#and I cannot overstate that harassment is never acceptable

[disabledunitypunk]

I wanna talk about a real problem in marginalized communities, but especially the disabled community.

The conflation of "privilege" with "oppression".

Here's two examples that I'm directly pulling from experience.

I am not intellectually disabled. I have fluctuating cognitive disabilities, but I have privilege over people with intellectual disabilities.

I also have significantly disabling chronic illness to the point where at times I have not been able to engage with hobbies due to being too sick. Disabled people who are less sick and more able to pursue activities they enjoy have privilege over me.

It's something that's not neat and simple, either. An intellectually disabled person who is able to engage with hobbies vs me? We would essentially both have privilege over each other on different axes. You can't then determine that one of us is ultimately generally more privileged than the other, because that's not how it works. Like if you have privilege x and they have privilege y, it isn't x-y=positive or negative privilege. You can't "solve" that equation because x and y aren't variables that can be substituted for number values.

So, first taking the example of hobbies - a recent controversial post we made that invited harassment. People were quick to tell us what our own experience was and that we weren't experiencing ableism - because they had had the privilege of never experiencing it. That was lateral ableism, and not okay.

Note: There may be people who DIDN'T have that privilege who were also saying the same - though everyone I saw talking about this specifically mentioned their ability to do hobbies, and that was who the main part of my response was directed at. However, I even specifically responded briefly to any people who were doing that - much more gently - to basically say that if they were being assimilationist out of fear that they didn't have to be, and to remind them that they aren't bad if they can't have hobbies.

On the other hand, way back when I first started this blog, I talked about reclaiming the r slur as someone who had significant trauma from being called it as a kid. I talked about how the reason I was called it was specifically because of my social issues due to my developmental disorders while being a gifted kid.

To make it clear - I was called the r slur for not understanding social cues and rules as a "smart" kid, because that's one of the things it meant to them. They weren't insulting my intellectual intelligence, but rather my social ability - at most, you could argue they were insulting my social intelligence - which having a low amount of WAS actually a feature of my disabilities.

I also spoke about how I wasn't reclaiming it to continue treating it as a bad thing, to insult even just myself, but rather to say "so what if I am? that's not bad". Y'know, the whole point of reclaiming.

I was told what my own experience was and that I was experiencing misdirected ableism because they were actually insulting traits I didn't have and therefore they were actually hurting intellectually disabled people but not me. Not because they had the privilege not to experience what I did - but because me having privilege was treated as the right to tell me I had never experienced the ableism they had.

They were treated not just as the experts on ableism against intellectual disabilities - which they are, of course - but also the experts on ableism against people who specifically DON'T have intellectual disabilities when it takes the same or similar forms as ableism against intellectual disabilities.

We all know that bigots don't wait to find out your correct identity before attacking you. We all know that there are identities commonly mistaken for others, that can set you up for repeated abuse over an identity you don't have. But what we refuse to acknowledge is that there are types of bigotry that can manifest identically in some ways for two different identities - and that anyone who experiences that bigotry is an expert on it and deserves to have a place in the conversation about it.

Someone with intellectual disabilities fundamentally cannot know that people without intellectual disabilities DON'T face the same kind of ableism on the basis of other disabilities that person DOES have because they have not ever lived that experience, just as, say, I couldn't say that an intellectually disabled person never faces specific kinds of ableism I face due to being a wheelchair user, because I am not intellectually disabled.

What I can say: "I face these types of ableism because of these disabilities and this is how they manifest."

What I can't say, because it is erasure and lateral ableism no matter my relative privilege: "You don't face this type of ableism for [disability I don't have] because it's exclusive to [disability I have] and any ableism that manifests that way is actually an attack on me."

Fundamentally, you cannot say that someone with a different disability DOESN'T face a specific type of ableism because you are not an authority on the experience of that disability. You are an expert on the experience of your disability. You cannot claim exclusive experiences because to do so, you would have to experience the disabilities you don't have while also not experiencing the ones you do. You would have to verify experiences that you simply don't have - in multiple places and contexts and presentations and as multiple people.

Oh wait, there's a simpler way to do that.

Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.

(Plaintext: Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.)

It's not ableist to say "no, you aren't the only disability that faces this ableism" or "no, it isn't targeted at you when it's aimed at me" or "actually, bigots also use [slur] to mean [definition specifically attacking my disability]". It is however ableist to tell people that because they have an axis of privilege over you, they can't talk about their own oppression on an entirely different axis because you've decided that experiencing similar oppression means you're the only person who experiences said oppression.

Or to put it more simply: Experiencing a type of ableism does NOT give you the right to speak over others when they say they experience it too for different reasons. Having something bad happen to you as a group does not give you proof that you're the ONLY group it happens to.

"X is caused by y, therefore x is ONLY caused by y" is quite literally a logical fallacy. It's called fallacy of the single cause (at least it's a nice obvious name, honestly).

This is the same discourse as cripplepunk. In fact, it's the primary motivator behind most slur discourse, and the reason why I'd honestly rather have blanket permission issued within oppressed groups I'm in* for everyone to reclaim in good faith** any slur that affects that group.

**What does "reclaim in good faith" mean? It means reclaiming only for self-usage, and only for self-usage specifically in a positive way - so no "ugh, I'm such a useless cripple", for example. True reclamation does require use of it against you/your disability in the first place, however, part of not being a cop about it is assuming that anyone who uses it in a positive sense for self-labeling has in fact experienced that. In short, it involves believing people about the oppression they explicitly say or imply through their reclamation that they've experienced.

*Note: I am specifically NOT a person of color or a member of an oppressed ethnoreligion/ethnicity, and recognize that dynamics of racial and ethnic oppression may be unique in some ways. However in disabled, queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces I do occupy, these are my feelings.

It is lateral ableism to tell another disabled person that they haven't experienced a type of ableism or didn't experience it due to their ACTUAL disability and therefore have no right to reclaim what was used to hurt them.

It is ableism to say "the bullet meant to shoot you, that hit you, was designed in part to hurt me, and therefore any time someone is shot with it, it was actually an attack on me. Hand over the bullet and never keep it or use it as you please again or you're basically shooting me with a different bullet." (For those that struggle with metaphors, the bullets are ableism.)

It's ducks saying that deer have no right to reclaim shotgun shells. Yes, slugs are more common than buckshot, but there's literally a type of the same exact kind of ammo designed for use on the deer too. In just the same way, some slurs and other forms of ableism are more typically used against one group but even have a (sometimes identical) variant specifically designed for use against other groups. "Mental cripple" and "retard" for sociodevelopmental disabilities are prime examples of this.

This is a wider problem in marginalized communities. "If you have any privilege at all, ever, you need to sit down and shut up about your own experiences. Only our least privileged members are the experts on any of our experiences. They make the rules about which of your own experiences you're allowed to talk about and what you're allowed to say about them." What's important to note, is that this is coming as much from the members with said privilege as the ones without.

And yes, this is an EXTREMELY insular community issue, but it's not mutually exclusive to the fact that large portions of the community DON'T listen to the less privileged ones about their own experiences! Just like the hobbies example (which, I know people may dismiss or cry 'false equivalence', but I want to again note that it primarily affects bedbound people who are too sick to do things they enjoy, and therefore less privileged by any metric).

I specifically referenced that example because it's exactly more privileged members speaking over less privileged members about the less privileged members' OWN experiences.

In fact, I'd say it's in fact a RESPONSE to that kind of being spoken over. It's an extreme pendulum swing in the other direction - "you need to shut up and LISTEN to us about our experiences". Which, if it stopped there, would be perfect! It's the part that follows it - "therefore, if we experience something, we're the ONLY people who are allowed to talk about it and the only people who even experience it".

I've seen time and time again, too, that even if you conclusively prove you experience something, the goalposts just get moved.

"Well, you experience it but not systemically."

"Okay, but you experienced it less."

"It didn't hurt you as much because it was meant to hurt me instead."

"Well, you're probably reclaiming it as an insult." (despite no proof of such, or even proof to the contrary)

"Well, if you experienced it systemically and it did hurt you and you experienced it just as much, it's actually because of [other identity that we begrudgingly acknowledge is affected] and not [identity that you say actually caused you to experience it] and it therefore isn't even [same type of bigotry] but [completely different type] instead."

