppression since one word in it apparently offends you?

...you answered your own question, "transphobia".

If its just the name that offends you, what's an alternative?

"transphobia".

trans men do experience oppression for, in cis people's eyes, "trying" to identify as men

this is transphobia.

The word androphobia is loaded but so is the word queer or gay or homosexual or literally every other language used by the lgbt community. All around, yikes.

Lol. Lmao, even.

Your literally only looking at it from the perspective that cis people see trans men as men, just trans ones therefore they dont attack or question their manhood, just the fact their trans. When they don't. They see us as ugly, immature and disfigured women who don't know our place.

wow, so the reason cis people are biased against trans men is because they see them as fundamentally being failed examples of the gender they were assigned at birth and lying about their actual gender identity? damn, that's wild. if only there was a name for this phenomenon that could also map onto other trans identities to provide a unifying framework for analysis.

This idea that trans men's oppression just evaporates and they suddenly gain male privilege when they transition to any degree, regardless of medical or passing status is bs.

literally not what this discussion is about.

Idk how to tell you they are experiencing oppression for being trans and specifically trying to transition from womanhood to manhood due to our society's view of what women should be.

you are describing transphobia.

I'm sure Nex can really attest to our sudden transmasc privileges.

what the fuck? 2. Nex was nonbinary not transmasc? 3. what the fuck?

Didn't realize you were the most surface level "men = bad. Men face no issue in society." type of "feminist".

hello? what year is it? can anyone hear me? it's so cold

[freckles-a-constellation]

The Doctor is a tragic character in the best Greek tragedy tradition.

So y'all know how the most common driving factor for intelligence to develop in species is if they're social? (Octopi aren't very social but let's ignore that real quick, the Doctor's a vertebrate anyway so invertebrate intelligence can probably be dismissed as irrelevant) Because after a point, more intelligence isn't really needed to avoid danger or gather food. But more intelligence does make it possible to communicate more efficiently, form more complex social bonds, eventually develop culture. Cue why social species tend to be more intelligent than solitary ones of otherwise comparable lifestyle. And cue why humanity is the way it is.

Now look at Gallifreyans. (I am purposefully ignoring the Timeless Child thing bc I don't rlly believe it and besides, even assuming it's true, The Doctor is similar enough to Gallifreyans to have flawlessly believed himself/themselves/herself to be one for 13+ regenerations, so anything that can be concluded to be true from analysis of Gallifreyans has good basis to be presumed true about the Doctor, whatever the fuck semantics you wanna use) So, Gallifreyans. A species much more advanced than according to DW canon humanity will ever be. More intelligent than humanity. High levels of education and not on the basis of private tutoring. Lives in cities. Has complex language and technology capable of instantly translating pretty much any language of any other species to be understandable to them. (Hell the TARDIS consistently still translates shit to English for the companions while they're outside it.) Complex social structure. That's one fucking social species.

And it gets better. The TARDIS is meant to be operated by a team of six. And even if River was joking about six, it's still clear that it should at least be more than one. Compare the Doctor steering the TARDIS alone to when he was with Susan. I mean, even those two looked like they could use an extra hand. Have you ever seen a human private use vehicle designed with 2+ pilots in mind? Definitely a species more social than humanity.

And the telepathy thing? Hello? Insanely, mind-boggingly social species.

Now take a being this fundamentally social and do something to them so that they see no recourse other than to take one (1) same-species (as far as he was aware disclaimer ig) companion, steal a ship they have little to no clue how to pilot, leave everything and everyone they've ever known and run without ever stopping for breath, no matter how much they miss home, no matter if it hurts. (And I do believe something must have happened to make him run like that, since the beggining, way before the Time War) Have them be scorned, judged, punished, mistreated and rejected by their species, again and again, for ages. Have them love, again and again, only to always lose everyone they've cared about, through abandonment or death. Have them essentially be forced to exterminate their whole species and believe themselves to be the last of their kind, only to be proven wrong by the whole Master situation, which alright is better, but also in some ways is worse. Have them, once again, form deep bonds with companions and once again lose all of them in various varyingly tragic ways until they have no hope left that anyone can ever truly stay for any amount of time even close to satisfactory, that love can for them end in anything but loss and pain. And they can't even avoid love altogether in an effort to spare themselves the inevitable agony of losing loved ones, because they're incapable of not growing to care for those around them. And they can't be without company either, because their sanity goes straight to hell in a handbasket within like,, 5 minutes of being alone.