"Well, even if you experienced it systemically as much as I did, it still hurts me more because it's about my identity and not yours, even though you were the one literally being attacked with it."

And if all that fails it's "no, that's not why you experienced it" or "no, you didn't experience that".

All examples I touched on earlier in this post, but still important to talk about specifically.

The person being hurt by a type of ableism, including slurs, is the person who they are being used against, period. It doesn't matter if they have "the right" disability. It doesn't matter what group the slurs or ableism is primarily used against. The bigots are TRYING to hurt the person they are specifically using the bigotry against, and that person is the one who ends up hurt by it. Full stop, no argument.

And if someone is hurt by a word, especially repeatedly, they have a right to reclaim it. Period.

At the end of the day, does this matter all that much? It's just community microaggressions, right?

Here's my feelings on it: I'm never going to let petty infighting get in the way of fighting for total disabled liberation. Just because some individuals are guilty of lateral ableism doesn't mean I won't fight for a world in which they face no ableism. It would be ableist of me to leave them behind over something like this. Not to mention, there's no need for anyone to be considered an authority on ableism in a world where there is none.

That being said, it is still a minor hurdle on the way to disabled liberation. If we police our own community and shut down discussions of ableism, how can we effectively fight for our right to not be policed or shut down by abled people? We're demonstrating that it's acceptable behavior.

You can argue all you want that abled people should recognize that it's different and they don't have a voice in the conversation - but what about those who are explicitly telling abled people that it's okay to shut down THESE disabled people talking about THEIR experiences because they're privileged invaders in the conversation and abled people should use their privilege over us to act as an even higher authority and stop us?

What about the conflicting messages of "abled people use your power over these disabled people to force them not to talk about the ableism they experience, but not these OTHER disabled people doing the same thing".

It's one thing to make a blanket statement to say "hey, if someone is actually attacking the validity of a disabled (or any marginalized) identity or talking over them about their own experiences, then shut that down". Saying a given marginalized identity doesn't exist or is inherently harmful is always bad. Talking over someone on their OWN experiences, when they are simply talking about things they've directly experienced, is always bad. I don't think it's the end of the world to say "use your privilege to shut down ableism" to abled people.

The problem is telling abled people that someone TALKING about their own legitimate experiences is bad and it's okay to shut it down. Abled people should not ever be given permission to do so - whether using their own judgment or just doing so on the word of disabled people.

Even besides that, though, it's still ableism, and lateral ableism is also a barrier in the way of total disabled liberation. It is an active threat to unity, to our ability to organize and demand change. We can fight to remove it from our communities while still focusing our energy primarily outward on fighting for liberation within the larger abled world.

Finally, it's an issue because it creates more hierarchies to solve existing ones. It says "instead of addressing the actual ableism, we're just going to flip it so you're the one experiencing it instead". It's like the so-called "feminists" that just want a matriarchy. It's not about creating a safer environment, it's about being the one to perpetrate the harm currently being done to you.

So, in cases where neither group has any real systemic power over each other, it doesn't even do that - it simply creates an environment where the original harm continues to be perpetuated while another new harm occurs. It devolves into a petty slap fight, distracting from actual liberation while also causing both parties to be hurt. That's not acceptable praxis. It's not praxis at all.

Even with the harm being small in scale, it's still not okay. Two injustices don't make a justice, just as two wrongs don't make a right.

This is very much something we need to address - in disabled spaces being my focus here - but also in queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces. And all of stems from the idea that "privilege" is the same as having the power to oppress someone. It's the idea that if you have an axis of privilege over another person with the same overall marginalized identity as you, that you are equivalent to being nonmarginalized compared to them and therefore disagreeing with them in any way about your OWN marginalized experiences is bigotry.

Functionally, it's that you're a bigoted privileged invader of marginalized spaces if you dare to have an opinion on a shared type of oppression. And speaking as a transfemmasc person, mayyyyyybe we should actually kill that rhetoric forever.

[sophieinwonderland]

Responding to this in an image since it had a link to an account I'm blocked by.

I'm going to preface this by saying that you're allowed to identify as whatever you want, and if your tulpa wants to go by something else, that's great.

Having said that, I don't support attempts at convincing other people to stop using the word tulpa. I don't think the appropriation narrative that was invented by anti-endos is legitimate. And I think that a strong tulpa community is too important to endogenic and plural acceptance.

I've gone over my own reasoning for my choices here.

But we cannot overstate the importance of that research.

The post you link claims that using the word tulpa is harmful. But it uses "harm" in a very abstract way. Most of the people spreading the anti-tulpa narrative aren't Buddhists. Of those that are, most of those aren't Tibetan Buddhists and haven't usually even heard of the term before getting involved in syscourse and listening to anti-endos.

How are people being harmed by us identifying as tulpas? I've yet to see anyone be able to actually articulate that.

But I can see the harm of continuing to live in a world where tulpas and endogenic plurality aren't accepted. We see this all around us.

People who have to keep secrets from their loved ones lest they be seen as crazy or liars, and ostracized. Tulpamancers who fear talking to their therapists about their tulpa because they don't want to be misdiagnosed with Schizophrenia or some other disorders. People who have to live a double life constantly, with the people around them never knowing who they really are. And the tulpas themselves suffer from not being able to have personal connections with others.

The academic research into tulpamancy is the BEST chance we have at achieving plural acceptance.

It's the best chance we have at shutting down the fakeclaimers both in and outside of the endogenic community, and maybe help make a world where endogenic systems don't have to be harassed for our very existence.

Researchers depend on being able to gather participants from hubs like tulpa.info and r/tulpas. If the tulpa community is divided, then research could stall or cease altogether. It could be years before we have another mostly-psychological community of created systems as a subject of research again. Years of systems suffering real psychological harm in a society that refuses to accept our existence.

And don't get me wrong... this research is only the first step. It's not going to instantly solve everything. But the sooner we can achieve that first step, the sooner we can achieve our longterm goals and make the world safer for endogenic systems.

I think it's easy for some unaligned and neutral DID systems who have neurological evidence supporting the existence of DID to minimize the importance of getting the same neurological evidence for endogenic and created systems.

They have nothing to lose if the studies into created systems can't continue because researchers can't gather the necessary participants.

But to us, anything that gets in the way of this research... anything that sets it back by even as much as a day, is completely unacceptable.

Identify by whatever feels comfortable with you.

But for myself, I'm going to keep identifying as a tulpa, providing resources on tulpamancy to others, and spreading awareness of tulpamancy because I believe that this is what's best for both the tulpa community and for the endogenic community as a whole.

[ballsballsbowls]

I lied and I'm making a new thread for this because I was going to keep it brief and I am not succeeding.

I think it's actually a sign that Katie was a fundamentally good person because she was not particularly good at harassing me (either that or I was simply not a very good mark. Or both.) The fact that I, again, knew we were not friends and knew there was no benign reason she was interacting with me probably did not make her life any easier.

The first one, she caught me in a big group of people before Choir class and said, loudly, "I just wanted to know if you're okay with me dating Matt. Since you're, you know, obsessed with him."

I wish I could say that I had a snappy comeback, but I was more confused than anything. I sputtered something once I realized what she was on about, but she got people talking about it, people outside of our class, and that was what mattered.

I suspect, for all her bluster, that she knew that I wasn't wrong about Matt, because she deliberately chose to approach me in a class that we didn't share with Matt and didn't include any of his immediate friends.

She did that one a few more times, asking me loudly how I felt about it in classes with bigger groups of students, and she would go stand and be so lovey-dovey (within the bounds of acceptable PDA) while standing in front of my locker, because Matt's locker was inexplicably 5 lockers down from mine for two consecutive years in spite of our names not being anywhere near each other alphabetically (I never did figure out how that happened).

The most memorable one, though, was she came into Honors English with a folded-up note and gave it to me, and she and two of her buds wanted me to read it while they sat and watched. I opened it up and glanced at it to see...a note allegedly from a secret admirer asking me to wait around after school so we could talk. I still can't tell you what the intention was if I stayed after school.

Now like...so even if this WAS real, I cannot overstate how incredibly burned out by school I was at this point. I think my first thought was, "if this IS real somehow, I cannot believe someone would think I would be impressed by a Secret Admirer right now. I HAVE a secret admirer and it's not really all that great. I desperately want someone who isn't afraid to loudly say that they want to be seen with me and like me for who I am. A Secret Admirer doesn't mean dick to me." And genuinely was like, disgusted by the cowardice this would have required. But I knew it wasn't real.

I glanced at it, looked back up at 3 sets of expectant eyes going, "WELL? What do you think? What are you going to say?"

I looked her dead in the eye and went, "...don't you think he's got awfully girly handwriting? Pretty weird, if you ask me."

This shut all of them pretty fast, and I'm, to this day, unsure how they thought someone in Honors classes with them would fall for something like that? I was a year younger than them but honestly?

I threw the note away immediately after class, which I sort of regret. Not because I thought it would bring back any good memories, but because I wish I could see it the way it actually looked, not the way I remember it my head from 2 decades out, a poor mental copy of a poor mental copy of a poor mental copy.

This was also extremely frustrating for me because there'd very much been a detente on people bullying me since 10th grade, because everyone who'd been a dick to me had either graduated, been expelled, or had Matt say or do SOMETHING to them that it stopped.

Matt's besties did see this happen, but I am unsure if he ever found out about it or if the three of them just chalked it up to Girls Being Girls.

So, I told you all of this to tell you about prom, which I'll do the next day or so.

[samwisethewitch]

Coping with religious trauma

CONTENT WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS DISCUSSIONS OF MENTAL ILLNESS, TRAUMA RECOVERY, AND HOMOPHOBIA. The advice in this post is intended for an adult audience, not for those who are legal minors.

A lot of people find their way to paganism after having traumatic experiences with organized religion, especially in countries like the United States, where 65% of the population identifies as Christian. (This number is actually at an all-time low — historically, the percentage has been much higher.) Paganism, which is necessarily less dogmatic and hierarchical than the Abrahamic religions, offers a chance to experience religion without having to fit a certain mold. This can be extremely liberating for people who have felt hurt, abused, or ignored by mainstream religion.

To avoid making generalizations that might offend people, I’ll share my own story as an example.

My family joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, better known as the Mormons, when I was nine years old. The Mormons are an extremely conservative sect of evangelical Christianity that places a heavy emphasis on maintaining a strong community that upholds their religious values. The problem with that is that Mormon values are inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic. As a teenager in the Mormon Church, I was told that as a woman, my only purpose in life was to marry a (Mormon) man and raise (Mormon) children. I was discouraged from pursuing a college education if it meant delaying marriage. I was not allowed to participate in the full extent of religious ritual because I was not a man. I was not allowed to express myself in ways that went against Mormon culture, and I kept my bisexuality secret for fear I would be ostracized. I didn’t have any sort of support system outside the Church, which inevitably made the mental health issues that come with being a queer woman in a conservative Christian setting much, much worse.

I left the Mormons when I was seventeen, and by that time I had some major issues stemming from my time in the Church. I had been extremely depressed and anxious for most of my teen years. I struggled with internalized misogyny and homophobia. I had very low self-esteem. I had anxiety around sex and sexuality that would take years of therapy and self-work to overcome. I wanted to form a connection with the divine, but I wasn’t sure if I was worthy of such a connection.

I was attracted to paganism, specifically Wicca, because it seemed like everything Mormonism wasn’t. Wicca teaches equality between men and women, with a heavy focus on the Goddess in worship. It places an emphasis on doing what is right for you, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. It encourages sexuality and healthy sexual expression. Learning about Wicca, and later other types of paganism, helped me develop the kind of healthy spirituality I’d never experienced as a Mormon. Although Wicca is no longer the backbone of my religious practice, it was a necessary and deeply healing step on my spiritual journey.

I’m not sharing my story to gain sympathy or to make anyone feel bad — I’m sharing it because my situation is not an uncommon one in pagan circles. The vast majority of pagans are converts, meaning they didn’t grow up pagan. Some had healthy upbringings in other faiths, or no faith at all, and simply found that paganism was a better fit for them. Others, like myself, had deeply traumatic experiences with organized religion and are attracted to paganism because of the freedom, autonomy, and empowerment it offers.

If you fall into this latter category, this post is for you. Untangling the threads of religious trauma can be an extremely difficult and overwhelming task. In this post, I lay out six steps to recovery based on my own experiences and those of other people, both pagan and non-pagan, who have lived through religious trauma.

While following these steps will help jumpstart your spiritual healing, it’s important to remember that healing is not a linear process — especially healing from emotional, mental, and spiritual trauma. You may have relapses, you may feel like you’re moving in circles, and you may still have bad days in five or ten years. That’s okay. That’s part of the healing process. Go easy on yourself, and let your journey unfold naturally.

Step One: Cut all ties with the group that caused your trauma

Or, at least, cut as many ties as reasonably possible.

Obviously, if you’re still participating in a religious organization that has caused you pain, the first step is to leave! But before you do, make sure you have an exit plan to help you disengage safely and gracefully.

To make your exit plan, start by asking yourself what the best, worst, and most likely case scenarios are, and be honest in your answers. Obviously, the best case scenario is that you leave, everyone accepts it, and all is well. The worst case scenario is that someone tries to prevent you from leaving — you may be harassed by missionaries or concerned churchgoers, for example. But what is the most likely case scenario? That depends on the religious community, their beliefs, and how involved you were in the first place. When making your exit plan, prepare for the most likely scenario, but have a backup plan in case the worst case scenario happens.

Once you’ve prepared yourself for the best, worst, and most likely outcomes, choose a friend, significant other, or family member who can help you make your exit. Ideally, this person is not a member of the group you are trying to leave. Their role is mainly to provide emotional support, although they may also need to be willing to run off any well-meaning missionaries who come calling. This person can also help you transition after you leave. For example, you might make a plan to get coffee with them every week during the time your old religious community holds worship services.

Finally, make your strategy for leaving. Choose a date and don’t put it off! If you have any responsibilities within the group, send in a letter of resignation. Figure out who you’ll need to have conversations with about your leaving — this will likely include any family members or close friends who are still part of the group. Schedule those conversations. Make sure to have them in public places, where people will be less likely to make a scene.

If you feel it is necessary, you may want to request that your name be removed from the group’s membership records so you don’t get emails, phone calls, or friendly visits from them in the future. You may not feel the need to do this, but if contact with the group triggers a mental health crisis, this extra step will help keep you safe.

Of course, it’s not always possible to completely cut ties with a group after leaving. You may have family members, a significant other, or close friends who are still members. If this is the case, you’ll need to establish some clear boundaries. Politely but firmly tell them that, although you’re glad their faith adds value to their lives, you are not willing to be involved in their religious activities. Let them know that this is what is best for your mental and emotional health and that you still value your relationship with them.

Try to make compromises that allow you to preserve the relationship without exposing you to a traumatic religious environment. For example, if your family is Christian and always spends all day on Christmas at church, offer to celebrate with them the day after, once their religious commitments are over.

Hopefully, your loved ones can respect these boundaries. If not, you may need to distance yourself or walk away altogether. If they are knowingly undermining your attempts to take care of yourself, they don’t deserve to be in your life.

During this time, you may find it helpful to read other people’s exit stories online or in books. One of my personal favorites is the book Girl at the End of the World by Elizabeth Esther. Hearing other people’s stories can help you remember that other people have been through similar situations and made it out on the other side. You will too.

Step Two: Seek professional help

I cannot overstate the importance of professional counseling when dealing with trauma of any kind, including religious trauma. Therapists and counselors have the benefit of professional training. They are able to be objective, since they’re approaching the situation from the outside. They can keep you from getting bogged down in your own thoughts and feelings.

I understand that not everyone has access to therapy. I am very lucky to have insurance that covers mental health counseling, but I know not everyone has that privilege. However, there are some options that make therapy more affordable.

There may be an organization in your area that offers free or low-cost therapy — if you live in the U.S., you can find information about these services by checking the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) HelpLine or visiting mentalhealth.gov. You can also look for therapists who use a sliding scale for payment, which means they determine an hourly rate based on the client’s income. And finally, if you have a little bit of extra cash you may want to look into therapy apps like BetterHelp or Talkspace, which are typically cheaper than in-person therapy.