Let me remind you this is not a human we're talking about. It's a member of a species much more inherently social than humanity. My point?

The Doctor is literally more lonely than the human brain can comprehend.

[shiut]

How much did Yakou know?

Very long and detailed analysis of Yakou's involvement in the plot beneath the cut.

Yakou is an interesting character to me. He gets his own mildly insightful short story about his detective origins. However, I crave to think that there's gotta be more to him than just the kind of pathetic (affectionate) stressed out dad-like figure that mostly kind of nags and bosses Yuma around for the majority of the game.

Ok, it sounds like I'm ragging on him, but he does have an occasional side of him in dire situations where he shows a selfless loyalty and trust in his team that proves he takes his leadership position seriously, even if he does really rock the irresponsible mess look. And he gets to be cool in his own chapter for a minute.

But there is a moment that sticks out to me, especially in hindsight after finishing the game, and that's the prologue where you get your first and probably most substantial talk with him.

He says that he does not want Kanai Ward to change practically within the same breath where he explains how terribly he's treated as a detective in this horrendously corrupt murder infested police state.

Although he makes it clear that he has a deep personal affection and nostalgic attachment to this city that shows a bias for why he would say this, we hear from multiple people throughout the game that Kanai Ward has not been the same in recent years as it has been in the past that Yakou has rooted his love in.

So why does he feel as if any change to the current state of Kanai Ward would disrupt the "peace and quiet" it deserves?

Unless he knows something about the city that's just so fundamentally irreparable that this is the closest to peace and quiet that it'll ever get again, and trying to fix it would only somehow destroy it.

Everything about the rooftop scene, from talking about the city, to Shinigami commenting on how ominous he feels to her, to the fact that he's the person who explains the rumor that the rain affects peoples' bodies.

Highlighted text tends to be easy to overlook, but I can't help but feel like there's some significance to his usage of "illusion in the rain". It's like he knows something that nobody else can see (and an obvious foreshadowing of how the rain is one of the main means of covering up Kanai Ward's mystery).

But this segues into the themes of his later chapter which also focuses on Vivia, who mirrors Yakou in a lot of ways, beyond just being another guy who muses on about peace and quiet.

Speaking of, a mirror is what Vivia uses as a metaphor for the benefit of blissful ignorance and the potential catastrophic dangers of the painful truth.

For the purposes of this chapter, he is explaining the type of pain and the effect on Yuma's world view that uncovering Yakou's crime will incur. It also acts as a setup for the development of Yuma's conviction that he will later need to use in the final chapter of the game. But the distorted reality the Vivia explains in the mirror does call me back to Yakou's "illusion in the rain" comment.

Vivia also explains that the truth that Yuma uncovers for truth's sake will lead to the destruction of the world. While he could be referring to the world and humanity in general, in the context of this chapter, world can mean a lot of things though, such as Yuma's innocence in the way he views the world as he knows it.

Or namely, from Makoto's point of view, it could also mean the destruction of the homunculi and the only version of the world that Makoto believes they can exist in.

Did Yakou come to a similar conclusion as Makoto based on what he found out?

Like Vivia in chapter 4, who did not want the culprit to be revealed, it seemed like Yakou had the full intention of not cooperating with investigating the Kanai Ward mystery until he was forced to by a directive from Number One. Even so, he came off as if encouraging the detectives to drag their feet on it for the sake of staying out of trouble.

But we know that he is not lazy, unmotivated, or stupid. In a world where you're competing with people who are fast-tracked into the WDO if they have literal super powers, Yakou was inducted by pure detective skill. He had definitely been spending a lot of his time laying low and investigating Kanai Ward himself, because he didn't trust the UG or the WDO if they turned their attention to the city.

Yakou already knew about the homunculus research in some way.

Even if he didn't know about everyone being a homunculus, he at least knew enough that he believed that the city itself would be shattered by the involvement of the UG and WDO.

And then we get to chapter 5 with the mindless zombie homunculi.

Except, they're not all completely mindless. As a matter of fact, I had come to notice something about all the non-aggressive homunculi: they all seemed to have some degree of awareness about Amaterasu's research.