If none of those options work for you, the next best option is to join a support group. Support groups allow you to connect with other people whose experiences are similar to yours and, unlike therapy, they allow you to get advice and feedback from multiple people. These groups are often free, although some charge a small fee.

Finding the right group for you is important. You’re unlikely to find a group for people recovering from religious trauma but, depending on the nature of your trauma, you may fit right in with a grief and loss group, an addiction recovery group, or a group for adult survivors of child abuse. If you’re a member of the LGBTQ+ community, you may be able to find a queer support group. (The LGBTQ+ club at my college was an invaluable resource in my recovery!) Depending on your area, you may also be able to find groups for specific mental and emotional issues like depression or anxiety.

Make sure to do your research before attending a meeting. Find out what, if anything, the group charges, who can join, and whether they use a curriculum or have unstructured sessions. See if you can find a statement about their values and philosophy. Make a note of where meetings are held and of who is running the group. Some support groups meet in churches and may or may not have a religious element to their curriculum. It’s best to avoid religious groups — the last thing you need right now is to be preached to.

Getting other people involved in your recovery will make you feel less alone and prevent you from getting stuck in your own head. A good therapist, counselor, or support group can help you realize what you need to work on and give you ideas for how to approach it.

Step Three: Deprogramming

“Deprogramming” refers to the practice of undoing brainwashing and reintroducing healthy thought patterns. This term is normally used in the context of cult survivors and their recovery, but deprogramming techniques can also be helpful for people recovering from a lifetime of toxic religious rhetoric.

To begin the process of deprogramming, familiarize yourself with the way organizations use thought control to shape the behavior of their members. I recommend starting with the work of Steven Hassan — his BITE model is a handy way to classify types of thought control.

The BITE model lays out four types of control. There’s Behavior Control, which controls what members do and how they spend their free time. (For example, requiring members to attend multiple hours-long meetings each week.) There’s Information Control, which restricts members’ access to information. (For example, denying certain aspects of the group’s history.) There’s Thought Control, which shapes the way members think. (For example, classifying certain thoughts as sinful or dirty.) And finally there’s Emotional Control, which manipulates members’ emotions. (For example, instilling fear of damnation or punishment.)

Here’s a simple exercise to get you started with your deprogramming. Divide a blank sheet of paper into four equal sections. Label one section “Behavior,” one “Information,” one “Thought,” and one “Emotions.” Now, in each section, make a list of the ways your old religious group controlled — and maybe still controls — that area of your life. Once you’ve completed your lists, choose a single item from one of your lists to work on undoing.

For example, let’s say that in your “Information” column, you’ve written that you were discouraged from reading certain books because they contained “evil” ideas. (For a lot of people, this was Harry Potter. For me, it was The Golden Compass.) Pick up one of those books, and read it or listen to it as an audiobook. Once you’ve read it, write down your thoughts. Did you enjoy it? Why or why not? Why do you think your group banned it? What was in this book that they didn’t want you to know about? Write it down.

Once you’ve worked on the first thing, choose something else. Keep going until you’ve undone all the items on your lists.

If you want to go further with deprogramming, I recommend the book Recovering Agency by Luna Lindsey. Although this book is specifically written for former Mormons, I genuinely believe it would be helpful to former members of other controlling religious groups as well. Lindsey does an excellent job of explaining how thought control works and of connecting it to real world examples, as well as deconstructing those ideas. Her book has been a huge help in my recovery process, and I highly recommend it.

Step Four: Replace toxic beliefs and practices with healthy ones

This goes hand-in-hand with step three, and if you’re already working on deprogramming then you’ll already have started replacing your unhealthy beliefs. This is the turning point in the recovery process. You’re no longer just undoing what others have done to you — now you get an opportunity to decide what you want to believe and do going forward. This is the time to let go of things like denial of your desires, fear of divine punishment, and holding yourself to unattainable standards. Get used to living in a way that makes you happy, without guilt.

Notice how each step builds on the previous steps. Therapy and deprogramming can help you identify what beliefs and behaviors need to be adjusted or replaced. Your therapist, support group, and/or emotional support person can help you make these changes and follow through on them.

These new beliefs and practices don’t have to be religious — in fact, it’s better if they aren’t. If you can live a healthy, happy, balanced life without religion, you’ll be in a better position to choose a religion that is the right fit for you, if that is something you want.

Your new healthy, non-religious practices may include: mindfulness meditation, nature walks, journaling, reading, exercise, energy work, learning a hobby or craft, or spending time with loves ones — or it might include none of these things, and that’s okay too. Now is the time to find what brings you joy and start doing it every day.

Step Five: Ritual healing

This is an optional step, but it’s one that has been deeply healing for me. You may find it helpful to design and perform a ritual to mark your recovery.

Note that when I say “ritual,” I don’t necessarily mean magic. Rituals serve a psychological purpose as well as a spiritual one. They can act as powerful symbolic events that mark a turning point in our lives or reinforce what we already know and believe. Even if you don’t believe in magic, even if you’re the least spiritual person you know, you can still benefit from ritual.

You might choose to perform a ritual to finalize your healing, or to symbolically throw off the chains of your old religion. It can be elaborate or simple, long or short, joyful or solemn. It might include lighting a candle and saying a few words. It might include ecstatic dance. It might include drawing or painting a representation of all the negative emotions associated with your old religion, then ritually destroying it. The possibilities are literally endless. (If you’re looking for ritual ideas, I recommend the book Light Magic for Dark Times by Lisa Marie Basile.)

One type of ritual that some people find very empowering is unbaptism. An unbaptism is exactly what it sounds like — the opposite of a baptism. The idea is that, if a baptism makes a Christian, an unbaptism makes someone un-Christian, no longer part of that lineage. It is a ritual rejection of Christianity. (Obviously, this only applies if you’re a former Christian, though some of the following suggestions could be adjusted to fit a rejection of other religions.)

If you’re interested in unbaptism, here are some ideas for how it could be done:

A classic method of unbaptism is to recite the Lord’s Prayer backwards under a full moon. (For a non-Christians version, use a significant prayer from whatever religion you have left.)

Run a bath. Add a tiny pinch of sulfur (a.k.a. brimstone) to the water. Get into the bath and say, “By water I was baptized, and by water my baptism is rejected.” Submerge your entire body under the water for several seconds. When you come back up, your unbaptism is complete. (You may want to shower after this one. Sulfur does not smell good.)

The Detroit Satanic Temple has a delightfully dramatic unbaptism ritual. For a DIY version, you will need holy water or some other relic from the faith you were baptized in, a fireproof dish, a black candle, and an apple or other sweet fruit. Light the candle and place it in your fireproof dish. Toss some holy water onto the flame (not enough to extinguish it) and say, “I cast my chains into the dust of hell.” Take a bite of the apple and say, “I savor the fruit of knowledge and disobedience.” Finally, declare proudly, “I am unbaptized.” You can add “in the name of Satan” at the end or leave it out, depending on your comfort level.

Personally, I’ve never felt the need to unbaptize myself. I’ve ritually rejected my Mormon upbringing in other ways. Maybe someday I’ll decide to go for the unbaptism, but I’ve never really felt like I needed it. Likewise, you’ll need to decide for yourself what ritual(s) will work for you.

Step Six: Honor your recovery

Our first reaction to trauma is to hide it away and never speak of it again. When we do this, we do ourselves a disservice. Your recovery is a part of your life story. You had the strength to walk away from a situation that was hurting you, and that deserves to be celebrated! Be proud of yourself for how far you’ve come!

You may choose to honor your recovery by celebrating an important date every year, like the day you decided to leave the group, the date of the last meeting you attended, or the date you were removed from the membership records. Keep this celebration fun and light — get drinks with friends, bake a cake for yourself, or just take a few moments to silently acknowledge your journey.