The fake Zilch, who was one of Yomi's closest advisors and knew about all of Dr Huesca's and Yomi's activity in the lab concerning homunculus research, and was implied to be the one who killed Yakou's wife for whistleblowing. Fink, who was propositioned by Makoto himself to infiltrate the lab, and who was then killed by Makoto for 'knowing too much'. Dr Huesca, who was the head researcher for the homunculi. And the former CEO, who was the prime overseer of the research.

And then there was Yakou, who gives Yuma the video evidence of Dr Huesca's death at the hands of the homunculi as he explained the results of the experiment. The easy explanation is that Makoto planted this video on the zombie Yakou to be given to Yuma in the restricted area.

However, another thing that the non-aggressive zombies had in common is that they seemed to be stuck thinking about what seems to be their final thoughts before their death, barring the former CEO who was unusually lucid compared to all of them.

Considering this, I feel like Yakou's final thoughts were for Yuma to expose the truth about the homunculi for him, and to give him the DVD as the key evidence he needed. Whether Makoto gave Yakou this video, or if Yakou already had this video himself, his final thought before dying was to make sure Yuma got it.

I always thought it was a bit strange for Yakou to go and decide to murder Dr Huesca at the slightest provocation by Yomi, and then had this whole complicated coverup plan. If Kurumi could look into Yakou's background for only a day and come to the conclusion that Amaterasu had killed his wife for whistleblowing, then Yakou himself would've definitely already known and could've tried to kill Dr Huesca a long time ago.

I don't think the provocation was by Yomi's letter. I believe at some point, he had found out that Huesca and Yomi could possibly leak information about the homunculus research. He decided to kill Huesca as a gambit reveal Yomi's involvement with leaking research before it could get out into the public and destroy Kanai Ward, and he entrusted this truth to Yuma and the rest of his detectives. Yakou knew that the lie that they were living, the one that was keeping Kanai Ward together, wasn't going to last much longer.

This conveniently aligned with Makoto's motives to oust Yomi. Makoto, the one who also knew that Yomi would cause the lie holding Kanai Ward together to unravel, and who happened to introduce Fink to Yakou. Fink thought that Yakou did not know about Makoto orchestrating their meeting, and perhaps he was right in that Yakou didn't know that it was Makoto specifically, but maybe Makoto was the one who tipped Yakou off to Amaterasu's homunculus research possibly being leaked and may have even given Yakou the DVD.

Makoto may not have exactly manipulated Yakou. It just simply that both Yakou and Makoto similarly knew that the UG sticking their nose into Kanai Ward about the homunculus research was incredibly dangerous. Makoto simply gave Yakou the ultimatum and means to stop Yomi. The difference is that Makoto's goal was to get rid of Yomi and assume full control of the city in order to further suppress its secret, but Yakou's goal was the provide the truth to his detectives in order to fix things.

And I wrote all this BEFORE the Yakou DLC came out.

Where we find out that Yakou has had the prototype cure for homunculi the whole time. And depending on whether or not his wife here is a ghost or a hallucination, it seems like she had always known that there would be a need to regenerate the zombified brain cells of homunculi. Yakou might've been biding time not only to try and figure out how to reconcile the whole homunculus research issue without the UG destroying Kanai Ward, but maybe also for someone to finish research on this medicine.

TLDR; Yakou had always known about the homunculus research and was hiding it because he believed that the info getting leaked would cause the destruction of Kanai Ward by the hands of the UG. In the end, he figured out that the secret would not keep up for much longer, and his plot in chapter 4 wasn't for revenge, but to entrust that Yuma and the rest of his detectives would be able to uncover the truth and work out a way to save Kanai Ward.

[sunshine-jesse]

In defense of Andrew Graves: A character arc in one sentence

HEY! I rewrote this essay and fleshed it out a lot. I'm keeping the original here for posterity, but the new version renders this one completely obsolete. Find it here!

I've focused a lot on Ashley in my past writings. She's my favorite character in the story (and depending on how episode 3 pans out, maybe ever) and I'm pretty mortified by how some parts of the fandom have reacted towards her, so I pretty much made it my life's mission to push back against that. From highlighting the ways Andrew mistreats her, to coming up with justifications for her behavior that aren't just being a manipulative bitch, I really wanted to prove that a more favorable picture of her could be painted than most were willing to.

But in doing so, I've left Andrew in the dust.

In highlighting his flaws and the ways he mistreats Ashley, I think I've implied a level of intentionality to his actions that I don't believe he has. Most of his worst actions are spur of the moment, or caused by a fundamental conflict that exists between his desires and his idea of the way things should be. That doesn't excuse them, obviously! But they do reveal interesting things about his character and how it develops over the course of the game. He starts out as a doormat, but eventually settles on either his bitterness or a sense of calmness and acceptance, both over Ashley.

But what exactly causes this change?

There's plenty of reason to believe that he was slowly evolving before the story took place, but within the context of the work itself, I believe there are two points where he can no longer ignore the changes that have happened to this point, both of which are in the first chapter: The killing of the warden and the 302 lady. In the first case, he was forced to do it to protect Ashley in a way he hadn't done before, or depending on how you look at it, since the death of Nina. But the intentionality was the key point here. After this point, he calls Ashley Leyley, which may or may not seem important at this point, but it's something I'll draw attention to later, so keep that in mind.

Next is the killing of the 302 lady, which is the much, much bigger point. We don't learn much about it until later on- as at first he just gives an excuse about the nail gun that doesn't line up with what we see on the map- but during the dream, it's revealed it was a calculated, intentional killing that he did to make sure there was no evidence left behind, and because Ashley (supposedly) would've wanted him to do it anyway. I say supposedly because Ashley herself doesn't seem to ever want Andrew to kill for her past Nina's death, because he only ever kills for her to defend one or both of them. If you want more evidence that violence for violence's sake isn't something she wants, look at this part in the final dream:

A knife isn't what opens the door, despite it being placed on the ground in that very map. While it seems obvious that the knife (violence) would be the key to solving the puzzle, it's put there explicitly to show you that it isn't. It's not what she wants; what she wants is a flower.

So, why is this important? Why am I centering Ashley- again- when this essay is supposed to be about Andrew?

Because I think it's important to point out the discrepancy between what he thinks Ashley wants, and what she really wants. When Ashley starts to grill Andrew over the killing of the 302 lady, he gets mad. Very mad. Ashley sees it as pointless, as him covering his own ass, but he genuinely did it for her sake, because he thought that's what she wanted, and that it'd make her happy. But what makes her happy isn't violence- or any similarly extreme action for that matter- it's attention and validation. Something he's always reluctant to give her, despite the fact that he always chose her over the alternatives. But despite making that choice, it's always empty and meaningless, because in Ashley's mind, he never did it for her sake.

And hoo boy, does he not like it being framed like this.

But is she wrong, though? He WAS the one who chopped up the Warden, and he WAS the one who chose to kill the 302 lady. Violence is his job, it's all he knows. He has to do it to take care of Leyley, right? To protect her? To keep her happy? Then why doesn't he ever acknowledge it? Why does he never admit that he did it for her sake, to keep her happy?

Because he doesn't know what he sees her as.

In his unique dream sequence, he sees two versions of Ashley; the child version of her- Leyley- and the adult version of her- Ashley. And the differences in the ways he interacts with the two of them are stunning. Leyley is an obstinate, annoying child. She's the one he NEEDS to take care of, and he hates that. He hates Leyley for what she did for his childhood. He hates that he needs to provide for her. He has the option of trying to kill her, even, over something as small as a candle!

But in the room with all the murders, the gilded cage, he sees Ashley as an adult. This version of Ashley is stuck in a closet that he himself has to open- and to choose to see. Their interactions are calm and friendly. She teases him a bit, sure, but she's still helpful, and they have fun together. He doesn't need her, and she doesn't need him. He needed Leyley- needed the candle- but here, there are other limbs strewn about for him to take. And, crucially, he doesn't even have the option to kill this Ashley for one of the limbs.

And during the choking scene, he lets her go the moment she acknowledges that he doesn't need her anymore.

What he really wants is Ashley for Ashley's sake. Not for what she can provide him. He doesn't even need her for sleep, he just wants her. But Ashley has trouble acknowledging this, because he's never before shown that WANT. Only a NEED. She keeps trying to find ways to make him need her, because she's never seen what his desire for her is really like. She's only ever seen him desiring someone else, someone other than her. She's only ever seen him as Andy, because she's never truly seen Andrew, only the violence he can inflict on others. Andrew, meanwhile is arguably further along in the realization of their relationship, because he can see and acknowledge both sides of Ashley.