If you feel like having a party is a bit much, you can also honor your recovery by talking to other people about your experiences. Share your story with others. If you’re feeling shy, try sharing your story anonymously online. (Reddit has several forums specifically for anonymous stories.) You’ll be amazed by how validating it can be to tell people what you’ve been through. `

Another way to honor your recovery is to work for personal and religious freedom for all people. Protest laws with religious motivations. Donate to organizations that campaign for the separation of church and state. Educate people about how to recognize an unhealthy religious organization. Let your own story motivate you to help others who are in similar situations.

And most of all, take joy in your journey. Be proud of yourself for how far you’ve come, but know that your recovery is a lifelong journey. Be gentle and understanding with yourself. You are doing what is right for you, and no god or spirit worthy of worship could ever be upset by that.

[esther-dot]

I think the Jon/Dany romance just has nothing going for it. I never thought that Jon and Dany would make a good pair and the show confirmed it. In my mind, part of the while point of J/Y is to set Jon up NOT to fall for the same relationship dynamic again. The Jon/Dany romance just felt like a poor attempt at recycling Jon/Ygritte story line thinking it would connect with audiences. The whole J/D thing felt unnatural and OOC for Jon. It was boring from a narrative and personal perspective.

How they did J/D in the show made no sense at any level. There were a dozen ways they could have written it better, and they just gave us a self contradictory mess. How badly they wrote it is impressive.

Maybe I haven't talked about this before, but part of the reason I have such an overwhelming hatred for Jxnerys and a much more rational approach to J/Y is because when J/Y happens, Jon is so young. He's left his family and had his dream of what the Watch is shattered. Then he is removed from those people, placed in a life or death situation in which he has to play along, and there's this girl who smiles at him, who sings (which incidentally is a parallel to his mother...), and pursues him. While we objectively read her behavior as sexual harassment, the kid was made to feel unwanted/an outsider during his childhood (even though his siblings loved him), finds himself in the worst situation of his life, and then, there's this person who wants him, wants him to belong with her, loves him (because he believes Ygritte loved him even if we think she mistreated him), and that's a powerful thing. Ygritte is meeting fundamental emotional needs. And then, they have sex. And of course, it feels good, but also, it also means Jon has a bond with her that he has never had with anyone else. The kid is a romantic, very emotional, and I think the circumstances are such that he wouldn't be able to not have deep (if confused and conflicted and perhaps even misidentified) feelings.

Also, the goodness of Jon cannot be overstated here. He did not want to get involved with Ygritte, felt that he had to, and then, when contemplating leaving, he worries about what it means for her safety. He takes on so many burdens here, has such a sense of responsibility and guilt. So, to me, Jon is not an idiot for caring. He isn't wrong for caring. He is a good person, a boy, and I only have sympathy for him.

I guess my concern that J/D will happen regardless of it not really making sense to me is that I don't see how Jon and Dany face off without having a personal relationship. It just feels too clear cut if he doesn't. It doesn't have to be sexual, but it's hard to see how he will care too much about an aunt he didn't know he had after he is reunited with the Starks. If she's a threat to them, how would he view her with any positive emotion? Dany will not be a girl on the wrong side of the Wall, a soldier in someone else's army, she isn't even Mance. She is coming with dragons to subjugate the entire continent because she wants to rule it. There is nothing she can say to justify it, she is only a threat, and she will be at war with someone who Jon will sooner or later learn is his brother (or might be his brother, I guess we don't know what Jon will think). But even so, she wont be the only other Targaryen family he suddenly has, so I just don't see what their connection would be.

I can understand (without liking) J/Y because he was particularly vulnerable at the time that he met her, but when he meets Dany, it will be after he has reunited with a Stark. After they have reclaimed Winterfell, after he has experienced some sort of acceptance by the North (he might even be chosen as KitN), so all the things feeding into why he would be susceptible to Ygritte, just aren't going to be there when he encounters Dany. Ygritte was offering something to Jon that he didn't have, Dany would only be taking things away from him (which is exactly how it happened in the show). And the underlying implication of that, the psychological explanation would be that he is so traumatized by his experiences or swallowed by guilt/shame/self-loathing that he can't accept the love and respect of his family/people. Obviously, D&D didn't bother making Jon s7-8 coherent, but it seems to me that if J/D were to happen in a consensual way, it would have to be after parentage reveal when he is an absolute mess. I know that's not the conventional take, but they'll be meeting SO late in the story, I don't see how it happens before. I'm not saying that J/D will happen, I just think if Martin wants it to, he's going to have it come out of a really fucked up place. Jon would have to again have a feeling of not belonging/not being wanted that makes him vulnerable. I hated J/D in the show, but I think it would be so, so much worse in the books. It was boring on the show because they couldn't ground it in who the characters were, but when I think about how it could go down in the books, it seems like it will be another noncon relationship for Jon or the outgrowth of despair.

But, to your point, you can learn from bad experiences, or it can be the beginning of a pattern. If the Starks are to prevail, they must learn their lessons. So, I agree, that Ygritte and then Val, must be about teaching him about the duality of women. That while he thinks of women as people to protect, Ygritte would slit a man's throat and Val would kill a child. And then, there's also the fire-happy people he's around and how he isn't enthralled with that. It feels like he is being prepped to handle Dany.

Anyway, before I found the Sansa and Jonsa fandom here and was reading stuff on Reddit, I felt like people who liked J/D could be divided into two groups. Show fans thought the two actors were really hot and should be hot in the vicinity of each other, and J/D did share screentime so...I guess that's why they liked s7 even though the writers did awful things to Jon to facilitate it. Presumption that the main girl/main guy would get together fed into that too.

And the other group seemed to be very into Targ supremacy and the idea that they would save the world so of course J/D would fall in love, use the dragons to defeat the Others, rule Westeros together.. This ending would mean the Targs were right to conquer Westeros, that Rhaegar was right, and it would also justify everything Dany did because she/dragons would save humanity. It's very strange that so much of the fandom doesn't really focus on the why/how of things in such a character driven story.

In the show, I still don't know what they were going for because 8x01 felt like a course correct to tell us that no, J/D really is J/Y 2.0. The tone of that stupid dragon riding scene and their laughing together while being watched by all their advisors was very different than the entirety of their s7 interactions, and considering their immediate situation, felt forced and ooc for both of them. So, I thought it was something D&D felt compelled to do because of a change in plans. As in, if that's what they intended their relationship to be all along, I think they would have had more emotional bonding back in s7 and pushed their sex scene to a passionate eve of battle thing in s8, rather than the stupid flying thing. They really needed to sell the passion of J/D in s8 to offset all the red flags Dany was waving around, and instead they suddenly switched to cute which just...well, it was a total mess. Whatever J/D was, let's hope it was fan service/an attempt to hide Dark Dany, and nothing we will have to experience in the books.

[itsfinancethings]

If the United States wants to protect democracy and public health, it must acknowledge that internet platforms are causing great harm and accept that executives like Mark Zuckerberg are not sincere in their promises to do better. The “solutions” Facebook and others have proposed will not work. They are meant to distract us.

The news in the last weeks highlighted both the good and bad of platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The good: Graphic videos of police brutality from multiple cities transformed public sentiment about race, creating a potential movement for addressing an issue that has plagued the country since its founding. Peaceful protesters leveraged social platforms to get their message across, outcompeting the minority that advocated for violent tactics. The bad: waves of disinformation from politicians, police departments, Fox News, and others denied the reality of police brutality, overstated the role of looters in protests, and warned of busloads of antifa radicals. Only a month ago, critics exposed the role of internet platforms in undermining the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic by amplifying health disinformation. That disinformation convinced millions that face masks and social distancing were culture war issues, rather than public health guidance that would enable the economy to reopen safely.

The internet platforms have worked hard to minimize the perception of harm from their business. When faced with a challenge that they cannot deny or deflect, their response is always an apology and a promise to do better. In the case of Facebook, University of North Carolina Scholar Zeynep Tufekci coined the term “Zuckerberg’s 14-year apology tour.” If challenged to offer a roadmap, tech CEOs leverage the opaque nature of their platforms to create the illusion of progress, while minimizing the impact of the proposed solution on business practices. Despite many disclosures of harm, beginning with their role in undermining the integrity of the 2016 election, these platforms continue to be successful at framing the issues in a favorable light.