He can see Leyley, the needy, bratty child who always needs his attention, that he needs to provide for. The one he hates and wants to get rid of. The one he kills for to protect. And he can see Ashley, the one who engages in friendly and cute banter with him. Who comforts and shows him physical affection. The one he loves. The one he kills for to make happy.

He just can't choose which one he wants to see. Every outside influence- from his parents, to Julia, to Nina- makes him see her as Leyley. Ashley herself makes him see her as Leyley too, whenever she brings up all the things he did for her, and calls him Andy, his child self, instead of Andrew, his current self. And as long as he sees that child, he feels like one too, and can never give Ashley anything that comes from the heart.

But he really, really wants to see Ashley as an adult. He wants to take pride in her, how much she's grown, and how driven and competent she really is.

But god damn, does that bitch ever make it hard.

But in the end, it's him who has to make the choice how to see her. Ashley can only see what she's shown, but Andrew can choose.

And in the basement scene, he makes that choice.

If Ashley refuses to leave him alone with their parents, that's it. In one of the most critical and important moments of his life, she couldn't give him the space needed to make up his own mind. She couldn't treat him as an adult. She couldn't see him as Andrew. If she does give him that choice, she chooses to acknowledge that Andrew is an adult who can be trusted to make his own decisions, even though she (perhaps foolishly) believes that this choice lines up with her own interests. And frankly it does either way, but in accepting their mom's offer, her chooses to see her as Leyley once and for all. He chooses not to reciprocate what Ashley showed him. He does it because he needs to, not because he wants to. Because it's his duty, not his desire.

But if he WANTS to?

That respect becomes mutual.

In choosing to treat each other like adults, to treat their relationship as one of desire rather than need, Andy starts to die. From that point on, their relationship becomes a lot more friendly, lighthearted, and playful. They ironically start acting more like children, but to quote CS Lewis:

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence."

He's not ashamed of being playful with Ashley, or showing affection towards her. He's grown up. He finally sees her, and himself, as an adult- although he still doesn't show that in full until much later on (more or that later). But in Decay, he still sees her as a child, and to an extent, probably himself. Let's compare the ways in which he reacts to being called Andy. In Decay, he lashes out at Ashley and gets angry, even threatening her. But in Questionable Burial, he calmly says that Andy is dead and doesn't need Ashley's comfort, but still tries to reassure her that she's still needed. He's not ashamed of or hostile towards their prior dynamic, because he's grown past it. He still recognizes Ashley's need to feel needed, but he still RECOGNIZES it, where he was hostile towards it before.

It's a display of respect towards her feelings.

This interaction doesn't happen in the Sane ending, however. He doesn't play games with her and is just a lot less fun to be around all together. Why is that? Because he still hasn't yet shaken viewing Ashley as Leyley there. He still views her as a burden, as someone who needs taking care of. He's calmly accepted that, too, mind you, but he lacks respect for her because she's still a child, in his mind. But in Questionable?

The vision did more than just make him extremely embarrassed and lay his deepest desires bare. It forced him to recognize Ashley as an adult. When choosing between "Never" and "Never say never," if Never is chosen, the burden of thought is lifted off of him. But if Ashley chooses "Never say never!", he has to reckon with the fact that Ashley is an adult, someone who can consent to those kinds of things. Someone who MIGHT. Someone who has agency, and can make her own decisions. And more importantly… someone who can trust him to make his own.

Whether he desires sex or not is secondary; he's always had those feelings and has always been ashamed of it. But now that the part of him where that shame came from is dead and buried, there's no childish impulse to grow up. There's no attachment to the hate and bitterness he had before. Look at what he worries about when he picks up that she's uncertain or confused about who he is now:

This is the one sentence I was referring to in the title.

It's her feelings.

He wants to be fun to be around. He wants to make Ashley happy. He loves her, and not as a romantic interest or even as a sibling. He loves her independent of all that baggage.

He loves her as a person.

In learning to respect Ashley, our boy has finally grown up. But there's a certain intimacy to being hurt by someone else that Ashley isn't getting in this ending, and now she has to reckon with that. And that's really, really hard to do when you're so used to being hurt.

Especially when you're no longer around someone who wants to kill the part of you that needs nurturing the most.

[bekkandaa]

Tom Riddle: Narcissism, Heritage, and Mental Breakdown

This analysis will delve into Tom Riddle's narcissism, heritage, and my own hypothesis that a mental breakdown led to the ultimate murder of his family.

Before I begin, it's important to define some key psychological terms for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. I'll try to simplify things down, but if anything doesn't make sense don't worry too much.

Malignant Narcissism: This term describes individuals who exhibit all three traits from "The Dark Triad"— Machiavellianism, Psychopathy and Narcissism.

Machiavellianism : Commonly characterised by manipulation and exploitation of others, unemotional callousness, self-interest, and an overall lack of morality.

Psychopathy : Commonly characterised by continuous antisocial behaviour, selfishness, unemotional callousness, and an overall lack of remorse.

Narcissism : Marked by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and an overall lack of empathy.

In Psychoanalytic theory, primary narcissism is a normal part of child development, involving self-interest and object-love. Children often harbour notions of greatness and believe they are immune to any consequences. As they mature, they become disillusioned from these grand notions to integrate into mature society. pathological narcissism actually develops when this process is disrupted, resulting in defective narcissistic structures.

( Interestingly, a number of psychiatrists have established a direct link between malignant narcissism and evil— a perspective likely considered in the creation of Tom Riddle's character. However, it is important to note that while there is a connection, it does not necessarily define someone as evil.)

Tom Riddle's behaviour aligns perfectly with Heinz Kohut's theory of object-love. According to Kohut, a child requires a mother to affirm their grandiosity or, lacking this, seeks an adult to create an "idealised parent image." Tom, lacking a mother figure and grandiose figure to emulate, proceeded to construct his own powerful parental figure.

This is evident when we see Riddle question Dumbledore about his father's wizardry, as Tom assumes his mother could not have been a witch as if she was she wouldn't have died. This belief is shattered during his teenage years, which inevitably triggers his (narcissistic) rage of his idea being disillusioned. Tom Riddle has always been a character with an ongoing quest for identity and self-validation, which is seen in his prolonged search for the Chamber of Secrets to confirm his status as Heir of Slytherin.

Tom Riddle's obsession with power and control is a fundamental aspect of his character we can't ignore. The pursuit of control is a primary human motivation, gaining control is actually proved to enhance one's sense of well-being. For someone like Tom, when this control is threatened, they would resort to coping mechanisms to preserve their sense of self. For a narcissist like Tom, a threat to his control equates to a threat to his very self.

Now, to my entire point. The revelation of his true heritage and the truth about his parents triggered a mental breakdown, causing an identity crisis. Freud posits that human behaviour is influenced more by the unconscious mind than the conscious. The unconscious mind protects itself by concealing negative memories, which can affect behaviour and attitudes. In Tom’s case, his father's abandonment left a mark, which he could not reconcile. His only solution was to eradicate this source of shame and hatred.

Tom Riddle’s patricide and subsequent name change to Voldemort signify his profound self-loathing and rejection of his humanity. This action eradicates the evidence of his shameful heritage. According to Krech, hatred often correlates with anger, manifesting as a desire to destroy the source of hatred. Riddle’s murder of his father and paternal family was an attempt to reclaim control and restore his ego. TLDR :  Tom Riddle has a fragile sense of control and ego, loses the sense of control once he learns of his true heritage. Causing a mental breakdown and killing his family. In conclusion, he is miserable and hates everyone. ( even himself to a point.)

[sorcerersandskillusers]

Gogol character analysis: The Maddening Paradox of Free Will

I recently did an analysis of Gogol and Chuuya and how they explore the idea of freedom and control so differently, but i wanted to make a more full length version for Gogol original: here

Gogol's motivation is one of the most interesting I've ever seen, he takes a concept like wanting freedom, which is a very common motivation for protagonists and hero's. And twists it to be the complete opposite, where he views his emotions, and morality itself as a prison which he desperately wants to escape

Gogol is essentially trying to prove that there is no actual limit on what a human being is capable of doing, that the restrictions of society are just a cage that he can escape from to be truly free.