When pressured to reduce targeted harassment, disinformation, and conspiracy theories, the platforms frame the solution in terms of content moderation, implying there are no other options. Despite several waves of loudly promoted investments in artificial intelligence and human moderators, no platform has been successful at limiting the harm from third party content. When faced with public pressure to remove harmful content, internet platforms refuse to address root causes, which means old problems never go away, even as new ones develop. For example, banning Alex Jones removed conspiracy theories from the major sites, but did nothing to stop the flood of similar content from other people.

The platforms respond to each new public relations challenge with an apology, another promise, and sometimes an increased investment in moderation. They have done it so many times I have lost track. And yet, policy makers and journalists continue to largely let them get away with it.

We need to recognize that internet platforms are experts in human attention. They know how to distract us. They know we will eventually get bored and move on.

Despite copious evidence to the contrary, too many policy makers and journalists behave as if internet platforms will eventually reduce the harm from targeted harassment, disinformation, and conspiracies through content moderation. There are three reasons why it will not do so: scale, latency, and intent. These platforms are huge. In the most recent quarter, Facebook reported that 1.7 billion people use its main platform every day and roughly 2.3 billion across its four large platforms. They do not disclose the numbers of messages posted each day, but it is likely to be in the hundreds of millions, if not a billion or more, just on Facebook. Substantial investments in artificial intelligence and human moderators cannot prevent millions of harmful messages from getting through.

The second hurdle is latency, which describes the time it takes for moderation to identify and remove a harmful message. AI works rapidly, but humans can take minutes or days. This means a large number of messages will circulate for some time before eventually being removed. Harm will occur in that interval. It is tempting to imagine that AI can solve everything, but that is a long way off. AI systems are built on data sets from older systems, and they are not yet capable of interpreting nuanced content like hate speech.

The final – and most important – obstacle for content moderation is intent. The sad truth is that the content we have asked internet platforms to remove is exceptionally valuable and they do not want to remove it. As a result, the rules for AI and human moderators are designed to approve as much content as possible. Alone among the three issues with moderation, intent can only be addressed with regulation.

A permissive approach to content has two huge benefits for platforms: profits and power. The business model of internet platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter is based on advertising, the value of which depends on consumer attention. Where traditional media properties create content for mass audiences, internet platforms optimize content for each user individually, using surveillance to enable exceptionally precise targeting. Advertisers are addicted to the precision and convenience offered by internet platforms. Every year, they shift an ever larger percentage of their spending to them, from which platforms derive massive profits and wealth. Limiting the amplification of targeted harassment, disinformation, and conspiracy theories would lower engagement and revenues.

Power, in the form of political influence, is an essential component of success for the largest internet platforms. They are ubiquitous, which makes them vulnerable to politics. Tight alignment with the powerful ensures success in every country, which leads platforms to support authoritarians, including ones who violate human rights. For example, Facebook has enabled regime-aligned genocide in Myanmar and state-sponsored repression in Cambodia and the Philippines. In the United States, Facebook and other platforms have ignored or altered their terms of service to enable Trump and his allies to use the platform in ways that would normally be prohibited. For example, when journalists exposed Trump campaign ads that violated Facebook’s terms of service with falsehoods, Facebook changed its terms of service, rather than pulling the ads. In addition, Facebook chose not to follow Twitter’s lead in placing a public safety warning on a Trump post that promised violence in the event of looting.

Thanks to their exceptional targeting, platforms play an essential role in campaign fundraising and communications for candidates of both parties. While the dollars are not meaningful to the platforms, they derive power and influence from playing an essential role in electoral politics. This is particularly true for Facebook.

At present, platforms have no liability for the harms caused by their business model. Their algorithms will continue to amplify harmful content until there is an economic incentive to do otherwise. The solution is for Congress to change incentives by implementing an exception to the safe harbor of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for algorithm amplification of harmful content and guaranteeing a right to litigate against platforms for this harm. This solution does not impinge on first amendment rights, as platforms are free to continue their existing business practices, except with liability for harms.

Thanks to COVID-19 and the protest marches, consumers and policy makers are far more aware of the role that internet platforms play in amplifying disinformation. For the first time in a generation, there is support in both parties in Congress for revisions to Section 230. There is increasing public support for regulation.

We do not need to accept disinformation as the cost of access to internet platforms. Harmful amplification is the result of business choices that can be changed. It is up to us and to our elected representatives to make that happen. The pandemic and the social justice protests underscore the urgency of doing so.

[netunleashed-blog]

Persona 4 Remains An All-Time Great RPG 10 Years Later; A Celebration Of Its Legacy