"No human could melt someone's face with acid for no reason." "No human would be willing to help destroy the whole world." "No human would willingly work for a demon." "No human could ever kill their only friend in the world."

That restriction is what drives Gogol to do so many awful things, he wants to prove that humans are capable of it. To him, we are all trapped in this cage of what we can and can't do, taught to us by our parents and teachers. The illusion of right and wrong. He wants to break free from that and truly be free as a bird.

And at first Gogol thought if he could over come the fundamental instinct of all living things, too survive. Then surely he must be truly free. But a key realisation changed his mind at the last minute.

Gogol tries to act the opposite from how a regular person would in any situation, his mad jester persona is a really good example of that, "Who in their right mind would dress like a clown and parade around giving the enemy quizzes and telling jokes?"

And this is why he chose not to die, it is human instinct to end your own suffering, so surely since his quest for free will was causing him so much suffering, (We know he felt extreme guilt over hurting those politicians), if he was just trying to escape that guilt and pain once and for all, it would prove nothing.

He looks so genuinely sad here, he clearly wishes he could go back to living a life of blissful ignorance, and not be tormented by the bars that surround him. But dying in that cage would mean nothing to him, so the act of dying is not enough to break free.

So if he can't prove his free will by taking his own life, then how can he. He needed to do something so unimaginably irrational, which would hurt him so much without any benefit to him, that there was no way it was simply instinct or emotion. And that's where Fyodor comes in.

I believe Gogol agreed to work for Fyodor because he was the epitome of everything Gogol hated in this world. He is the master of manipulation, so surely if Gogol could break free of his manipulation, he could break free of the prison in his own mind right? And on top of that. What sane person would agree to help the very thing they despise most?

But Gogol found something he didn't expect in Fyodor. Understanding, something no one else had ever had. a person to easy the loneliness of his mission, his first and only friend.

Killing Dostoyevsky, the only person who ever understood him and the only person he considered his friend. He would gain nothing, he would have to live with the crushing guilt and loneliness for the rest of his life, it would be the worst possible thing to do, so much worse then dying. It would the last thing any sane person would want.

Gogol's character so so incredibly interesting, I can't wait to see his backstory and find out what he has planned in the future.

[transmutationisms]

came across a post by astriiformes (astriiformes(.)tumblr(.)com/post/742882591316803584/hi-i-just-learned-about-the-scientific-revolution) that objected to Kuhn's theory of scientific revolution on the basis that they felt it leant in to the "great men of history" model. I never understood it this way, but I haven't read the book—I thought it was more about explaining the lag between accumulation of evidence that goes against the current paradigm and full paradigm shift. thoughts?

kuhn's model of 'paradigm shifts' is certainly prone to inviting 'great man' explanations of scientific developments. i would even go further, and say that this is due to a fundamental issue in kuhn's methodology, which is a tendency toward idealist analysis that fails to consider material and sociological factors. astriiformes points out that these days, kuhn is more popular with economists and political scientists than with practicing historians of science; this is true and not a coincidence.

astriiformes also walks through a valuable line of objection to kuhn, which is that the scientists we tend to credit with having made singlehanded discoveries were in fact usually embedded in vibrant scientific communities and ongoing debates, and were influenced by their contemporaries as well as their intellectual forebears. this is all true. another critical angle to interrogate here, and one where the Great Man often pops up again, is in kuhn's version of how scientific ideas are actually adopted: in other words, how he considers a 'paradigm shift' to actually occur, even once we assume the idea in question has already been formulated. let me chuck a few case studies at you because it's easier than talking in generalities.

for much of the 20th century, the 'standard story' of galileo's trial and imprisonment was that, having dared to become a lone voice defending heliocentrism, he was made a martyr to truth by the church, which was threatened on theological grounds. however, in the last several decades historians of science have studied much more seriously the patronage networks of renaissance italy: the structure of funding and epistemological authority whereby a scientist like galileo secured money, university or court positions, and respect by gaining mutually beneficial relationships with various nobles and other wealthy people. galileo had defended heliocentrism prior to the church's crackdown on him and his work; so had certain other astronomers. although it's true the church had theological objections to what galileo was saying, they were pretty much forced to tolerate him as long as he had sufficient patronage protection: wealthy, powerful people using their social clout to defend him. but this fragile truce was shattered when galileo lost the support of certain of his patrons, particularly some jesuits, in the early 1630s and thus became a much more vulnerable target of church censorship. it was only at this point that the church placed him on trial and then eventually under house arrest, and forced to recant.

evolutionary ('transmutationist') ideas were not new by the time darwin published the 'origin' in 1859. most french biologists at this time supported some variant of transmutationist ideas, and even in britain, transmutation of species had long been hotly discussed in the edinburgh medical schools in particular. the challenge for the wealthier london gentleman-naturalist set was that transmutationism had previously been associated with radical, materialist, atheist politics (this was precisely what appealed for many in edinburgh), and although evolutionary ideas had circulated in the wider reading public, these had typically been carefully framed to remain compatible with dominant anglican morals (eg, robert chambers's 'vestiges' of 1844). so, why were charles darwin's ideas accepted where others had been suppressed, ignored, or mired in controversy? a few reasons: again, a strong patronage network and powerful social connections (familial and personal); also, darwin very consciously avoided talking about human descent in 1859 (he did not do so until 1871's 'descent of man', which remains less widely read to this day) and avoided open avowal of materialism or atheism in his published works. furthermore, despite what lay histories may suggest nowadays, darwin's ideas were not embraced immediately or uncritically. they circulated piecemeal, with the help of 'popularisers' like haeckel and th huxley whose teachings often varied pretty widely from what darwin actually said or thought. and, prior to the 'modern synthesis' unifying 'darwinian' evolution with mendelian genetics, one of the most common objections to darwin's ideas was that he had provided proof of no actual mechanism of heredity, which resulted in a retrospectively fascinating period of anglo and french scientific writing between about 1890–1940 that often circulated the claim that darwin had been proven embarrassingly wrong, and it was jean-baptiste lamarck who had instead been vindicated by the biologists of the middle victorian era.

louis pasteur has historically been credited with ushering out the last vestiges of 'miasmatic' and 'environmentalist' theories of disease in france, and replacing them with good solid bacteriology. this is simply a misrepresentation of scientific beliefs among the lay public, technical experts like public health officials, and even working scientists under the third republic. because hygienists and sanitation engineers had spent much of the 19th century creating professional prestige for themselves as managers of the insalubrious environmental factors plaguing particularly the urban poor, you can imagine they were not generally thrilled at the proposition that someone had actually confirmed the existence of a microscopic 'germ' of disease, a foreign entity that could be studied and eradicated by a laboratory scientist with entirely different credentials and training. so, as it became clear that the actual eradication part was still a challenge, and that disease risk did not strike all people or demographics equally, french hygienists by and large simply altered their rhetoric a little. yes, germs existed—in fact, clearly, these were what the hygienists had been protecting people from all along by encouraging cleaner air, open spaces, gymnastic exercise, &c! this is the root of what's now known in the historical literature as the 'sanitary-bacteriological synthesis'—not an overturning of an old 'environmentalist' paradigm for a modern bacteriological one, but rather a melding of the two that enfolded pasteur's and koch's discoveries whilst still shoring up the professional authority of the hygienists and sanitarians.

in all three of these cases you can see how a strictly kuhnian analysis of 'paradigm shifts' over-emphasises the role of the Great Man (here in his guise as Genius Scientist) because it overlooks critical factors like the social and professional networks that actually allow knowledge to spread, and the professional and pecuniary interests that motivate people, consciously or not, when they evaluate new theories or ideas. galileo did not suffer from 'failing' to spark a paradigm shift, any more than darwin singlehandedly succeeded; their ideas circulated, mutated, and provoked on the strength of relationships as much as pure cerebral Theory. pasteur's claims likely could not have achieved the renown they did, had they not been helped along by hygienists who saw in them a change to re-form and reinforce their own profession and authority.

kuhn's work was an important departure from earlier positivist, largely teleological histories of science: the 'paradigm shift' allowed people to talk about massive and notable changes in science without having to accede to a model that assumed constant, linear progress. in this sense, much of today's history of science (still a comparatively immature and evolving field!) belongs to a citational lineage that will eventually pop up with kuhn's name. but, methodologically, kuhn leaves a lot to be desired, because his analysis is generally founded in an intellectual history that configures Science as a world of disembodied ideas unburdened by social, material, and economic considerations and practices.