http://www.internetunleashed.co.uk/?p=6760 Persona 4 Remains An All-Time Great RPG 10 Years Later; A Celebration Of Its Legacy - http://www.internetunleashed.co.uk/?p=6760 It may not have been known at the time, but in July 2008, Japan received what would be remembered as one of the greatest role-playing games of all time. Over the course of a decade, Persona 4 has become more than just an incredibly fun RPG with a refined battle system and quirky characters, though. A story about Japanese high school students confronting their worst fears, fighting for what's right, and becoming the best of friends spawned a lasting legacy that has empowered the people who played it and continually inspired new games. Our love for Persona 4 has kept it alive for so long with several fighting games, two anime adaptations, an adorable (and difficult) spin-off RPG, and even a rhythm game. And after 10 years, we're still seeing our good friends from Inaba in a new light.For the uninitiated, Persona 4's foundation closely resembles that of its predecessor, Persona 3. You're a transfer student new to a school surrounded by unusual circumstances; supernatural phenomena that endanger your new hometown is the crux to the overarching mystery. On a typical day, you go to class, do extracurricular activities, and try to grow closer to those around town and at school. Better yourself through hobbies or take on a part-time job, it's up to you how to pass the time. In particular, Persona 4 takes you to a fictional rural town of Inaba where the biggest thing to happen before your arrival was the opening of a Junes department store (think Super Walmart, but with an infectious jingle). Even your little cousin Nanako is utterly convinced that every day's great at your Junes, and begs you and her dad to take her there like it's the greatest place on earth.Sure sounds like all fun and games until you and your new friends become the centerpiece for a dark murder mystery and an absolutely perplexing world that lives behind TV screens. At first, it's not quite clear why outlandish versions of certain townsfolk inexplicably pop up on TV sets and go missing on rainy midnights. The one way to get to the bottom of this, to actually jump into a TV screen to enter the shadow world where the other half of Persona 4 comes into play.Aha! Is this our chance? It's time for an All-Out Attack!While dungeon crawling and sneaking up on shadows through randomly generated floors make up the exploration, an intricate turn-based combat system is where you'll find excellence in gameplay. Most enemies have elemental weaknesses which factor into how you construct your party and devise a tactical approach. Sounds par for the course in an RPG, but the unique press-turn system that Shin Megami Tensei is known for shines brighter than it had previously by giving you full control to pull off flashy, effective attacks. Receiving a bonus attack after targeting a weakness before enemies get a turn is endlessly satisfying, especially as dungeons become inhabited by trickier, stronger shadows.A story about Japanese high school students confronting their worst fears, fighting for what's right, and becoming the best of friends spawned a lasting legacy that has empowered the people who played it and continually inspired new games.However, nothing in battle matches the joy of seeing your crew team up for the most adorable, yet devastating All-Out Attacks, a franchise staple. Everyone in the party piles on heavy damage that usually puts an end to the fight, and you sense their ferocity in character portraits that pop up just before everyone jumps in. A cloud of dust erupts as they whale on enemies, sometimes popping out of the chaos only to jump back in for another hit, and all you need to do is watch as they take care of business. If you're lucky, someone will offer a follow-up attack turn-free; and it should be taken as fact that nothing is as absurdly cute as Chie's galactic punt where she literally kicks an enemy into outer space (her kung fu DVDs really paid off). Even in battle, everyone's distinct personality isn't lost or put off to the side, which highlights Persona 4’s greatest accomplishment: its commitment to a relentless charm embodied by this cast of misfits.So effortlessly does Persona 4 merge the two pillars of a social simulation and traditional RPG; nothing feels disconnected, how days are spent matters. These two realities feed into each other, and Igor--the series-long, omniscient owner of the ethereal Velvet Room--alludes to this up front: true strength is born from the bonds you form. The power of friendship is a prevalent trope in similar stories, but to have that power manifest as a tangible benefit in combat gives us further reason to invest in relationships. I call back to how Rise came in clutch to buff the party or cast healing during tough boss fights, or when Yukiko dealt the final blow casting Agidyne using her final-form persona with the last bit of SP: moments like these solidify the feeling that my companions really do have my back in times of need.Gas up your scooter 'cause we're going on a road trip!From the mother who wishes for acceptance from her stepson to your basketball teammate who finds it impossible to live up to his adopted family's legacy, these vignettes serve to tell very human stories. We help Nanako open up to her dad about his lack of presence and break through Uncle Dojima's hard-boiled temperament to reveal an empathetic father who constantly struggles with his wife's death and his job as a detective. In the end, a heartwarming father-daughter scene results in a newfound commitment to family. Other social links struck a more personal nerve.This cast harbors the painful secrets that so many teenagers and young adults repress, and it carries the perceptions and labels society puts upon them. These are the burdens everyone bears throughout Persona 4, but burdens that no one has to bear alone.When Yosuke overlooks Inaba, the town he once hated, and realizes that what makes him happy is the people he's surrounded by rather than big city glamour, I felt that. Even though Kanji maintains the tough guy attitude, he eventually embraces his sewing skills and love for cute plushies--as he began to handcraft toys for kids around town, I sensed a big, cathartic middle finger to societal expectations for masculinity. Naoto's strive for justice, as the genius detective, makes a firm statement against workplace gender discrimination. Life as an idol sure sounds great, until Rise decides she needs to walk away from stardom for her own sanity. As endearing as Chie's and Yukiko's friendship, their dynamic evolved and reached new heights after confronting their shadow-selves, leading to more open and honest relationship.This cast harbors the painful secrets that so many teenagers and young adults repress, and it carries the perceptions and labels society puts upon them. These are the burdens everyone bears throughout Persona 4, but burdens that no one has to bear alone. The TV world and Midnight Channel work not just as metaphors for the fear of what you think everyone sees in you, but to illustrate the sense of imprisonment and helplessness that's born from it. And by navigating the maze-like dungeons and crushing enemies, the crew breaks through obstacles to finally support each other in overcoming their monumental insecurities. Many of the game's pieces sound silly on paper, but they all come together to inspire you before you know it.When spread across 100+ hours of play-time, spanning an in-game calendar year, you're given room to breathe and let events, big and small, sink in. Moments of levity work alongside the more heartfelt revelations, which creates an ingenious balancing act. To its benefit, the game never takes itself too serious. Persona 4's greatness lies in its execution and presentation; story, gameplay, visual style, and its soundtrack all complement each other to elevate beyond the sum of its parts.Persona 4 wouldn't be the same game without the masterful composition of series composer Shoji Meguro. A collection of J-pop, J-rock, and catchy instrumentals make for incredible tracks on their own, but the right song at the right time elevates the emotional impact. As soon as I hear the brass horns start up for the track that plays during social links, I can't help but smile and sense the fun being had between characters. The boss battle theme of "I'll Face Myself" instills a feeling of danger, but also the determination to defeat your worst enemies. And the emblematic battle theme "Reach Out To The Truth" is such an uplifting song that brings back all my memories of this game. Sometimes I look outside my own house and "Heartbeat, Heartbreak" pops into my head on cloudy days and "Your Affection" when the sun shines. Music isn't relegated to just the background, and it cannot be overstated how evocative its soundtrack has been throughout the years.For all Persona 4's inspirational moments and pushes for social progressivism, we can't turn a blind eye to where it gets things wrong; to truly love something is to also recognize its flaws. By no means is it perfect when it comes to the portrayal of certain social groups and character conduct. Teddie himself exhibits unscrupulous behavior that can easily be interpreted as harassment, and it's never really confronted. Despite the personally uplifting story of Kanji, his sexual ambiguity is occasionally used as a punchline, and his shadow self can be seen as too over-the-top. Certain insensitive decisions can be made in relation to Naoto's struggle with gender identity; the interpretation of her character continues to be a point of contention to this day. And as time has gone on, the less amusing the cross-dressing pageant scene has become. To its credit, a Japanese game from 2008 was willing to explore subjects often seen as taboo; it misses the mark in critical moments, but there's value in its earnest effort. Regardless, some jokes weren't necessary to be humorous and it would've been much better without them.Despite all its absurdity, Persona 4 is grounded with thoughts and feelings that so accurately resemble our own; it's a human experience, one that many games aim for, but rarely come close to capturing.The sheer number of games that spawned afterward speaks to the love we've shared for this game. A PS Vita exclusive remaster, Persona 4 Golden, launched in 2012 as the definitive version; it refines core mechanics and includes a slew of meaningful additions. Along with new songs that perfectly fit the original soundtrack, Chie's new voice actress (Erin Fitzgerald) brought a whole new life into an already-beloved character and truly captured the spirit of Persona 4's best girl. A whole extra dungeon, an important new character, additional social link events, and new tag-team attacks round out Golden as the definitive version.An anime adaptation premiered in 2011, and another based on the remastered game released in 2014. Although it's difficult to capture an RPG in a condensed format, the anime offered a new way to experience the journey. Persona Q: Shadow of the Labyrinth brought along our buddies from Persona 3 into the mix in a wonderfully executed dungeon crawler RPG on 3DS--it bursts with charm as chibi versions of these two beloved casts band together to fight evil and have a good time. I'd also say Q features the best introductory theme and video in all the franchise. If the fan service wasn't already good enough, Persona 4: Dancing All Night leveraged the beautiful soundtrack for a delightful (and admittedly ridiculous) rhythm game--hearing my favorite songs remastered and remixed is a real treat.BlazBlue Cross Tag Battle brings back our friends at Yasogami High to meet the casts of BlazBlue, Under Night, and RWBY.Persona lends itself so well to fighting games that Arc System Works took up creating a 2D fighter in Persona 4 Arena, which remained true to both the developer's fighting game philosophy and the spirit of the source material. Persona 4 Arena Ultimax built on that foundation even further. And just this year, ArcSys circled back on Persona 4 by crossing worlds with BlazBlue, Under Night In-Birth, and RWBY in BlazBlue Cross Tag Battle. Each of these fighters introduced new characters and storylines, and were included in the fighting game community's biggest stages. Rarely, if ever, does a single entry in a larger franchise spin off in so many different directions, but thankfully, it's helped keep our Persona 4 love alive all these years later.After becoming personally invested in their journey that started it all and pouring all that time into seeing them grow, it was genuinely hard to say goodbye as the credits rolled and the ending theme "Never More" began to play. In the decade since the original game, we were fortunate to see the charming group of knuckleheads time and time again in so many different games. It's almost silly to think that a group of fictional Japanese high school students could empower us to be better, but Persona 4 has given me, and countless others, boundless joy and also an opportunity for self-reflection. Yes, I played an incredible RPG, but what I saw was a group of best friends pulling for each other to become stronger people and make the world a better place. Despite all its absurdity, Persona 4 is grounded with thoughts and feelings that so accurately resemble our own; it's a human experience, one that many games aim for, but rarely come close to capturing. Source link

[sleepymarmot]

The Maquis: what are they?

I spent the entire story arc confused about the Maquis’ situation, especially whether they’re supposed to be Federation citizens or not. This is just a collection of lines and scenes on the subject, no analysis. Transcripts copy-pasted from chakoteya.net.

PICARD: This border places several Federation colonies in Cardassian territory and some Cardassian colonies in ours. NECHEYEV: This agreement is far from perfect. Neither side got everything they wanted, but every side got something. And as someone once said, diplomacy is the art of the possible. Those colonies finding themselves on the wrong side of the border will have to be moved. PICARD: Well, the colonists are not going to be happy about that. Some of them have been there for decades. NECHEYEV: It won't be easy, but it's a reasonable price to pay for peace.

NECHEYEV: Captain, the Indians on Dorvan are a nomadic group that have settled there only twenty years ago, and at that time they were warned that the planet was hotly disputed by the Cardassians. The bottom line is they never should have gone there in the first place. PICARD: Granted, but to go to them now after twenty years later and ask them to leave what is now their home. NECHEYEV: I made that same argument with the Federation Council. But it took three years to negotiate this treaty. Some concessions had to be made, and this is one of them. PICARD: What if these Indians refuse to be evacuated? NECHEYEV: Then your orders will be to remove them by whatever means are necessary.

PICARD: Anthwara, I want to make absolutely sure that you understand the implications of this agreement. By giving up your status as Federation citizens, any future request you or your people make to Starfleet will go unanswered. You will be on your own and under Cardassian jurisdiction. ANTHWARA: I understand, Captain. And we are prepared to take that risk. Will the Cardassian government honour your agreement here? GUL EVEK: I believe I can convince them that this is an equitable solution. I cannot speak for every Cardassian you may encounter, but if you leave us alone I suspect that we will do the same.

(TNG 7x20, Journey’s End)

HUDSON: I know. You can't imagine how my life has changed since the Federation abandoned these colonies. SISKO: Abandoned them? Doesn't your presence there--  HUDSON: My presence there is a joke. I am supposed to help these colonies function under the terms of the new treaty. Now Ben, what the hell does that mean? SISKO: I thought these colonists wanted to stay. That they refused to evacuate. HUDSON: The treaty gave away their territory to the Cardassians, territory that these people had invested their lives in. Now, Ben, if you knew them as I do, you'd know why they can't leave. It's a bad treaty. The Federation gave away too much. SISKO: Several Cardassian colonies wanted to stay on the Federation side of the Zone too. It seemed like a reasonable compromise HUDSON: Well, yes, the Cardassians would love to have their colonies in our territory. Because they knew we'd protect them. But they have no intention of doing the same for ours.

(DS9 2x20, The Maquis (Part I))

NECHEYEV: We never should've allowed those colonists to remain on the Cardassian side of the Demilitarised zone. SISKO: Well they're there, Admiral, and they're not leaving. NECHEYEV: What about Commander Hudson? He's lived with these people. What's his analysis of the situation? SISKO: I'll have to ask him. NECHEYEV: You do that. And Commander, I want you to find the Maquis. Talk to them. Remind them that they're citizens of the Federation. That it is imperative that we preserve the treaty with the Cardassians. SISKO: A treaty the Cardassians may not be honouring. NECHEYEV: Are you questioning Federation policy, Commander? SISKO: All I know is that the situation in the Demilitarised zone is deteriorating rapidly. NECHEYEV: Personally, I think you're overstating the problem. Establish a dialogue with the Maquis. They're still Federation citizens. I'm sure they'll listen to reason.

QUARK: I know the Central Command would like nothing better than to destroy the Federation colonies in the Demilitarised zone.

(DS9 2x21, The Maquis (Part II))

PICARD: To all Maquis ships. Call off your attack or we will be forced to engage you. WORF: No response. PICARD: You are Federation citizens. Your actions are in violation of our treaty with the Cardassians. Call off your attack.

PICARD: We're all sympathetic, Lieutenant. Our civilian population in the Demilitarised Zone is in a very difficult situation, but even sympathy has to end at some point. The peace treaty isn't just a piece of paper. If the Maquis force us into a war with Cardassia, it could mean hundreds of thousands of lives.

RO: Starfleet considers you outlaws. They're afraid you'll destroy the peace treaty. MACIAS: They don't understand the situation here in the Zone. I lived on Juhraya. When the treaty was signed the colony suddenly found itself in Cardassian territory. Some of us chose to stay, take our chances. Then one night I was dragged from my bed and beaten. The authorities clucked their tongues and agreed it was an unfortunate incident, and did nothing. RO: I'm not surprised. The Cardassians intend to make life so unpleasant for Federation citizens that they'll leave. MACIAS: Exactly. And no one seems to see that, except the Maquis.

(TNG 7x24, Preemptive Strike)

EDDINGTON: If she's really a Maquis, then she's no longer a Federation citizen.

O'BRIEN: Look at what's happened to those people. One day they're trying to eke out a living on some godforsaken colonies on the Cardassian border, the next day the Federation makes a treaty handing those colonies over to the Cardassians. What would you do?

EDDINGTON [on monitor]: Then let's table that for now. The only reason I've contacted you is to ask you to leave us alone. Our quarrel is with the Cardassians, not the Federation. Leave us alone and I can promise you you'll never hear from the Maquis again. SISKO: Unless you see another shipment you want to hijack. EDDINGTON [on monitor]: You keep sending replicators to Cardassia and you're going to have a lot more to worry about than hijackings. SISKO: I don't respond well to threats. I thought you would know that by now. But I'm beginning to see that you don't know me at all. EDDINGTON [on monitor]: I know you. I was like you once, but then I opened my eyes. Open your eyes, Captain. Why is the Federation so obsessed about the Maquis? We've never harmed you, and yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways you're worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it.

(DS9 4x22, For the Cause)

EDDINGTON: Those people, they were colonists on Salva Two. They had farms, and shops, and homes, and schools, and then one day the Federation signed a treaty and handed their world over to the Cardassians. Just like that. They made these people refugees overnight. SISKO: It's not that simple and you know it. These people don't have to live here like this. We've offered them resettlement. EDDINGTON: They don't want to be resettled. They want to go home to the lives they built. How would you feel if the Federation gave your father's home to the Cardassians?

SISKO: Major, what is the nearest Maquis colony.

KIRA: The trilithium resin is dissipating throughout the biosphere. The Maquis are scrambling their transport ships. They're starting to evacuate. EDDINGTON: Do you realise what you've done? SISKO: I've only just begun. I'm going to eliminate every Maquis colony in the DMZ.

The Cardassian and Maquis colonists who were forced to abandon their homes will make new lives for themselves on the planets their counterparts evacuated.

DAX: Benjamin, I'm curious. Your plan to poison the Maquis planets. You didn't clear it with Starfleet first, did you.

(DS9 5x13, For the Uniform)

DUKAT: By the time his birthday dawns, there will not be a single Klingon alive inside Cardassian territory or a single Maquis colony left within our borders.

(DS9 5x15, By Inferno’s Light)

SISKO: I am trying to prevent a war. EDDINGTON: You're the one who set the ground rules when you came after me, Ben. You're the one who made it personal. You could've looked the other way. You could've left the Maquis alone, but you didn't do it. You hunted us, hounded us, fought us every chance you got. And in the end, you set us up for the slaughter.

EDDINGTON: You can't forgive any of us. And not because we betrayed Starfleet or the Federation, but because we betrayed you. That's what this is all about. Your ego. Where Benjamin Sisko leads, all must follow. SISKO: Is that what you really believe? EDDINGTON: It's the truth, isn't it? The Maquis were never much of a threat to the Federation, but we were a threat to you. We were a stain on your record and you couldn't have that. Not when you were so busy measuring yourself for an admiral's uniform. SISKO: You want to blame me for what happened to the Maquis? Fine. Go ahead, blame me. Blame Starfleet. Blame the Federation. Blame everyone except Michael Eddington. EDDINGTON: The Maquis won its greatest victories under my leadership. SISKO: Your leadership. Your shining moment of glory. Michael Eddington gets to take off his gold uniform and play hero. That's what you always wanted, to lead troops in a glorious cause. Well, you had your chance and look where you led them. Right into their graves. EDDINGTON: They died because I wasn't there when they needed me most. Because you put me in jail. SISKO: They died because you filled their heads with false hopes. Sold them dreams of a military victory when what they needed was a negotiated peace. EDDINGTON: We had the Cardassians on the run. SISKO: And they ran right into the arms of the Dominion. End of story. EDDINGTON: Not quite the end. SISKO: That's right. A few survivors of your noble crusade have decided to launch a pointless retaliatory strike against Cardassia. EDDINGTON: It's not so pointless. If you can't have victory, sometimes you just have to settle for revenge. SISKO: Is that what you want? To be remembered as the man who helped bring about the worst war in Federation history? EDDINGTON: Not quite the legacy I had in mind, but I can live with it.

DDINGTON: This wasn't supposed to happen. We were winning. The Cardassian Empire was falling into chaos. The Maquis colonies were going to declare themselves an independent nation.

(DS9 5x23, Blaze of Glory)